Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this afternoon to commend my colleagues' attention to a resolution that I will introduce today honoring Pregnancy Resource Centers.

According to surveys of women who have had abortions, 90 percent indicate they would have preferred other options had they simply known about them. The tragedy and irony in many situations is that most women are flooded with the pro-abortion message, but are rarely offered any other message of choice. Rather, unknowing clients are led to believe that abortion is the only solution to their problem.

Through costly advertising, young women go into abortion clinics and are assured that help is only a few hundred dollars away. Harmful consequences of abortions are minimized or simply ignored. Alternatives like parenting or adoption are not encouraged. In fact, they are rarely mentioned.

Sadly, it is only later that they learn there are alternatives. Desperately trying to spread this message to young women are the 2,500 Pregnancy Resource Centers across America. Through education and support, Pregnancy Resource Centers meet women's emotional and physical needs. They provide one-on-one counseling regarding the facts about adoption, abortion, and parenting so that the client may make a wise and informed decision about her pregnancy. Centers are dedicated to helping each woman resolve her situation in a way that equips her with better life skills for her future.

Practical help like parenting classes, support groups, education, and job skills classes are offered through many Pregnancy Resource Centers as well. Maternity clothes, baby needs, and even temporary housing is offered. Some Crisis Pregnancy Centers have full medical services on the premises, and unlike abortion clinics, these centers offer support for women suffering from postabortion syndrome.

For those women who have undergone an abortion, the devastation can be real and ongoing if she does not receive help. Most centers are commited to the healing, body and soul, of women who have suffered from an abortion. They offer medical and counseling services and stand alongside these women in their healing process.

Life-affirming pregnancy centers provide an example of love and compassion to women and their unborn babies. These centers have been upholding the value of all human life, born and unborn, for several decades. Women are increasingly turning to these centers for physical, psychological, emotional, and spiritual help. They are always treated with the utmost dignity and respect and are provided with accurate, up- to-date information in order to make informed decisions about their pregnancy, sexual health, and relationships. Because everyone should have access to this information, all services are free of charge.

I am honored to represent one such center in my hometown of Ocala, Florida. The Women's Pregnancy Center has been serving the people faithfully of Marion County for 22 years. This center serves nearly 1,500 women a year of all ages and backgrounds. They serve these women and men faithfully and discreetly.

In today's culture, abortion is too often the first thought for women facing unplanned pregnancy, but there are alternatives, and Pregnancy Resource Centers can provide them. These centers are not only the most strategic and effective, but often the most needed of the forces engaged in the defense of the unborn. It is fitting that we recognize these courageous and struggling agencies that seek to bring purpose to the surprises of life. Never are these needs greatest than in the smallest of families, a mother and her growing baby.

I invite Members to join in providing support for more than 2,500 Crisis Pregnancy Centers around the United States of America. The good work of these centers merits our recognition, and the compassionate staff deserve our admiration.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to become an original cosponsor of this resolution to demonstrate their support for Pregnancy Resource Centers and their tens of thousands of volunteer staff who are encouraging the protection and value of all human life in America.

Mr. Speaker, today is World Asthma Day, and tomorrow is Asthma Awareness Day on Capitol Hill. I am co-chair along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns). Tomorrow I will be introducing legislation with the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) called ASTHMA 2003. We intend to offer this legislation, and we think my colleagues should take a look at it and I hope they will cosponsor it.

But today I want all of us to think about this disease which is increasing astonishingly rapidly and it is affecting 20 million Americans, over 5 million of which are children who are in school. Asthma is the most common cause of missed schooldays. That is 14 million annually. It costs us tremendously in lost time learning, lost productivity and earnings and medical expenses, including of course costly emergency room visits.

While scientists work to understand asthma's prevalence and pharmaceutical makers discover new treatments, caring doctors, nurses and respiratory therapists dutifully diagnose and educate patients and parents and children with asthma soldier along, one different aspect I would like to talk about is the importance of remembering asthma medication in the role of self-preparation for emergencies. The events of this past year have heightened our collective consciousness to planning ahead and being ready for the unexpected and symptom- relieving, lifesaving asthma and allergy medication should be a part of every diagnosed individual or their family's ``go-kit.''

Did anyone see the movie ``Signs'' last summer when the family hid out in the basement but the father in his haste forgot to grab his asthmatic son's inhaler, the bronchodilator? By the time of escape, the son had to be revived out of his throat-closing reaction with an injection of epinephrine. That is a scary, sobering image. So remember critical medications to treat asthma and severe allergy reactions in the plans. Good resources to follow are the Federal Government's website, www.ready.gov, or ones operated by the American Red Cross or numerous other organizations.

Take us here in the Capitol. It is possible that rather than evacuation, we may be sheltered in place if there is a biological, chemical, or radiological event in the local area. If my colleagues or their families or anybody in the Capitol have allergies or asthma, do they have an extra inhaler in their desk drawer? I ask the Members to please remember this: To encourage their staff and our House employees to plan for such a contingency.

