[Pages H5755-H5761]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DISASTER RECOVERY PERSONAL PROTECTION ACT OF 2006

Mr. KUHL of New York. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 5013) to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to prohibit the confiscation of
firearms during certain national emergencies, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 5013

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Disaster Recovery Personal
Protection Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution states that a
``well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of
a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,
shall not be infringed'', and Congress has repeatedly
recognized this language as protecting an individual right.
(2) In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, State and local law
enforcement and public safety service organizations were
overwhelmed and could not fulfill the safety needs of the
citizens of the State of Louisiana.
(3) In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the safety of these
citizens, and of their homes and property, was threatened by
instances of criminal activity.
(4) Many of these citizens lawfully kept firearms for the
safety of themselves, their loved ones, their businesses, and
their property, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, and
used their firearms, individually or in concert with their
neighbors, for protection against crime.
(5) In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, certain agencies
confiscated the firearms of these citizens in contravention
of the Second Amendment, depriving these citizens of the
right to keep and bear arms and rendering them helpless
against criminal activity.
(6) These confiscations were carried out at gunpoint by
nonconsensual entries into private homes, by traffic
checkpoints, by stoppage of boats, and otherwise by force.
(7) The citizens from whom firearms were confiscated were
either in their own homes or attempting to flee the flooding
and devastation by means of motor vehicle or boat, and were
accosted, stopped, and arbitrarily deprived of their private
property and means of protection.
(8) The means by which the confiscations were carried out,
which included intrusion into the home, temporary detention
of persons, and seizures of property, constituted
unreasonable searches and seizures and deprived these
citizens of liberty and property without due process of law
in violation of fundamental rights under the Constitution.
(9) Many citizens who took temporary refuge in emergency
housing were prohibited from storing firearms on the
premises, and were thus treated as second-class citizens who
had forfeited their constitutional right to keep and bear
arms.
(10) At least one highly-qualified search and rescue team
was prevented from joining in relief efforts because the team
included individuals with firearms, although these
individuals had been deputized as Federal law enforcement
officers.
(11) These confiscations and prohibitions, and the means by
which they were carried out, deprived the citizens of
Louisiana not only of their right to keep and bear arms, but
also of their rights to personal security, personal liberty,
and private property, all in violation of the Constitution
and laws of the United States.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON CONFISCATION OF FIREARMS DURING
CERTAIN NATIONAL EMERGENCIES.

Title VII of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5201) is amended by
adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 706. FIREARMS POLICIES.

``(a) Prohibition on Confiscation of Firearms.--No officer
or employee of the United States (including any member of the
uniformed services), or person operating pursuant to or under
color of Federal law, or receiving Federal funds, or under
control of

[[Page H5756]]

any Federal official, or providing services to such an
officer, employee, or other person, while acting in support
of relief from a major disaster or emergency, may--
``(1) temporarily or permanently seize, or authorize
seizure of, any firearm the possession of which is not
prohibited under Federal, State, or local law, other than for
forfeiture in compliance with Federal law or as evidence in a
criminal investigation;
``(2) require registration of any firearm for which
registration is not required by Federal, State, or local law;
``(3) prohibit possession of any firearm, or promulgate any
rule, regulation, or order prohibiting possession of any
firearm, in any place or by any person where such possession
is not otherwise prohibited by Federal, State, or local law;
or
``(4) prohibit the carrying of firearms by any person
otherwise authorized to carry firearms under Federal, State,
or local law, solely because such person is operating under
the direction, control, or supervision of a Federal agency in
support of relief from the major disaster or emergency.
``(b) Limitation.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to prohibit any person from requiring the temporary
surrender of a firearm as a condition for entry into any mode
of transportation used for rescue or evacuation during a
major disaster or emergency.
``(c) Private Rights of Action.--
``(1) In general.--Any individual aggrieved by a violation
of this section may seek relief in an action at law, suit in
equity, or other proper proceeding for redress against any
person who subjects such individual, or causes such
individual to be subjected, to the deprivation of any of the
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by this section.
``(2) Remedies.--In addition to any existing remedy in law
or equity, under any law, an individual aggrieved by the
seizure or confiscation of a firearm in violation of this
section may bring an action for return of such firearm in the
United States district court in the district in which that
individual resides or in which such firearm may be found.
``(3) Attorney fees.--In any action or proceeding to
enforce this section, the court shall award the prevailing
party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's
fee as part of the costs.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Kuhl) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.

