Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on July 14, 2003, I was unavoidably detained due to a delayed flight. Unfortunately, I missed the following Rollcall votes. If I would have been present, I would have voted:

``Yea'' for Rollcall 108-354, the Rehberg Amendment.

``Nay'' for Rollcall 108-355, the Blumenauer Amendment.

``Nay'' for Rollcall 108-356, the Hefley Amendment.

``Nay'' for Rollcall 108-357, the Ackerman Amendment.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

I support the Smith-Oberstar-Hyde amendment which removes the Crowley amendment. The Crowley amendment to H.R. 1950 renders impotent

previous language known as the Kemp-Kasten anti-coercion provision, a long-standing provision that allows the President to withhold funding from organizations and programs that were supporters or participants in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.

The Crowley amendment replaces this easy-to-use oversight language with language that would make it virtually impossible to pull the plug on funding to questionable organizations, by requiring they ``knowingly and intentionally'' support the coercive program being carried out. Should not the fact that an organization merely subsidizes the effort of coercive abortions or forced sterilization be enough of a connection to make their hands too dirty to be trusted with taxpayer money?

The knowingly and intentionally standard is difficult and perhaps impossible to prove. It would allow offenders to invade the prohibition and receive United States tax dollars to subsidize forced abortions and sterilizations.

Quite frankly, we should not have to go through with a virtually impossible task of definitively establishing that an organization knowingly and intentionally supported a tyrannical government's coercive abortion practices. On the contrary, those organizations should have to prove to the nations funding them that they unequivocally do not force women to have abortions or undergo sterilizations in any way. An organization's mere connection to and support of a tyrannical government's overall population control infrastructure is compelling enough evidence that they should not receive funding.

Organizations that, wittingly or unwittingly, directly or indirectly, support the population control systems of a nation that forces a woman to undergo an abortion or take away a woman's availability to have a child have no business receiving U.S. tax dollars.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, and I am the designee of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

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

As a cosponsor of H.R. 2303, sponsored by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), I am happy to offer this amendment, which is the first step in reforming the United Nations.

In the run-up to the war with Iraq, France was able to hold U.S. policy hostage by virtue of its status as a permanent member of the Security Council and the veto power that goes with it, but France was not alone. The other permanent Security Council Members, China, Russia, United Kingdom, of course, also the United States, they all have a veto power; and they regularly obstruct our foreign policy goals and vote the opposite of the United States.

According to the State Department's voting practices in the United Nations of 2002, on votes important to U.S. interests, France and the U.K. voted with us just 50 percent of the time, Russia 22 percent of the time and China, 20 percent.

Even though the U.S. has no more power on the Security Council than any of the other four permanent members, it pays the lion's share of the United Nations' budget. The United States pays $341 million a year, or 22 percent of the overall budget. China pays just $24 million, even though it has the world's second largest economy. Russia pays a paltry $19 million, which is less than Canada, Holland, Australia, or Switzerland.

This amendment would limit the U.S. contribution to the regular U.N. budget to no more than the highest amount paid by any other member of the Security Council. Our veto power should cost us no more than what China, France, Russia, or the U.K. pay for theirs.

This proposal would not affect U.S. payments to the U.N. for peacekeeping operations, voluntary programs, or membership organizations. It would only affect the U.N. regular budget. Even at this reduced amount, the U.S. would still contribute over $1.4 billion in various U.N. programs, far more than any other country.

So aside from simple equity, enactment of this amendment would hopefully lead to reconsideration of how U.N. dues are assessed among permanent members. China and Russia are now essentially getting a free ride at our expense. The solution would be for all permanent members to pay equal amounts of the regular budget because of their veto power, and I say this amendment is a first step in the direction of reforming the United Nations.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, might I inquire as to the amount of time I have remaining.

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

I appreciate the gentleman from Illinois' remarks with regard to the United Nations and some of the implications of any change that we might make in how the dues are assessed against the United States, and I would point out that our gross domestic product is comparable to that of the balance of the Security Council and all the other priority members that are there; and even though it is indexed to the gross domestic product, it is certainly out of proportion.

Additionally, these members of the United Nations Security Council have exerted far more influence than their economy contributes to the world economy or to the United Nations dues or any type of forces that we might have out there, and so I would suggest that the United Nations has become a

Third World class envy debating society where the strongest and most powerful countries' foreign policy is dictated by countries who wish to undermine the United States. It is entirely inappropriate that the United States must contribute an inordinate amount to provide a democratic platform to dictators and tyrants, and that is a broad fellowship in the approach of the United Nations.