I would like to end with a heartening asthma story which I think comes to the point. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, our Army medical personnel provided a very touching story of treating injured, sick and pregnant civilians, perhaps more than a season of ``M*A*S*H'' episodes, but I found one especially inspiring. The Washington Post reported this on April 2, reported that Rashed Mohammad, his wife, Sikara, and their son approached U.S. soldiers with their 3-year-old daughter, Rajwa. She was breathing laboredly in rapid gasps. The family could not afford the medical fees at the Iraqi hospital, and the parents feared their daughter would die.

A team led by Captain Eric Schobitz, 30, an Army doctor from Fairfax, administered oxygen and intravenous drip and antibiotics. ``She has pneumonia and is also suffering from an asthma attack,'' he said. Equally important to arresting her acute episode, the Captain Schobitz showed her mother how to administer the inhaler and instructed the family to return if she showed no improvement in 2 days. And at this point, God willing, we are assuming she had a good outcome.

This underscores what I always promote and what my bill tomorrow addresses: Asthma management involves a committed team of the provider, the parents, and the child. I pray for this little girl's good health. I salute Captain Schobitz and urge us to remember asthma and allergy medication in our emergency preparedness efforts and wish all asthmatic children well on the eve of Asthma Awareness Day, which is going to be here in the Capitol.

Mr. Speaker, and colleagues, please join us tomorrow in the Cannon Caucus Room from 1 o'clock to 2 p.m. for a press conference, followed by a free asthma screening for all House Members, staff and all employees.

Madam Speaker, today in the Washington Times it was reported that France supplied Iraqi officials passports as they fled U.S. forces, this allegation coming on the heels of another report that French companies sold military spare parts to Iraq shortly before the war. These passports gave the Iraqis who originally fled into Syria the ability to move freely among 12 European Union countries. This means that France gave Hussein's regime officials a get-out-of-jail-free card to escape.

I would like to remind my colleagues that these officials were part of a regime that is responsible for an estimated over 200,000 Iraqis having disappeared over the years, with many of them likely ending up in the secret mass graves that we continue to discover.

In reality, this allegation should come as no surprise. Rather than joining in promoting a free Iraq, the sheer magnitude of France's opposition to coalition actions demonstrates an affinity for this despotic regime.

As France seeks to repair its friendship with the United States, we should ask the question: With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to offer this simple amendment. It will ensure that the money that the United States spends, which is taxpayers' money, to address the AIDS crisis will be spent treating patients rather than spent in bureaucratic, administrative costs.

It requires that at the Global Fund, individual salaries may not exceed the salary of the Vice President of the United States. The criteria that I came up with, being the Vice President's salary, is because in the Homeland Security Act, we specified that no Federal employee may earn a salary in excess of the vice presidential salary. So that is the criteria I used. I think it is pretty simple, and back in our districts, $192,000 is a lot of money.

Given that the Global Fund's mission is to help people dying from AIDS and prevent others from getting and eventually dying from AIDS, it would seem reasonable that administrative costs should be held to a minimum so that every dollar that taxpayers spend overseas will move to the patients and to the people who need it. As long as the U.S. Government is the largest single contributor to the fund, it is appropriate that we place this modest restriction on the salaries. We do it for our Federal employees here in the United States, why not do it in the Global Fund. With hundreds of millions of dollars at risk, it is the responsibility of all of us to ensure that dollars are spent wisely. Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment is pretty simple. I could point out a lot more.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just will conclude by saying we all want this bill to save lives. That is why we are here. But I think we must have some kind of strict accountability with this organization sanctioned by the world to meet this dire need, and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), distinguished chairman and ranking member. I appreciate their support. We must have confidence that these organizations are using American taxpayers' dollars wisely.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I am here to congratulate General Tommy Franks, Chief of Military Operations, and our brave military forces. Of course, I also congratulate Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, General Myers, and

of course, President Bush and the administration.

I think everyone will remember where he or she was when the statue of Saddam Hussein came tumbling down. His atrocious regime is over, done.

And Mr. Speaker, there are many others I wish to congratulate today, but I want to remind everyone in the House that we should also congratulate everyone in this House of Representatives who voted for the Iraq resolution. It was the right thing to do.

Mr. Chairman, we are going to hear perhaps from the people on this side that we could have done more. Let me just say to my colleagues, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), who is chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, had 35 hearings on this bill. We had an energy conference in the 107th Congress in which we tried for so many hours, so many days, to try and bring this bill together. We could not in the 107th.

Here we are in the 108th, and now, nearly after 2 full days of markup by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the distinguished chairman of the full committee, we went almost all night for 2 days we passed this bill. There is nobody in this Congress who is more bipartisan and willing to work the extra mile to get results. In fact, I call the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) the Energizer Bunny. On this bill he has gone way over the top, he and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), to accommodate and to help Members bring their ideas into this bill, and they have been willing to also when necessary compromise.

So there is no reason to think, as we come to mark up this bill on the floor, that we do not have the best product possible in this Congress. I think this product is good, and that is why I think it represents a balance of sensible production initiatives with conservation. It provides incentives for renewable energy production, clean coal technology, low-income energy assistance, and provides for certainty and reliable operation of our energy markets and increased domestic production.