General Leave

Mr. KUHL of New York. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 5013, as amended.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. KUHL of New York. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, State and local enforcement and
public safety service organizations were overwhelmed, and many citizens
felt threatened. Many of these citizens lawfully kept firearms for the
safety of themselves, their loved ones, their businesses, and their
property as guaranteed to them by the second amendment, and used their
firearms for protection against crime.
Following the hurricane, certain agencies confiscated the firearms of
these law-abiding citizens, rendering them helpless against criminal
activity. H.R. 5013, the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of
2006, was introduced by Representative Jindal on March 28, 2006. I am a
proud cosponsor of this bill which amends the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to prohibit the
confiscation of lawfully possessed firearms by an individual operating
under the color of Federal law while acting in support of a major
disaster or emergency declaration, unless the confiscation is otherwise
permitted by law.
This bill ensures that law-abiding citizens can continue to protect
themselves, their loved ones, their businesses, and their property as
guaranteed by the second amendment during disasters when law
enforcement is most likely to be overwhelmed and unable to fulfill the
safety needs of the citizens they serve. It prevents agencies from
arbitrarily depriving law-abiding citizens of their private property
and means of protecting themselves during a disaster.
Additionally, this bill clarifies that an individual may require the
temporary surrender of firearms as a condition for entry into any mode
of transportation used for rescue or evacuation during a disaster or
emergency. For example, rescuers such as the Coast Guard can require
the surrender of guns before an individual enters their vessel.
In short, this bill provides some commonsense limitation on the
wholesale confiscation of guns during disasters without limiting the
enforcement of local, state, or Federal laws.
Madam Speaker, I support this measure and urge my colleagues to do
the same.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield to Mr. Nadler
from New York such time as he may consume.
Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5013, the so-called
Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006. There is really only
one word to describe this bill: Insane. The proper title of this bill
should be The Right to Sue Cops and National Guardsmen Act of 2006.
The premise of the bill is that following Hurricane Katrina, and
possibility other disasters, law enforcement personnel illegally seized
guns from people who had legal permits to own a gun.

{time} 1445

In some cases, they may have been seized because law enforcement did
not want guns inside a public shelter. In other cases, people evacuated
and left guns behind, and the police collected these guns so they would
not fall into the hands of looters.
The NRA claimed this was illegal and sued the New Orleans Police
Department. The New Orleans Police Department stated it had to
determine who were the rightful owners of the guns before they could
return them. I believe the lawsuit has since been settled, and the guns
are being returned to their rightful owners.
Yet, today, we are considering a bill that would ostensibly solve
this so-called problem of guns being illegally seized following a
disaster. Since the lawsuit arises from this issue that has been
resolved, I do not see why the legislation is necessary.
But how does this bill solve the supposed problem? It actually
creates a private right of action for gun owners to sue personally
cops, National Guardsmen, FBI officers, and other law enforcement
personnel who are simply carrying out their jobs following a disaster
or emergency situation.
The bill says that no Federal employer officer, including the
military, National Guardsmen, or any person connected to the Federal
Government, such as members of police departments, local police
departments, that receive Federal funding, or anyone acting in support
of relief to a major disaster or emergency, may seize any firearm which
is allowed under Federal or local law. If they do seize such a gun, it
would allow a gun owner to sue a cop or National Guardsman personally,
not the government, sue the cop personally, even if the officer was
carrying out his official duties. And the gun owner can even recover
attorneys fees.
Aside from the fact that the entire premise of the bill is
ridiculous, there are a number of serious problems with the
legislation.
First, the presumption is all in favor of the gun owner and not the
cop. There is no requirement that the gun owner prove the gun is legal
at the time it is seized. So, if a cop sees someone with a gun, he has
no evidence of his right to have a gun, maybe the cop suspects he was a
looter, if the cop takes the gun, he is personally liable if it turns
out he had a legal right to it later. Also, if a cop finds a gun on the
floor or in a store or in a home and takes it to prevent it from
getting into the hands of looters, that cop can now be sued. So let us
leave the guns lying around for the looters to pick up and shoot people
with.
Second, if this bill passes, Federal response officials and aid
workers, such as the Red Cross, would have no say where guns are
carried. They could not prohibit guns in public shelters where kids are
present, nor could they prevent armed gangs and vigilantes from showing
up and wandering the streets with guns. Private volunteers with guns
can show up in any disaster situation, and law enforcement would have
no say.

[[Page H5757]]

Third, the bill applies to a ``major disaster or emergency,'' which
includes a terrorist attack. So if the New York Police Department
responds at the World Trade Center, or the military responds to an
attack at the Pentagon, and there is a group of guys with guns, law
enforcement cannot disarm them without risking being sued. Why would we
want to tie the hands of the military responding to a terrorist attack?
This bill has a chilling effect on law enforcement responding to a
major disaster or to a terrorist attack. If law enforcement illegally
seizes firearms, or seizes firearms that turn out to be legally owned,
even though they have no reason to believe they are at the time,
aggrieved parties already have the right to sue, as was the case when
the NRA sued the NOPD. I should restate that. If law enforcement
illegally seizes firearms, aggrieved parties today can sue, as was the
case when the NRA sued the New Orleans Police Department. The only
reason for this bill, to give an additional right, seems to be
vindictive, to force some poor police officer or National Guardsman
doing his job into bankruptcy.
If there really is a problem, this legislation is not the way to fix
it. It is too broad, it is poorly drafted, and it will create more
dangers in times of major disasters.
That is why the International Brotherhood of Police Officers and the
Violence Policy Center have expressed opposition to this bill. I also
have a letter in opposition from the Major Cities Chiefs Association,
which represent 57 major law enforcement organizations. I urge my
colleagues to oppose the bill.