People tend to believe that because each country has a vote in the United Nations, and we set things up in kind of a proportional method as far as the dues are concerned in the Security Council, that somehow or another we have got a democratic debating society there; but we see dictators and tyrants at the United Nations, who give them full voice to utter their opinions, their tyrannical opinions, when they would not let a single one of their citizens do the same within their own country; and this is the flaw in the United Nations that we have lived with all of these years.

We have got to move down the path of reforming the United Nations, and this is the first good step to do so.

U.N. membership, structure, and policy aside, it is preposterous that the United States continues to pay for 22 percent of the entire U.N. regular budget. That 22 percent is $341 billion; and in fact, the U.N. votes against the United States 32 percent of the time on important issues. The United States contributes currently $115 million more to the regular budget than France, Germany, Russia, and China combined; but our veto power should cost no more than what France, Russia, or China pays for theirs. China only pays $24 million, even though it is the world's second largest economy. The Russians pay $19 million, which is less than Canada, Holland, Australia, or Switzerland. It is ridiculous to have this position. The United States is funding its political opposition.

I want to make it clear that this amendment would not affect U.S. payments to the U.N. for peacekeeping operations, voluntary programs, or membership organizations. If this amendment is adopted, the U.S. will still contribute more than $1.4 billion to various programs. In summary, this amendment would simply limit the U.S. contributions to the U.N. regular budget.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment. A ``yes'' vote is not a vote against the U.S., but rather a vote to make it more accountable.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1472.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak.

Today, I rise in strong support of the Hong Kong resolution. I doubt many of us in this Chamber will forget the Cold War and the United States' dedication to protect any country threatened by a Communist regime.

Today, I ask, have we forgotten the image of that one Chinese student blocking a barrage of tanks or the hurriedly erected plaster Lady liberty proudly emulating our own Statue of Liberty displayed so prominently as a symbol of the Chinese people's desire to be free? How can we ever forget the hundreds of Chinese martyrs killed on that warm June night in Tiananmen Square 14 years ago?

Because we are a Nation that does not forget the human tragedy and sufferings committed by Communist regimes in the last century, we cannot watch silently today as the freedoms enjoyed by the people of Hong Kong are being stripped away.

Prior to 1997, Hong Kong was not only an economic powerhouse, it served as a beacon of hope that one day rule of law, transparency and a republican form of government would be a reality in the People's Republic of China. However, rather than adopting Hong Kong's free society, China now flexes its oppressive muscles over Hong Kong themselves, depriving them not only of the freedom of speech, religion and association agreed to by the British and Chinese Government in 1997, but these freedoms that are guaranteed because they are inalienable and endowed to all members of the human race. As our President has said, that freedom is a right of every person and the future of every Nation.

Today, I rise to join in solidarity with the often lonely voice of Hong Kong's Bishop Joseph Zen, who is a tireless advocate of the people of Hong Kong and a vocal fundamental critic of the Chinese government's disregard of the fundamental rights of the governed. Bishop Zen risks his own life by speaking with moral authority, and his commitment to protect the dignity of each human person should be supported.

Congress must send a clear message to the Chinese Government that we expect them to abide by the premise of Hong Kong's basic law which grants gradual progress towards the democratic election of the legislature and chief executive. Furthermore, the United States must continue the fight against communism, an oppressive regime that denies each individual his or her dignity and holds countries that violate human rights accountable.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution because it protects what America has, what America stands for and what Hong Kong does not want to lose, the gift of freedom.

I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for his important resolution.

Offered By: Mr. King of Iowa

Amendment No. 1: At the end of title VII add the following

new section:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the House and the United States of America with regard to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court that came down I believe it was yesterday in the case of Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, University of Michigan undergraduate school and the University of Michigan School of Law. I went over to the Supreme Court. I believe that case was heard on April 19, and I was the only member of my conference to be there in that Supreme Court hearing room that day.

This Constitution means something to me. I have dealt with affirmative action. I am a contractor by trade. I have done so for 28 years. I have hired people of all different kinds of backgrounds and talents and ethnicities, and I have also done Federal contracts where I have run into a situation where there will be a certain situation quota or a goal assigned to me, and sometimes that is not available and we have had to drop contracts because we were not able to meet that requirement. So I paid real attention to this, and I think it is important that everyone have equal opportunity. That is what Martin Luther King asked for. That is what our Constitution calls for, and that is what we should provide by the laws that we promote here in this Congress and by the Supreme Court that meets over across the way.