So I urge support for the bill.

Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003. We have worked to develop legislation that balances sensible production initiatives with conservation. This bill provides incentives for renewable energy production, clean coal technology, low-income energy assistance, provides for certainty and reliable operation of our energy markets, and increased domestic production.

Regarding electricity, I am pleased that this bill addresses a number of arcane federal laws and mandates that have no place in the electricity markets today. The compromise we have regarding the prospective repeal of the mandatory purchase obligation under PURPA is the best approach to allow for legitimate Combined Heat and Power development, while allowing relief for electric utilities from a federal mandate that has not served its intended purpose and has resulted in billions in excess costs to consumers.

The bill also increases penalties for sabotage or attempted sabotage of nuclear facilities. And authorizes a hydrogen fuel cell program with a goal of launching hydrogen fuel cell cars into the market by Model year 2020.

H.R. 6 will have far reaching implications from the industry to the family room. It will allow our country to continue its path of prosperity and leadership. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague for yielding me this time.

Let me just see if we can discuss this bill without sort of inflaming the emotions of people. It has been said on the

floor that it is not good policy. This is a policy that has been passed by 31 States. Thirty-one States have adopted this almost similar language. So I think if the people on this side or if there is anybody on the Republican side who decides they do not want to vote for this bill, please go back to your State legislatures and see if they passed this language. I will have a graph when we move to the debate on this bill, and I will show my colleagues that 31 States have already passed this same type of legislation.

So it is good policy, so good that the majority of the States in the United States have passed it. In fact, I say to my good colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), the State of Florida has also passed this bill. So in his comments, I appreciate what he says, that he is not for gun control, that he has a gun himself, so he could appreciate the fact that this Bill is good policy.

The second point I want to make is there is going to be a lot of attacks on the NRA this morning and this afternoon. I authored this bill in the Committee on Commerce; and it passed out of the subcommittee, out of the full committee, and also passed out of the subcommittee of the Committee on Judiciary and out of the full Committee on the Judiciary. That was in the 107th Congress. There is nothing about timing for bringing this Bill up on the floor because the NRA is having a convention at the end of this month. We have been trying to get this bill to the floor; and as many Members know, when we try and get a bill passed, we have to go around to our colleagues day after day and ask them to cosponsor it. I had about 235 cosponsors in the last Congress, and we were ready to vote on it. So it is not a case of timing for the NRA. It is just good policy, and I think the 31 States that have passed it have shown that it is good policy.

The other thing I would point out to my colleagues is the public is now aware how important it is to pass this type of legislation. I want to mention a couple of surveys taken recently of almost 1,100 adults by DecisionQuest, a jury-consulting firm. They found that 66.2 percent of American adults oppose these types of lawsuits. These are simply lawsuits that State and local municipalities are forcing on gun manufacturers simply because they do not like the product. They do not like the distribution of the weapon. So I say to my colleagues, we cannot start attacking a company because we do not like their distribution system or their design, because under the Constitution, one has the right under the commerce clause to manufacture and distribute.

So when people say this bill is unconstitutional, no, on the contrary, it is constitutional in the sense it is saying, allow people to legally manufacture and distribute products.

So only 19 percent of Americans oppose this type of legislation that protects manufacturers from nuisance lawsuits.

Then in April 1999, an ICR/Associated Press poll found that 70 percent of the respondents thought manufacturers should not be held liable to recoup hospital and police costs. In 1999, a Gallup poll found 61 percent of Americans are opposed to lawsuits to cover costs incurred because of gun violence. A May 1999 poll by Zogby International found 71 percent of Americans opposed allowing cities to sue gun manufacturers.

I can just take my colleagues up to the current day that the public is behind us on this. They want to say that there is too much litigation. These third-party cases where violence occurs is because of the third party and one cannot go after the manufacturer with deep pockets only because he is distributing the weapons or because of the person who sells it to him because there is negligence. Still, in fact, based upon that information, I can tell my colleagues this. The question is, does this bill protect unlicensed dealers, and the answer is simply no. The bill defines manufacturers and sellers only as licensed manufacturers, dealers, or importers of firearms or trade associations representing those persons. The only exception is for ammunition sellers who are not required to be licensed by the Federal Government.

The second question: Does the bill protect those who commit State crimes or engage in negligent conduct? Under the bill, manufacturers or sellers must operate entirely within Federal and State laws.

So the bill is not giving any exemption to them if they perform criminal or negligent acts. So basically, it is just saying, we are trying to prevent these nuisance suits.

Now, I will just conclude by giving my colleagues one example of a nuisance suit and that took place in Bridgeport, Connecticut. Superior Court Judge Robert McWeeney threw out the City of Bridgeport's suit. ``The plaintiffs have no statutory common law basis to recoup their expenditures,'' he said. ``They lack any statutory authorization to initiate such claims.''

Those were his exact words. Yet, Bridgeport was using taxpayers' money to sue this gun manufacturer with frivolous lawsuits.