Major Cities Chiefs,

Office of the President,

June 19, 2006.
Re H.R. 5013 and S. 2599, the ``Disaster Recovery Personal
Protection Act of 2006.''

United States Congress,
Washington, DC.
Dear Legislator: The Major Cities Chiefs (MCC) Association
represents fifty-seven (57) major law enforcement
organizations in the United States and Canada who are located
in a metropolitan area of more than 1.5 million population
and employ more than 1,000 law enforcement officers. All our
officers are actively engaged in providing law enforcement,
public safety and homeland security to the citizens of our
communities every day. We are writing in opposition to H.R.
5013 and S. 2599, the ``Disaster Recovery Personal Protection
Act of 2006.''
As law enforcement professionals, we understand and
acknowledge the Constitutional limitations on police power to
confiscate personal property. These limitations, however,
must be balanced with the need to maintain public safety and
security during emergency situations. We are concerned that
the bill would void local laws that guide police actions
regarding firearms in emergency situations. We also feel that
police should be allowed to take into safekeeping any
dangerous weapons and/or explosives they find abandoned in a
building or home.
Additionally, as law enforcement executives, we feel if the
President, a governor and/or mayor declares a state of
emergency for a devastated area after a disaster, these
officials should also be allowed to temporarily include
provisions for a weapon-free zone during the area's recovery.
For example, law enforcement may need to ensure that
evacuation sites are free of weapons. Sister law enforcement
agencies responding to a disaster must also be free to carry
their firearms into another jurisdiction and help maintain
law and order until the devastated area recovers.
Finally, we are concerned that the bill creates a new right
to file lawsuits against police who take abandoned guns for
safekeeping in an emergency or create emergency secure areas
free from weapons. The bill should not create a new right to
file lawsuits against law enforcement seeking to safeguard
the public in emergency situations.
Should you need additional information, please feel free to
contact MCC's General Counsel Craig Ferrell for further
clarification of our position.
Sincerely,
Harold L. Hurtt,
MCC President.
____

National Association of Government Employees, SEIU,
International Brotherhood of Police Officers,
Alexandria, Va.

The IBPO stands by our brothers and sisters in law
enforcement and disapproves of any legislation that may
interfere with a police officer's discretion to react as he
or she sees fit under extreme emergency circumstances.
Furthermore, the IBPO believes that responsible gun owners
who continue to act in accordance with federal, state and
local law are unlikely to have their guns confiscated unless
they use or possess the guns in a manner or place that would
be prohibited or threatening. The IBPO does not endorse the
Vitter amendment #4615.
Signed,

Steve Lenkart,

Special Asst. to the President,
Director of Legislative Affairs.

Mr. KUHL of New York. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I would like to suggest one thing. I deeply respect the individual
from New York that just spoke against the legislation.
H.R. 5013 does not specifically address gun possession in emergency
shelters. It addresses only housing except to prohibit future guns
regulations above and beyond the Federal, State, and local law. This
requirement was included to prevent the repeat of a short-lived FEMA
effort to ban gun possession in the FEMA trailer parks in Louisiana.
H.R. 5013 does not override Federal, State or local laws restricting
gun possession in various locations often used as shelters such as
schools, government buildings and sports arena. That is what this bill
does not do.
We address these issues, including the one where the Coast Guard was
rescuing someone with a helicopter, they could not bring a firearm on
board that vessel or that aircraft.
I would like to suggest this would never have had to happen if
someone, and I will say government people, of what branch or other had
decided they would take law into their own hands and go into a law-
abiding home and confiscate a gun from a citizen who had done no wrong,
was only trying to protect their home. That is the premise of our
democracy and our Republic, is the right to protect your castle.
Regardless of whether it is the hoodlum, the burglar, the murderer, the
rapist, or the government, no one has the right to take away my ability
to defend myself, nor my cherished ones from he would intrude upon my
being and my home. That is the second amendment; that is my right.
To have a government, during a time of duress, the hurricane as bad
as it was, to go into areas that were trying to protect themselves, and
by the way, they went on television and said they did not have the
manpower to address the looting, the rioters and the hoodlums but they
had the manpower to go in and to take and confiscate arms from the law-
abiding citizens of Louisiana, and by the way, I believe this is the
only area it did occur.
So what I am suggesting in this legislation, I want to thank Mr.
Jindal especially being the prime sponsor, this legislation precludes
the government from taking away what is my cherished personal right to
protect those I love, in a time a duress and, yes, even in a time of
peace because you will never know when that peace will be eroded and
taken away from you.
So this legislation is a step because someone else misstepped, and
some would say it is not necessary, it will not happen again. I have
been around here long enough to know never say it will not happen
again.
So we should look forward to this legislation and pass it. Get on
with it and let those government agencies that misstepped know that
they now are under the scope of reality and what is right for this
great Nation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
Mrs. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, once again, number one, I want to say
that I stand by the remarks of my colleague from New York (Mr. Nadler),
but once again, this Congress is waging a war on common sense.
House leadership accuses the New Orleans Police Department of going
door to door confiscating guns in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina,
but the superintendent of the department states that this was not the
case at all. Does anybody really think that after a disaster of that
magnitude a police department's first priority is to go door to door
and harass gun owners? Of course not.
Police merely arrested people who were breaking the law on the
streets of