I thought I went over there to hear a constitutional argument. In my naivete I expected that would be the bulk of the discussion that took place that day in that little over-2 hours of discussion. In fact, I heard very little constitutional argument. About two-thirds to three- quarters of the comments and questions that were directed by the Justices had to do with the result, not the constitutionality, not the language, the definition, or the intent of Congress; simply the result of a decision that they might make.

And an interesting thing: as I tried to find my way into the Supreme Court room, it was packed out front, and it looked like they let out the D.C. schools for the day to go demonstrate at the U.S. Supreme Court. They were carrying signs that said: ``Support equality, defend affirmative action.''

Well, Mr. Speaker, I did not take a logic class, but those two things do not connect for me, and I do not think they connect for most Americans. We are either going to have equality or we are not going to have equality; but a preferential treatment program, by definition, is contrary to equality. And that is what affirmative action is, and that is what the case was there to be heard for.

So I went to the oral arguments in those cases, and I am profoundly disappointed that the Supreme Court did not outlaw racial preferences in their decision in the Grutter and the Gratz cases, and in the lack of focus on constitutional arguments.

As I left there, and I talked to attorneys about this, me not being one, and I told them that I was astonished that the Justices in the Supreme Court did not focus their arguments on the Constitution. They told me they were focusing their questions and their comments on Justice O'Connor, because well, all right, that is another issue then, and she has written the majority opinion. Apparently, they were focusing on her for the right reason. Apparently, she was not evaluating the Constitution, or we would have had an entirely different majority decision, certainly by the one that wrote the majority.

But I did hear one reference to the Constitution. I actually heard more than one, but the one that stands out in my mind was Justice Scalia's reference, when he asked the University of Michigan attorney, he said, If this court rules against you and it results in one minority in the School of Law, 100 percent minorities are no minorities, what possible constitutional difference can that make? And my colleagues can check the record, Mr. Speaker. I do not think they will see that there is a logical answer to that. So we ended up with the decision that we got.

Now, the Court got it right when they struck down the point system by the University of Michigan's undergraduate programs. University admissions should be color blind. A student's race should never matter more than a 4.0, a perfect SAT score, or a flawless essay.

I am not a lawyer, but it does not take a lawyer to know that the Supreme Court missed the mark when they upheld the program at the University of Michigan Law School that relies on race and the law school admissions decision-making process. The race-based admissions policy violates Martin Luther King's call for a color-blind society. Admission should be determined based on criteria that reward excellence, not race. It is paternalistic for minority students to be given preferential treatment. All students should have the same opportunities to succeed, regardless of color.

I agree with Justice Thomas when he said of the majority opinion in the Grutter case, ``For the immediate future, however, the majority has placed its imprimatur on a practice that can only weaken the principle of equality embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Equal Protection Clause.'' He then quoted the landmark case of Plessy v. Ferguson: ``Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.''

Justice Thomas hit the nail on the head when he wrote of the lack of principle in the majority opinion: ``I can only presume that the majority's failure to justify its decision by reference to any principle arises from the absence of any such principle.'' Justice Thomas, I agree. And I agree that the only principle in the majority opinion in Grutter was the principle of expediency to allow racial preferences. Certainly, constitutional principles were not involved. The Fourteenth amendment prohibits such race-based admissions decisions. Our Constitution is color-blind. Obviously, a majority of the Supreme Court is not.

Madam Speaker, I am amazed at how the race card can be played on every single trick and every single issue that comes up. To me, this is just simply dollars and cents.

I started a small business in 1975 with actually a negative net worth of $5,000, no capital and a dream. By the mid-80s when then Congressman Grandy came to my hometown and held a hearing on health care, 70 or 80 of us in the basement of the Lutheran church in Odebolt, Iowa, sitting in the front row because I do not hear that good, he said, how many of you provide health insurance for your employees? I raised my hand as did about 11 other people in that room. No, excuse me. I raised my hand when he said, how many of you are employers? I kept it up when he said, how many of you provide health insurance for your employees? I was the only one in that room that provided health insurance for my employees. I can tell you, I know why. It is because the cost is too high for a group plan. Because the rules and the laws discriminate against small business. This association health care plan is designed exactly to correct that.

I have been involved in association work all of my life. That is the only bargaining chip that small business has. A sole proprietor of a small business is in a position where they cannot fully deduct all of their own health care insurance unless, of course, they happen to be a corporation and they are paying themselves a wage. That was put in place at the end of World War II when we had wage and price controls, and it was put in place because large business had the leverage, unions had the leverage, but small business did not. That is what this bill corrects, this association health care bill. It corrects the inequity to some degree, and it is a small degree, that was created in World War

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remark on the distinguished gentleman from Virginia's (Mr. Goodlatte) comments.