Basically, the judge said they seek to regulate firearms in a manner that is preempted by State law. In other words, they are taking the mere fact that they are involved with commerce, manufacturing a product and distributing it as a way to sue.

I can give case after case of examples where the judge has thrown out these nuisance lawsuits.

So between what the judges have said, what the States have said by passing legislation in 31 States, and what the public says, I think we have a very credible bill. I urge my colleagues to support the rule.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for his help in bringing this bill to the floor. I also want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John), the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) for their support.

H.R. 1036, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, as we pointed out earlier, addresses the growing concerns of junk lawsuits filed with the intention of driving the firearms industry out of business by simply attempting to hold manufacturers and dealers liable for the criminal acts of third parties who are totally beyond their control.

These suits are different from other lawsuits that affect other industries. The cities and counties are not representing specific victims nor are they claiming specific damage against city property. No, instead, they are simply suing because they happen to dislike a product, its appearance, its distribution and how it markets its product. Yet, under the Constitution, these companies have the constitutional right to manufacture these products.

Now, the previous speaker mentioned that this has been a very quick process and he thought it was extreme. That is the word he used, extreme, unprecedented. I have on this chart here 31 States which have already passed legislation that prohibits frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry. So I would say to my colleagues, perhaps your State, when you come on the House floor, you should look at this chart to make sure before you vote whether your State has already passed a bill that has recognized the absurdity of these lawsuits. As such these States have acted to prohibit these types of suits, and H.R. 1036 is designed to simply mirror what the States have done.

The goal is to seize the attempts at regulation through lawsuits that achieve nothing except the blatant interference in a company's constitutional right to sell and market a legal product and the constitutional duty of the Congress to regulate the commerce of such product. As I stated, creative legal theory does not make good public policy.

We have seen through the course of these 30-plus suits that have come to the courts that the courts are not buying the theory either. Many of these suits have been dismissed. If my colleagues will bear with me, I will show my colleagues another chart. I have just taken a sample of the municipal lawsuits that have been dismissed, but I particularly want to highlight the city of Boston's case. Twenty-nine manufacturers and distributors and three associations were defendants. The alleged claim: negligent distribution. Very simply, negligent distribution was the claim against them, and 29 manufacturers were sued, distributors and associations. Defective design, deceptive advertising, nuisance, unjust enrichment. It was dismissed.

The city dropped its own suit saying it was too expensive for the city to do and acknowledging that, through its vigorous prosecution, the suit would need hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, would go on forever and ever, and would not be realistic and concrete in its steps to reduce illegal acquisition of firearms, and need to reduce the incidence of firearm accidents and increasing public awareness concerning the safe handling and storage of firearms. So the city of Boston voluntarily decided this is wrong. Not the courts' decision, but the city of Boston, after spending all this money.

We can go from New Orleans to Miami-Dade County. Twenty-six manufacturers, distributors, three associations, and two dealers were all sued simply because of their design, their distribution, and what they said was negligent deceptive advertising. It was dismissed at trial court and dismissed at appellate court. The Florida Supreme Court denied this petition. So it went through every one. The trial court, the appellate court, and the Supreme Court; and they all denied. So, my colleagues, this bill we have here is simply mirroring what has been done in the other 31 States.

Now, the question comes up, this bill is just a carve-out for the firearms industry. The previous speaker mentioned that, so I would like to bring to his attention other Federal legislation that protects specific industries and other cases where these industries or groups have found themselves uniquely threatened by bizarre or novel legal situations.

For example, in 1994, we passed legislation, the General Aviation Revitalization Act, which generally protects manufacturers of small planes more than 18 years old against personal injury lawsuits in both Federal and State courts.

Let us take another act, the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act of 1995, which declared certain community, migrant and homeless health care center employees to be employees of the Public Health Service, thus protecting them under the Federal Tort Claims Act from malpractice lawsuits in State courts.

Another example: the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act of 1996, which protects nonprofit organizations from State or Federal lawsuits arising from the nature, age, packaging or condition of apparently wholesome food received in good-faith donation to benefit the needy.

The Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 provides limited immunity from liability for volunteers acting on behalf of a nonprofit organization and preempts inconsistent State law unless such law provides additional protection.

The Biomaterials Access Assurance Act of 1998, which supersedes State law to create an exclusion from liability for manufacturers of raw materials or components of medical implants.

And let us not forget the Y2K Act of 1999, which limits punitive damages and establishes special procedures for liability in Y2K cases.

The Public Health Improvement Act of 2000, which provides Good Samaritan liability protection for users of cardiac defibrillators.

So, my colleagues, there are literally dozens and dozens of such pieces of legislation, major pieces of legislation, very similar, very like this bill that have been passed by Congress to protect and to enforce protection against nuisance lawsuits.

Basically, what we have is a bill that has been cosponsored by 250 colleagues here in the House. And the bill did not just happen to appear recently for anything like a convention of the NRA. This bill has gone through Congress. In

the 107th Congress, we had almost 240 sponsors. It went through the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection and then the full committee and passed. It went through the appropriate subcommittee and the full Committee on the Judiciary in the 107th Congress. And we now have even more support for it, so the time is right for passage on the House floor.