[[Page H5758]]

New Orleans. They were doing what they could to stop the looting and
the sniper fire that slowed down the rescue workers. They never entered
homes with the intent of collecting law-abiding citizens' guns, and by
the way, we do not believe in that. We do not believe in going into
someone's home without due cause on getting someone's gun.
This latest scheme to appease the gun lobby will tie the hands of our
police officers during times of crisis. The streets of an American city
immediately after a disaster are no place to abandon common sense, and
this bill does not do it, not even for the future.
This bill allows guns in emergency shelters, provided the guns are
legal. What if the gun owner does not have his license with him? Is the
Red Cross official supposed to conduct background checks on gun owners
to make sure they are legal? Can you imagine the chaos if loaded guns
were allowed in the Superdome during Katrina? Again, it defies common
sense.
Everyone agrees that the government failed when responding to
Hurricane Katrina; but instead of addressing the real shortcomings
revealed by Katrina, the House chooses to make our first responders'
jobs more difficult in the critical hours following a natural disaster
or even a terrorist attack.
This Congress has already cut funding to police officers and
firefighters. Congress refused to make sure that the most at-risk
communities received their fair share of homeland security funding, and
now Congress is giving looters and criminals the upper hand in the
aftermath of disaster.
It is time for common sense. Vote ``no'' on this irresponsible bill.
Madam Speaker, I now want to address some questions to the manager of
H.R. 5013. To my colleague from New York (Mr. Kuhl) may I ask, Would
this bill permit a person to bring a gun into a rescue shelter?
I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. KUHL of New York. Thank you for yielding the time, but I would
yield to the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Jindal from Jefferson Parish. He
can tell you exactly what the bill deals with and the detail. I am
simply the manager.
Mr. JINDAL. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
This bill does not create nor does it delete any existing rights or
State laws. So for example if there are existing State laws prohibiting
guns in State shelters, this bill would do nothing to remove that
prohibition. For example, many States already have existing laws
prohibiting guns or firearms in schools, in sports arenas, or in other
areas commonly used as shelters. Nothing in this bill would override
that prohibition.
Mrs. McCARTHY. Taking back my time, I understand that, but I know
there are 17 States that already do not have any laws on the books. So
the Federal law would not supercede what you are trying to do.
May I ask another question. If a State law gives a Governor or mayor
broad powers under a state of emergency, may that official order
temporary confiscation in the name of public safety? Or must the State
law be specific? I yield again to the gentleman from New Orleans.
Mr. JINDAL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman again for
yielding.
Again, if there is existing law allowing the Governor in a state of
emergency or other circumstances to take extraordinary measures,
nothing in this legislation would prohibit that Governor from doing so,
or in Louisiana's case, it may by the primary law enforcement officer
of the parish, we call them parishes, not counties, nothing in this
bill would override, supercede existing State laws that allow the
Governor or chief executive officer from doing so.
Mrs. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for that answer, and one more
question. Who is liable in any lawsuit authorized by this bill? Is it
the officer who confiscates a gun or the city or the State? The
language, even though I know you worked to change the language, is
still a little bit confusing. I will state my question again: Who is
liable in any lawsuit authorized by this bill? Is it the officer who
confiscates a gun or the city or the State? Can the Federal Government
be sued if the confiscation is made by a Federal officer? Can a person
seek monetary damages in addition to the return of the gun?
I yield again to the gentleman.
Mr. JINDAL. Madam Speaker, again, let us be clear. I know there has
been a lot of confusion and a lot of rhetoric about the private right
of action contained in this bill.
In Louisiana's case, going back to what happened specifically after
Katrina, our State has already passed a State law prohibiting anybody
in State or local law agencies from confiscating legally owned guns.
The intent of this law is to apply to those agencies receiving Federal
funds. The intent of the right of action was to counteract what
happened last year when, even despite a court judgment, despite a
ruling from a judge, there was still not compliance with that court
ruling to return the firearms.
So the intent is to be able to allow the individuals to recover, for
example, attorneys fees, court costs to put some teeth into this bill
to make sure that if a judge does indeed rule in favor of a plaintiff
that action will be taken. That did not always happen last year in
Louisiana after Katrina.
Mrs. McCARTHY. Reclaiming my time, and let me follow up with what you
had just said. Because the language in the bill, as it stands right
now, there is not really a clarification on that, and I hope that we
can work on that.
Mr. KUHL of New York. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal), the sponsor of the
bill.

