Brad Carson

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3193, the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act. To put it as simply as other speakers have, this bill restores constitutional self- defense rights to law-abiding citizens of the District of Columbia.

Currently, the District of Columbia has the strictest gun-control laws in the Nation. Honest, law-abiding citizens may not possess a handgun unless it was registered before 1977.

Legally owned rifles and shotguns must be kept unloaded and disassembled. These restrictions make it useless for District residents who wish to defend themselves against criminal attacks. This dangerous gun control law only infringes on the rights of those who obey the law and does nothing to reduce violent crime.

These laws have made Washington, D.C. the homicide capital of America and to those in my party who disagree, and I know there are those who do, I merely suggest that they consider the following facts: Prior to the enactment of the gun ban, the number of homicides had been declining in Washington, D.C. but increased after the ban was imposed. By 1991, Washington, D.C.'s homicide rate had risen more than 200 percent. By comparison, the national homicide rate rose 12 percent in the same period.

These statistics clearly show that the District's gun control experiment has failed. It is time the Congress restore the second amendment rights to the citizens of the District and allows them to protect their homes and families.

I respectfully ask my colleagues to vote yes on the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act.

Mr. Speaker, this week, thousands of indigenous people from across the Western Hemisphere have come to Washington, DC. It is arguably the largest gathering of native people in U.S. history. By planes, cars, metro, and on foot, native people have come to celebrate the opening of the National Museum of the American Indian. The museum is a stunning and long overdue tribute to indigenous people across this land.

If is entirely fitting and appropriate that the National Museum of the American Indian join the United States' other national treasures, and take its place among the family of Smithsonian museums on the Mall. For, the history and culture of our nation is inseparable from the history and culture of Indian people.

Through centuries of great hardship, Indian people have struggled to maintain their social and cultural identity. The museum opening marks a revolution in this struggle, for it is a reclaiming of native identity. It is the culmination of thousands of hours of work by Indian people to tell their story. It links the past, present, and future of Indian people in a way that visitors can experience and understand the native perspective. The design and construction of the museum, itself, reveals an animate, live entity. And inside visitors find the living cultures of Indian people in language, history, dance, arts, cultural values, and spirituality.

As a Representative of Oklahoma, the State historically known as Indian Country, and as a member of the Cherokee Nation, I am deeply honored to join the native community in witnessing and welcoming this historical event, for the opening of the National Museum of the American Indian celebrates what was once despised, and honors what our Nation for too long tried to eradicate.

It is my hope, the location and majesty of the museum will today--and forever--remind lawmakers on Capitol Hill of the United States legal and moral responsibilities to Indian nations. For we must never forget to honor and recognize all that Indian tribes contribute and have sacrificed.

Mr. Speaker, today unfortunately, I rise to voice my opposition to this trade agreement. I do feel that trade is essential to America's sustained economic vitality and I also feel that we must make every effort to ensure that international markets are open to U.S. goods. Exports have accounted for almost 30 percent of American growth over the last decade. In fact, my state of Oklahoma sold more than $3 billion worth of exports to more than 100 foreign markets last year. With these statistics in mind, it pains me to vote against this agreement.

When casting my vote, I must think of the many Oklahoma farmers and ranchers that I have spoken with about this agreement and I must take into consideration how this agreement will severely cripple their ability to support themselves and their families. In particular, the provisions of this agreement will unfairly disadvantage the beef and wheat industries, which comprise two-thirds of Oklahoma's agricultural exports. This agreement would allow increased quantities of Australian beef to flood the U.S. market, which will result in unacceptably low market prices for American cattlemen. In Oklahoma alone, more than 105,000 jobs associated with the cattle industry will be put in jeopardy by the adverse effects of this agreement. In addition to the beef industry, the continued existence of the Australian Wheat Board under this agreement will force America's wheat farmers to continue their export competition in the international markets against a state run monopoly. A government backed monopoly, like the Australian Wheat Board, which dictates the price of wheat rather than allowing the free market to take its course, thereby allows Australian wheat to consistently undercut the price of American wheat in international markets. Once again, American farmers must be able to sell their products if they are going to support themselves and their families. This agreement does not afford them that opportunity.