My colleagues will hear a lot about victims' rights from opponents to this bill. I want to emphatically state that this bill protects victims' rights. Their right to sue is protected in this bill, relying on product defect, negligent entrustment, and industry compliance with Federal and State law. What is not protected is the use of creative legal theory to sue the deepest pockets.

My colleagues, we have a good bill here, one that 250 Members of Congress agree with. It is bipartisan, both sides. They agree that using the courts to circumvent the constitutional authority of this body to make public policy is an improper use of our judicial system.

I will close in a moment, but want to leave my colleagues with several quotes. Dave Kopel, a professor at New York University Law School, has stated that the cities do not have to win in court with these nuisance suits. All they have to do is keep suing and suing. They will kill the industry with the cost of defending the lawsuits. He has got it right.

And then I would like to give another quote here. This is from a former labor secretary in which he pointed out that if I had my way, we would have laws restricting hand guns, and we are launching here an effort to succeed where legislation has failed. The strategy may work, but at the cost of making our frail democracy even weaker. You might approve the outcome in these cases, but they establish a precedent for other cases that you might find wildly unjust.

My point is that most nuisance lawsuits are taking to the courts an attempt to bankrupt these manufacturers. It is clear the courts agree, it is clear my colleagues agree, it is clear the State legislatures agree; and so I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Utah, for yielding time to me.

Mr. Chairman, the Watt amendment is attacking the words ``used as intended'', and he has sort of indicated that those words are vague and perhaps they should be deleted because the courts could not quite understand them.

I have Black's Law Dictionary back in my office, Mr. Chairman. I went up and looked up the words. It is defined as ``the intended use doctrine,'' defined as ``The rule imposing a duty on a manufacturer to develop a product so that it is reasonably safe for its intended or foreseeable users.''

In fact, if we look up the words ``used as intended,'' for example, the words ``manufacturing defects'' or ``design defects,'' any of these terms which, at first glance, would connote some nebulous concept. Indeed, it is not a nebulous concept; there is a strict interpretation of these words in tort law.

In Westlaw, which is a commonly used legal database, if we go into that and put in the words ``used as intended,'' we come up with that it has been cited in 1,300 State cases and over 900 Federal cases come up. That is ample guidance for courts to use regarding what ``used as intended'' means in a case alleging defective design or manufacture.

The treatise American Law of Products Liability states that ``Courts have consistently refused to impose liability on manufacturers of firearms that function exactly as intended.''

Mr. Chairman, I think what I am saying is, there is ample evidence in the law, both in the Federal and in the State, where the term ``used as intended'' is clearly understood in tort law, so there is no ambiguity here.

Mr. Chairman, I would urge defeat of the Watt amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee for yielding to me.

I would say to the gentlewoman from Texas that I understand her feelings when she mentions she finds this bill an insult, and she sort of indicates it is perhaps because of what happened in the Committee on the Judiciary. She has mentioned that perhaps the rule, and she mentioned the NRA convention, but I still do not think that those kinds of statements necessarily apply and convince Members not to vote for this bill because, basically, H.R. 1036 already incorporates what the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) is providing under her amendment.

I have to be honest. I think what she is saying is praiseworthy, but the amendment is not necessary because we already have in the bill the language that is needed.

We have used the words ``negligent entrustment,'' and this is a legal term, and that term is used in the bill. Because of the way it is used in the bill, it automatically covers what the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) wants to put in her amendment as part of the bill, and I might read ``negligent entrustment'' just to clarify what the actual legal definition is, as defined.

It is ``supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows or should know the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to use the product and, in fact, does use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person and others.''

The bill already allows suits for negligent entrustment or negligence per se or where a manufacturer or seller knowingly and willfully violates a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product and the violation has a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought.

In a nutshell, we have in H.R. 1036 all the necessary language to cover what the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) is talking about. So I urge my colleagues not to support the Sanchez amendment. It is unnecessary because H.R. 1036 already holds liable anyone who violates any State or Federal statute.

The Sanchez amendment also eliminates a requirement that a violation of a Federal statute must actually cause an injury before liability can attach. So I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Sanchez amendment.

Mr. Chairman, maybe I could just have a colloquy with the gentlewoman on her amendment.

Would my colleague not agree that the language dealing with negligent entrustment is not part of the bill, H.R. 1036?

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Would the gentlewoman not agree that that term ``negligent entrustment'' is fully understood under tort law?

But the consensus is, when we read the gentlewoman's amendment, in fact everything she has asked for is already included in our bill. So we think the amendment, as praiseworthy as it might be, in effect it is already being spoken to and clarified in our bill, so we just do not think the gentlewoman's amendment is necessary.

Can the gentlewoman define very clearly why the term ``negligent entrustment'' does not cover all that is necessary in tort law and why the gentlewoman's amendment would be needed with that already in existence?