{time} 1500

Mr. JINDAL. I thank my colleague from New York for handling this bill
and for supporting this in committee.
Madam Speaker, I have a letter from the Fraternal Order of Police
endorsing H.R. 5013, which I am pleased to submit for the Record.

Grand Lodge,

Fraternal Order of Police,

Washington, DC, July 24, 2006.
Hon. Bobby Jindal,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Jindal, I am writing to you on behalf
of the members of the Fraternal Order of Police to advise you
of our support for H.R 5013, the ``Disaster Recovery Personal
Protection Act,'' which is scheduled to be considered by the
House tomorrow
This legislation would prohibit the use of any Federal
funds from being used to seize firearms during a major
disaster or emergency, except under circumstances currently
applicable under Federal or State law. As we witnessed in the
communities along the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane
Katrina, large scale critical incidents demanded the full
attention of law enforcement officers and other first
responders. During this time, the preservation of life--
search and rescue missions--is the chief priority of every
first responder. Further, breakdowns in communications
systems and disaster-related transportation or other
infrastructure failures will lengthen a law enforcement
agency's response times, increasing the degree to which
citizens may have to protect themselves against criminals. A
law-abiding citizen who possess a firearm lawfully represents
no danger to law enforcement officers or any other first
responder.
On behalf of the more than 324,000 members of the Fraternal
Order of Police, I am pleased to offer our support for this
bill and look forward to working with you to getting it
passed. If I can be of any further assistance on this issue,
please do not hesitate to contact me or Executive Director
Jim Pasco in my Washington office,
Sincerely,
Chuck Canterbury,
National President.

Madam Speaker, a lot has been made and said about this bill, H.R.
5013, and I want to take people back into the days, the hours right
after Hurricane Katrina that devastated my home State. I want to remind
people my constituents, many of them, were sitting in their homes
without power, without water, and without communication. It was
literally impossible to pick up a phone and call 9/11. For many, there
was no recourse or ability to call for the police.
Now, the first responders, the local and State law enforcement
agents, many did a heroic job; however, they couldn't physically be at
every place at every time. Indeed, many law enforcement officials
advised residents to only return if they had firearms. Members of my
staff were advised only to return if they were in possession of a
firearm. It was a very different time than what we are normally
accustomed to in our cities.
H.R. 5013 makes sure that those that are obeying the law, lawful
residents, are able to keep their legally owned

[[Page H5759]]

firearms, whether it be in their home, in their cars, in their
businesses. There were instances where people were deprived of this
right. Now, let me repeat this. At the same time that we had looters,
at the same time we had other problems in our State and in our city, we
absolutely had bureaucrats depriving people of their legal
constitutional rights to possess a legally owned firearm.
Now, contrast that with the situation in our neighboring State of
Mississippi where the Governor famously said, ``If you loot, we will
shoot.'' There were literally signs put up saying, ``If you loot, we
will shoot.'' This bill is intended to make sure that, God forbid, if
there is another hurricane, another natural disaster, another calamity
in my home State, that my constituents aren't left defenseless, they
aren't left without the ability to call 9/11, they are not left without
the ability to defend their homes, defend their properties, or defend
their families.
Now, indeed, Ronald Reagan once famously said, and I will paraphrase,
at the very least, we want any potential looters to have to think twice
before they go through that front door. We want them to at least think
twice that maybe those potential victims are armed and maybe that can
serve as a useful deterrence.
There are many things this bill does not do. It does not create any
new rights or any other limitations under Federal, State, or local law.
Now, I was pleased to answer the questions of my colleague from New
York. This bill, further, does not prevent, does not prevent
confiscating guns from felons. It has no effect on law enforcement
operations outside of the disaster relief situation.
It does not have any impact on law enforcement's ability, for
example, to go after criminals and looters, to stop suspect behavior.
It has no impact on law enforcement's ability to secure weapons, for
example, that may be lying outside of somebody's possession. States are
able, under this bill, to regulate their own shelters. States are able
to adopt their own laws.
For example, in Minnesota, a firearm cannot be brought on private
property when the owner has posted a notice of that prohibition. My
bill does not change this. This bill specifically allows the Coast
Guard and others who are evacuating individuals to have their own
regulations, to have their own requirements for getting on those boats,
or getting on those helicopters.
For example, it allows the temporary surrender of a firearm as a
condition of entry. If a State, and many do, if a State does give
express authority to ban possession of a firearm to the government, to
others, my bill does nothing to supersede that.
In conclusion, I am proud that my bill has the support of over 150
Members of this House, Democrats and Republicans, and it has the
support of the national Fraternal Order of Police. A similar bill has
been adopted in my home State of Louisiana. It does one simple thing:
it merely protects residents' legal right to own firearms.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York.
Mr. NADLER. If the gentleman will yield for a question, under this
bill, if a law enforcement officer had completed evacuating people from
someplace and saw a few guns lying around in a house, and didn't know
who they belonged to but wanted to take them up so that looters who
might come by later couldn't take them and present a menace to the
public, would this prevent him from doing that?
Would this subject him to a lawsuit later personally if it turned out
that the owner of the house came back and said, why did he take my
legally owned guns?
Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. JINDAL. What happened actually in New Orleans, let's actually go
back to what happened.
Mr. NADLER. Answer the question, please.
Mr. JINDAL. I will, but let me actually tell you what happened in New
Orleans. I would like to offer a few facts for the record as well.
There was looting, for example, of stores, where guns were
potentially going to fall into the wrong hands. Nothing in this bill
would prohibit law enforcement, after arresting those looters, from
securing those firearms.
Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, I am not talking about after
arresting looters. Law enforcement people see guns lying around in a
house. They don't know who they belong to.
Mr. JINDAL. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I am talking
about the instance of firearms lying around this store that has been
looted. In the situation the gentleman describes, there is no reason
for law enforcement officers to be in somebody's home that has been
abandoned.
Mr. NADLER. Let me say this. There are lots of reasons why law
enforcement may be going by: to check on the safety of people, to look
into a house to see if anybody is there lying wounded or whatever. They
see guns lying around. No one is there, thank God. They are all out,
but they see guns lying around. Under this bill, if they pick up those
guns, lest looters come and find them later and it later turns out that
those guns legally belonged to the homeowner, when that homeowner
returned, he could sue the individual privately. And, therefore, no cop
in his right mind would pick up those guns. He would have to leave it
for the looters.
This bill, as I said before, is insane.
Mr. KUHL of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the Emergency Management
Subcommittee, Mr. Shuster.
Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman, and, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in
strong support of H.R. 5013, to help ensure the American people retain
their rights to defend their families and property during the chaos
which may follow during a disaster.
I also want to commend Congressman Jindal, the sponsor of this bill,
and Congressman Kuhl for their hard work in bringing it to the floor
today. The gentleman from Louisiana saw the breakdown of law and order
following Hurricane Katrina and understands more than most why we need
this bill. Congressman Kuhl serves with me on the Emergency Management
Subcommittee and is a long-standing champion of our second amendment
rights. They both deserve the lion's share of credit for protecting our
rights today.
I wish I could say that this bill wasn't needed, but after Katrina I
know that it is. Following Katrina's devastation, thousands of law-
abiding citizens found themselves in a desperate situation where chaos
reigned and the police were overwhelmed. Under these circumstances,
bedrock American principles, such as neighbor helping neighbor, self-
reliance, self-defense, and even the right to bear arms were often the
key to survival.
This bill is needed, because under those horrible conditions, too
many Americans were denied their basic rights and had their legal
firearms seized. That is simply wrong and must be changed before the
next disaster strikes.
I also want to make clear, as I believe Mr. Jindal has made clear,
that this bill does not suspend any existing law enforcement, local,
State, or Federal; nor does it somehow make it legal to use firearms in
a way that is otherwise illegal. I want to repeat that, because some
today are trying to confuse that. This bill does not spend any existing
law enforcement power, local State, or Federal; nor does it somehow
make it legal to use firearms in a way that is otherwise illegal.
If people use their guns illegally, then law enforcement has the
legal authority to apprehend suspects and seize their guns. Nothing in
this bill changes that.
In closing, let me again thank Mr. Jindal and Mr. Kuhl for their
leadership on this issue, and I look forward to working with them and
other Members to move this bill forward.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time
remains on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman from Minnesota
has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New York has 9\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Strickland).
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and,
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of

[[Page H5760]]