Well, reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I disagree. Negligent entrustment, as I read the definition earlier, it is all laid out.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Sanchez amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Utah (Mr. Cannon) for yielding me time.

Let me say to my colleagues that the grievances that you have perhaps with the way the rule was developed or the procedure is really not a reason to vote against this bill. And I rise against the Watt amendment.

Local dealers or distributors are often sued simply to prevent removal of a case to a Federal court. Should trade associations be sued under conspiracy theories of industry behavior? I mean, that would create a chilling effect on advocacy of their membership, their interests, their activity, which is clearly protected by the first amendment.

The Watt amendment would allow them to be sued, local dealers, trade association. So I think it is clear, the Watt amendment would actually hurt the bill.

Let me call your attention as we conclude this debate to my chart here which shows that 31 States have recognized the absurdity of these lawsuits which are no different from the ridiculous lawsuits we saw filed against many other cases including the food industry. The goal is to cease this attempt at regulation through lawsuits, and that is why these 31 State passed pretty much the same bill that we have here on the floor today.

The second chart I will show you examples where cases are dismissed. This is just one of many charts I could have up here, 30 or 40 cases. For example, in Bridgeport where 21 manufacturers and distributors and 12 dealers and three were sued for negligent distribution, deceptive advertising, defective design, nuisance, conspiracy and unjust enrichment, unjust enrichment. Now, they proceeded but when they got not too far along, they were dismissed. And the Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed that.

So I would say to all my colleagues that the States have recognized this, and that is why there are 31 States that have supported the language in this bill.

Let me just read what the judge in the lawsuit against the firearm industry in the City of Bridgeport said. What has happened here, the people who are suing ``have envisioned the dawning of a new age of litigation.'' A new age of litigation, during which the gun industry, the liquor industry, the purveyors of junk food would follow the tobacco industry in reimbursing government expenditures. So taxpayers would have to pay at the local level, at the municipal level, at the State level to sue gun dealers, associations, gun manufacturers, all on the basis of unjust enrichment, deceptive advertising.

So I conclude, I believe this bill is responsible. Attempting to bankrupt a legal American industry through junk lawsuits is not. This bill protects legal actors while allowing suits to continue against those who break the law. It is a good balance, a fair bill; and I urge its passage.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to support the actions of the world's greatest fighting force, the United States Armed Forces, which is currently about 360,000 men and women deployed overseas defending our freedom. Though the terrains may differ greatly, their overall objectives remain the same, Mr. Speaker. From the sweltering jungles of Colombia and South Korea to the barren moonscapes of Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. forces put life and limb in harm's way to maintain the security of our great country. War is a concept not easily understood, never black and white, its ramifications always permanent and, of course, severe. The fighting men and women of the United States know the consequences of war, yet continue to place upon their shoulders this great mantle of responsibility. Though victory in war always comes at a price, our efforts in the Iraqi theater have yielded great success. Our Armed Forces have liberated thousands of Iraqis and have begun the delivery of much needed humanitarian support. Saddam's regime seems to be on its knees, ready to collapse. In what has been a historic campaign, U.S. Marines, a sea-based service, have marched inland to Baghdad in what has been the deepest land penetration ever by its air-ground team of planes, helicopters, troops and tanks. American troops have Baghdad surrounded. We have demonstrated an ability to insert troops deep into the city and the 1st Brigade of the United States Army recently renamed Saddam International Airport to Baghdad International. The evil and torturous regime of Saddam Hussein and his Baath party cronies seems to be at its end, all due to the valiant efforts of coalition forces. Though support for this operation has been great and widespread, we as a body have been forced to face the politics of war. We have been faced with a task of funding this war and making sure that our troops are supplied with the best equipment in the world. This week we must pass the wartime supplemental conference report as soon as possible in order to keep our military machine safe and, of course, efficient. We must also continue to show the world that what we are doing is right and for the benefit of our global safety. We must uproot Saddam and show the world the atrocities that he has committed. So far, the terrorist links have been established, Mr. Speaker. Al Qaeda terrorists fought against coalition troops in southern Iraq. Foreign nationals--Egyptians, Jordanians, Saudis, Syrians, Yemenis--were captured Sunday and led U.S. soldiers to their training grounds at Salman Pak. And, most convincing, raids of the Ansar al-Islam camps in northern Iraq revealed extensive al Qaeda ties for this group believed to have extensive, high-ranking connections with the Iraqi regime. As initial reports concerning chemical weapons become more clear, we will learn the truth behind Saddam Hussein's lies. All we can do is pray that the maniacal leader will think of the people, the 4.5 million Iraqi citizens, before he considers unleashing all this chemical arsenal.

Mr. Speaker, after Baghdad is secured and the Republican Guard is completely destroyed, we will be faced with the task of reconstructing Iraq. But as eyes turn toward the U.N., many will turn to the rich oil fields of Iraq and the many ways in which their countries think they can profit from our military's work. Countries that denounced our actions will look for ways to get their hands on some of this Iraqi oil. France and its allies claim the United Nations is the only body with the international legitimacy to administer Iraq. But, Mr. Speaker, is it? The United Nations failed miserably in its supervision of Kosovo, Bosnia and Somalia. Until Bush stepped in last year, it had completely dropped any attempt to get Iraq to disarm. The United Nations has never successfully fostered a democracy. This is not surprising since many if not most of its members are nondemocratic countries and a police state like Libya heads the U.N. human rights commission.