H.R. 5013, the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006. This
good bipartisan effort will protect individuals' rights to maintain
their personal firearms during an emergency.
Unfortunately, we know what happened just a few months ago in the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Many in the gulf coast region had their
personal firearms confiscated by authorities. Many families lost
valuable heirlooms this way. H.R. 5013 would allow individuals in
future disasters to maintain possession of their personal property,
including their firearms.
I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support
this commonsense and much-needed legislation.
Mr. KUHL of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Schwarz).
Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my
colleagues in support of the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act,
H.R. 5013, of which I am a cosponsor.
While looting and other criminal activity were taking place in New
Orleans, many civilians chose to protect themselves and their property.
Many of these citizens kept firearms for the safety of themselves,
their businesses, their families, and their property. They used
firearms individually or in concert with their neighbors for protection
against crime.
However, these lawful weapons were confiscated at gunpoint by
nonconsensual entries into private homes, traffic checkpoints, by
stopping of boats, and otherwise by force. The citizens from whom
firearms were confiscated were either in their own homes or attempting
to flee the flooding and devastation by means of motor vehicle or boat
and were accosted, stopped, and arbitrarily deprived of their private
property.
The means by which the confiscations were carried out, which included
intrusion into the home, temporary detention of persons, and seizures
of property, constituted unreasonable searches and seizures and
deprived these citizens of liberty and property without the due process
of law, in violation of fundamental rights under the Constitution.
Many of the confiscated firearms were family heirlooms, gifts given
as a child, or were collectors' items. All firearms were taken with a
handwritten receipt on a stray piece of paper or no receipt at all.
Individuals with proof of purchase and serial number are still not able
to get their firearms back. Of the few firearms that have been
returned, some are ruined beyond repair due to water damage. Many of
the firearms lost or stolen will never be returned.
H.R. 5013 clearly states the rights of people who own firearms during
a major disaster or emergency. H.R. 5013 protects civilians' rights to
bear arms, and H.R. 5013 allows people the right to protect themselves
and their property as our forefathers intended.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the principal problem with this bill is that it didn't
have any hearings. The bill was introduced and moved through the
committee without deliberation, without consideration. Many of the
issues that have been discussed this afternoon on the floor were issues
that could and should have been raised in the course of hearings, and
that would have been resolved, as they have been resolved in the bill
now under consideration, but not in the bill introduced nor in the bill
reported from committee.
Now, the appropriate order of business in our committee is we, unless
there is overwhelming consensus, we have a hearing on a bill. And even
on bills in which there is overwhelming consensus on both sides, we
have hearings on the legislation, because there is always something
that may come up that we hadn't thought about. And there were things
that came up in this bill that the drafters hadn't thought about, and
those were issues of law enforcement, public safety officials,
specifically the Coast Guard.
The Coast Guard is mobilized to deal with a disaster when it has to
evacuate persons stricken by disaster, hurricanes, floods, at sea under
tempestuous circumstances, as we see on the Weather Channel the Coast
Guard nobly rescuing people under extraordinary adverse circumstances.
The bill, as introduced, would have prohibited a Coast Guard officer
from requiring a person boarding a rescue helicopter, boarding a rescue
vessel, a search and rescue ship, would have prohibited those persons
from surrendering their firearm. Not to seize the firearm, not to take
it away permanently, but to say we will keep this for you until you are
safely onshore. There is no law that gives the Coast Guard the
authority to do that.
Now, we should have had the bill under consideration in the
committee, and we should have provided that authority to the Coast
Guard, and that authority would be perfectly acceptable to advocates of
firearm ownership. I have been, for 32 years, an advocate for firearm
ownership. I have supported the right to keep and bear arms for all my
service in the Congress and long before that, as a young lad growing up
in northern Minnesota going out hunting before school and after school
and on the weekends. But this is a different situation, and we needed
that authority for the Coast Guard.
So now we have it in this language that is on page 5, line 19 of the
bill before us. Subsection (b) Limitation: nothing in this section
shall be construed to prohibit any person from requiring the temporary
surrender of a firearm as a condition for entry into any mode of
transportation used to rescue or evacuate during a major disaster or
emergency.

{time} 1515

That is sensible. That is reasonable. It is not confiscation. The
Coast Guard in this case, the agency that we have in mind, will hold
the firearm and, after the rescue is completed, the person gets the
firearm back. Now, we should have had that in the bill before it even
came to the House floor.
The other problem was that, on the face of it, it would prohibit
operators of shelters from requiring the surrender of a weapon as a
condition for entry into the shelter. Now, this same, similar language,
operates to protect those who operate shelters, such as the Super Dome
or the Convention Center.
Now, the principal author of the bill, the gentleman from Louisiana,
spoke with accuracy about the circumstances in New Orleans and with
some detail. I know of circumstances myself. My brother-in-law, who
still lives in New Orleans, in fact, both my brother-in-laws live in
New Orleans were affected by the flood.
I have a very close friend whose home was broken into. They were on
the second floor. They heard the people looting the place. His gun was
on the first floor. He had no access to the gun. He couldn't protect
the house, so to save themselves, they fled into the attic while the
looters were stripping their house. They might have been able to do
something if they had had the gun on the second floor and had more
access to it.
There are many circumstances of this kind, where the person, as the
gentleman from Louisiana said, should be able to protect him or herself
in their own home. But you don't need a gun to go into the Superdome.
You don't need a gun when you are in the Convention Center. If you have
one and you are there, this legislation permits, under and in
accordance with State and local law, the surrender of that firearm for
the time of keeping or refuge in the center. That is what it does. So
we have a good balance between the second amendment rights of our
fellow citizens, the responsibilities of the Coast Guard, protection of
the Coast Guard against frivolous actions, and protection of fellow
citizens who operate in all good faith, shelters for victims of
disaster. In that spirit, this legislation ought to be enacted, and we
ought to support the bill and it ought to pass handily in this House.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KUHL of New York. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me simply thank
the subcommittee chairman of Emergency Management, Mr. Shuster, for
bringing this bill through the subcommittee, and certainly Chairman
Young for moving the bill through the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, and most importantly, I think we owe a great deal of thanks
to Mr. Jindal for recognizing a situation which was very, very, I am
sure, difficult for some of the residents of his district and the
people of New Orleans to face.
It is one thing to face a tragedy, but then also to be thrown into a
situation where, in fact, you are not only

[[Page H5761]]

stripped of your guns, your means of protection, but you are stripped
of your constitutional rights. And that was what was done to the people
of New Orleans whose guns and protection for their family was actually
occurring in front of their very eyes. So, you know, this body is all
about adopting laws that are meant to face situations that we haven't
faced before, and certainly Katrina was one of those instances we did
not face before, a storm of this magnitude.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I think
it is a terrific bill to insure the second amendments rights to the
people of not only New Orleans and future disasters, but certainly the
people of this country. And I would urge all my colleagues to support
it.
Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I hail from a state where we cherish the
fundamental Second Amendment right of law-abiding citizens to own
firearms. The Second Amendment is one of the most meaningful ways in
which the founders of our great Nation worked to guarantee our freedom
and liberty.
Nowhere does the principle of liberty exist more fully than in the
right to protect yourself, your loved ones and your property. With the
breakdown of law and order in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina,
thousands were confronted with grave threats to their health and
safety. Calls to 911 went unanswered. Police failed to stop the
violence and looting. Many of the law-abiding people of New Orleans
were on their own to protect themselves.
I was outraged that authorities illegally confiscated firearms from
many of these citizens at the time they needed them most. The
government rendered individuals and families defenseless and helpless
in the face of imminent danger. In one case, a search and rescue team
was banned from assisting in relief efforts because some of them had
firearms. There are also reports of officials arbitrarily searching
homes, cars, and boats in search of firearms. This is not only
unacceptable, it is a violation of our Nation's Constitution.
I cosponsored the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006
to ensure that the confiscation of firearms in New Orleans will not
become a precedent for crises in the future. H.R. 5013 will prohibit
federal officials, or state and local officials under federal control,
from seizing firearms or restricting firearms possession outside of
applicable federal, state or local law.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, which
makes it clear that citizens can count on their constitutional right to
bear arms at times when they need it the most.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose
this bill, the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act.
As you may know, I am from Florida. I do not hide that fact and am
very proud of it. Occasionally, we get hurricanes in Florida and it is
dangerous for us to stay in our homes.
When I go to a shelter, I do not want to have to worry that the
person next to me has a gun. The shelter is a safe haven, and if that
man over there has a gun, I am not safe.
The police are there for a reason. If a person has a gun, that is a
threat to the public safety.
Looting is bad. I do not deny that. However, possessions can be
replaced. Things are just that: things.
Your life cannot be replaced.
Vote no on this bill today.
Let us debate this bill in Committee and hold hearings to hear all
sides of the issue before we decide whether we are putting our first
responders into greater danger.
Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to come to the floor today to
voice my support for H.R. 5013, the Disaster Recovery Personal
Protection Act.
In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, we heard reports regarding the
seizure of firearms from law-abiding citizens by representatives of the
federal government. I was disheartened by these reports.
As we know, the Second Amendment to the Constitution firmly
establishes our right to keep and bear arms. This fundamental right is
all the more necessary in the aftermath of a major disaster when
government is unable to provide reliable protection from crime. The
denial of this right by federal officials in the aftermath of Katrina
was deplorable.
The Second Congressional District of Virginia, which I represent,
encompasses the entire Atlantic coastline of the Commonwealth. While we
have not experienced a natural disaster on the scale of Hurricane
Katrina, the Second District is itself very susceptible to the threat
of Hurricanes and other natural disasters.
With enactment of this legislation, we will codify the right of law-
abiding citizens in areas affected by disasters to be able to protect
themselves, their families, and their property.
I am a cosponsor of the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act
because I believe this Congress should be committed to protecting our
Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I am proud to support this
legislation and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. KUHL of New York. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr.
Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Kuhl) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 5013, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. KUHL of New York. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will
be postponed.

____________________