There is at least one group of people among whom the United Nations has no legitimacy. That is the 24 million Iraqis who have suffered under more than two decades of Saddam Hussein's rule. Iraqis have seen U.N. inspectors

come and go. They have seen U.N. officials rush to Baghdad to confer with Saddam with no easing of repression as a result. They have watched as U.N. resolutions, including those obligating Saddam to respect human rights, go not just unenforced but are not even cited in passing by the United Nations.

Again my congratulations to our Armed Forces and to our President. God bless them both.

Objection.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I come here to the House floor and I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I understand my friend's concern, but I do not think we need to exacerbate the situation. Turkey has been with us so many times, as the gentleman from Arizona has pointed out. So many times Turkey has been with us, and would my colleagues hurt a friend because of this situation, after Turkey has now agreed, as reported in The New York Times, to increase its cooperation with the American military campaign in Iraq by permitting use of its territory for the overland supply of food, water, fuel, and other necessities to American armed forces operating in northern Iraq?

Number two, Mr. Chairman, and another step that Colin Powell was successful in, Turkey has agreed to open their airfields to American military planes in distress or for the evacuation of American service personnel. Turkey has extended such help occasionally since the war began 2 weeks ago, but the new accord will make it more routine.

Most importantly, my colleagues, in a separate but important part of the agreement, Secretary Powell said that the United States and Turkey would establish a monitoring group to watch northern Iraq to make sure no conditions arose that might compel Turkey to send its troops across the borders into Iraq. Turkey is a modern republic. It is a Muslim state. It is unique, as pointed out, in all the nations of the world. It is the only operating democracy in the Middle East. So it is essential that the United States realize and appreciate the burden, the special burden Turkey has, and the fact that they are the only Muslim member of NATO.

Turkey remained steadfast with the United States and our allies through the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, NATO air strikes during the conflict in Kosovo, and in providing aid to Albanian refugees, as well as hosting Operation Northern Watch, which maintains the no-fly zone over northern Iraq. Turkey has been of enormous assistance in our global war on terrorism. And they should know. They have been fighting it for 30 years. Thirty thousand people have been killed by terrorists in Turkey.

We have a vested interest in Turkey, and Turkey is sacrificing its well-being just by supporting a lot of our policies. Turkey will open its airfields, as I pointed out earlier, to the American military planes. Is this everything we have asked for from this ally? No. But I would like to point out that Turkey does support our efforts, unlike other so-called allies who have opposed us at every turn.

So, Mr. Chairman, I believe this is an amendment that should be defeated. The administration, Secretary of State Colin Powell, is satisfied with Turkey's response and he is willing to go ahead with the foreign aid package, so why should we not? In the interest of maintaining good relationships with an ally, a solid ally, where solemn Muslim leadership is needed in this region, we should do this as well. So I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to quote this morning from an article by Mona Charen, ``War and Psychology,'' in which she says: `` `War never solves anything.' So say dozens of callers to C-SPAN'' all day long ``and left-leaning radio programs.''

``The answer to this argument, if you can call it an argument, could almost fit on a bumper sticker. Apart from securing American independence, ending slavery, and defeating Nazism and Communism, `war has never solved anything,' so the liberals say.

``Anti-war activists tell us that Iraq is a distraction from the more important war against global terrorism. This argument has been dealt a serious blow by the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.''

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, war does solve many things; but we have to win them, and this one we will win.

Mr. Speaker, the House will soon mark up tax legislation, including the elimination of dividend double taxation. I propose we also provide tax relief for interest earned from savings in bank accounts. I have introduced the Simple Savings Tax Relief Act, H.R. 1163, which would help all savers, including those in lower-income levels who do not earn corporate dividends.

Like dividend recipients, bank and credit union customers report interest as income to the IRS, increasing their tax burden. Let us not punish those who invest for a rainy day. Let us encourage them.

In 1998, the Joint Economic Committee wrote that exemption of interest from taxation is a significant economic step we should take, and ``such a proposal would primarily benefit the low- and middle- income taxpayers.''

H.R. 1163 would permit a single filer to earn up to $200, $400 for a joint filer, in bank account interest tax-free.

It is very simple: let us help those who are primarily low- and middle-income taxpayers today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a problem that should be at the forefront of our agenda as we move into the 108th Congress. Our immigration system today needs improvement. Unfortunately, it took a tragedy to remind us about this.

This country, of course, was based upon immigration. It was what has made us strong and all Americans recognize its importance. But this system needs improvement. We must continue to facilitate the entry of those men and women who make productive citizens, yet continue to filter those who are not eligible and those who could bring harm to our way of life.

As a body, we recently moved the INS to the Department of Homeland Security, a measure that signals a return to our security. This administration has realized the fact that reorganization must take place before we can take steps to reform our immigration system.

At no other time in our Nation's history have we faced more of a threat to our domestic security; but as we make strides towards improved security measures, I am deeply concerned that countries, even those who are considered allies, are lining up to compromise our work.

Every day, Mr. Speaker, thousands of illegal immigrants stream across our

sieve-like borders and into our country. Once they are inside, the grim reality stands that they are totally, totally untrackable. Yet our neighbor to the south does nothing to help us. But this is in no way shocking, seeing that remittances from Mexico's citizens, both legal and illegal, account for Mexico's third largest source of income. It amounts to over $10 billion a year. That is what is sent back by the Mexican immigrants. So it is no surprise that the Mexican Government is not helping us to secure our borders.

One method I would bring to the attention of my colleagues has been found recently by Mexico in the wake of the 9-11 terrorist attacks. As we remember, we were going to have legislation on the floor dealing with Mexico that was tabled because our attention was focused on homeland security. So then the Mexican Government decided to change its strategy and they substituted a grass-roots approach that focused at the local level to seek small successes and build momentum for congressional action.

Now, the linchpin for this new strategy was to be the matricula consular. Now, this is a word which means an official identity card which would be issued by the Mexican Government which it wants to be officially recognized by the United States. Now, unless we recognize this card, it goes nowhere; but they want us to recognize this card. This card would essentially allow illegal immigrants from Mexico the right to apply for a driver's license, Social Security card, and bank account. The U.S. Treasury Department has even gone so far as to promote its use. In a report to Congress, Treasury included a footnote that would go on to influence the language of the United States Patriot Act. The footnote says: ``Thus, the proposed regulations do not discourage bank acceptance of the matricula consular identity card that is being issued by the Mexican Government to immigrants.''

My colleagues, we can stop this by sponsoring H.R. 502. This bill requires that any ID cards must be verifiable by our government to obtain Federal public benefits. We do not have to recognize these identity cards from Mexico. The intent of the PATRIOT Act of 2000, which passed overwhelmingly by Congress, was to strengthen our homeland security. It addressed the issue of secure identification because the hijackers had obtained Social Security numbers and drivers licenses. Especially in this context, it is difficult to comprehend why Treasury went out of its way to give approval to an identity card being offered by a single foreign government whose contiguous border is a matter of acute concern to the United States and whose nationals represent the majority of illegals within the United States.

As our troops risk their lives thousands of miles from home, it is disappointing that a country so dependent upon us would continue to compromise our security and openly denounce our foreign policy, that is, they are not supporting the war in Iraq. Despite the fact that the United States provides Mexico with 75 percent of their annual trade and is home to millions of migrants, President Fox of Mexico, a friend of President Bush, openly decries our military action.

As the battle for our homeland security wages both here and in the deserts of the Middle East, we must find a way to better monitor the men and women who freely cross our borders every day. The matricula consular identity card would not help in this regard, Mr. Speaker. It is time we reevaluate our immigration system and ensure that our country will be better protected by those who would wish to do us harm.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, in an arrogant stunt, last summer, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion, stating that it ``impermissibly takes a position with respect to the purely religious question of the existence and identity of God,'' and places children in the ``untenable position of choosing between participating in an exercise with religious content or protesting.'' This is an obvious instance of political correctness taken to an absurd extreme.

This court clearly shows that it is out of step with the will of the American people, the U.S. Congress, and traditional American values. Religious expression is the fundamental basis of our freedom in this country. At the earliest moment in this nation's history, the pilgrims signed The Mayflower Compact that declared that the voyage across the Atlantic was taken ``for the Glory of God'' and still today, the Ten Commandments are publicly displayed in the National Archives. In this Nation we have ``In God We Trust'' on our money, and each day the House of Representatives starts its day be reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. We will continue to do so despite the folly of the 9th Circuit Court.

Mr. Speaker, my Colleagues and Friends of Taiwan, I want to take a moment to place into the Record a traditional oral expression or toast to the long-standing relationship between the United States and Taiwan. The republic of China's Twin Oaks Estate here in Washington, D.C., has been home to nine Ambassadors, as well as a venue for receiving guests of the Republic of China's Representative in the United States. It is a symbol of the abiding friendship between our two nations. Over the last six decades, countless Americans and Chinese friends and Ambassadors have met with members of Congress at Twin Oaks.

On the south side of this wonderful mansion stand one hundred plum trees. The plum blossom, the national flower of The Republic of China, can withstand below freezing temperatures. After enduring this type of physical duress during the winter, in early spring the dark pink plum blossom emerges and blooms, demonstrating a glorious vitality. And so it is with the relationship between Taiwan and the United States of America. No matter how challenging the problems are now or will be; our time-honored relationship will continue to blossom and display this type of resilience. In a larger sense, it will spring eternally regardless of geopolitical pressures.

So Mr. Speaker, the enduring strength of the plum blossom at the Twin Oaks Estate symbolizes our lasting friendship, which has benefited both of our nations for six decades.