There is nothing I can add to the emphasis he has put here today. I simply add my voice and I wish to associate myself with the very dramatic and emphatic presentation that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) has made.

I would point out that our tort system consumes up to 3 percent of our gross domestic product. If we need 3\1/2\ growth just to sustain our economy, and our freedom, I might add, then our economy has to grow at 6\1/2\ percent in order to make up for the 3 percent that is consumed in our tort system.

It is a deep problem that we must address. It is a loophole in our current system that allows class action lawsuits involving plaintiffs from nearly every State to file suits in those few States that are known to be plaintiff-friendly and hostile to out-of-State defendants.

These few State courts are making the decisions that set the policy for other States and the entire country. Out-of-State companies and residents are being sued in class action lawsuits in other States where their rights are being determined under those State laws. H.R. 1115 appropriately addresses this forum shopping problem by allowing Federal courts to hear class action lawsuits involving plaintiffs or defendants from multiple States or foreign countries.

The biggest winners in the current class action scheme are trial lawyers, not consumers. The public knows that, as was pointed out. The large fees awarded class action lawyers through settlements all too often do not constitute legitimate harm, because many companies agree to these settlements in order to lower the costs of nuisance lawsuits. Unfortunately, settling cases with little or no merit results in higher prices for consumers. Frivolous class action cases are, in effect, a litigation tax imposed on consumers because the economic damage to a company results in higher prices for its products.

The explosion of class actions lawsuits has reached crisis proportions. I encourage you to vote for H.R. 1115 and help address the growing class action problem in America.

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time.

As I looked at this situation, there were two things that jumped out at me that cried to be answered. One of them was, as I thumbed through the Washington, D.C., phone book, I came across, by accident, ``Abortion Services.''

And we talk about viability, there is ad after ad after ad in there, multiple pages, that advertise they will provide abortions up to 24 weeks. It is in print, it is standard practice, and that is past that point of viability that has been talked about here.

It is chilling to see that, for someone who comes from the Middle West where we do not have such a thing. There is nothing in any phone books that I have seen in the Middle West. But it shocked me.

Another issue, as I sat in the Committee on the Judiciary and listened to remarks, and I am going to speak specifically to the remarks that were made by the gentleman from New York who said that we were cynical about this, that we simply wanted to ban partial-birth abortion for political reasons and that 41 States have banned late-term abortions, and that if we were serious, we would just go forward and do that. And that is what this amendment seeks to do. I rise in opposition to this substitute for that reason, because we know why it would not be effective and why it would gut this bill.

I am not a lawyer. I grew up in a cornfield and rode out on a bulldozer, but I can tell you I know this much about law. How did we get here to this point? I do not think anybody has referenced it now, and that is the case in 1965, Griswold v. Connecticut, right to privacy, when Connecticut outlawed contraceptives and the Supreme Court ruled that the State of Connecticut had no business getting into the privacy of the family and, therefore, found their law that outlawed contraceptives unconstitutional. That is the foundation for right to privacy.

Just a few years later, 8 years later, along came Roe v. Wade. That was the piece that said, well, that right to privacy extends to the woman's womb and in our declaration where it defines life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, those rights are prioritized except that the right of the liberty of the pregnant female takes priority over the life of the unborn. And then Roe v. Wade, of course, outlawed, though it did not make an exception for, late-term post-viability abortions.

But same day, concurrent decision, Doe v. Bolton gave that definition that I think we have heard that addresses the health of the mother. It does not prohibit any abortion if in the medical judgment of the attending physician the abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the woman or to avert serious adverse health consequences to the woman, a hole you could drive a truck through. That is also what this amendment seeks to do, and that is another reason that I oppose it.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey reaffirmed Roe v. Wade. That is what it looks like to this fellow who did not go to law school, but does read the cases and that precedent of right to privacy takes us to the floor of this House Chamber tonight to debate something that would be a chilling concept to us if we had been confronted with that in the environment when we were children.

And so Stenberg v. Carhart. I will just say this, it is a ghastly, ghoulish, gruesome procedure and that child is one inch from screaming for its own mercy. If ultrasound could hear the silent scream, we would not be in this debate tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I wish to associate myself with the gentleman's remarks just previous and also restate the Supreme Court has changed the meaning of the Bill of Rights. That is why we are here today.

I am a cosponsor of House Joint Resolution 4, which empowers Congress to protect the paramount symbol of liberty of the United States by providing that ``the Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.''

To desecrate the American flag is equal to inciting a riot. Those that burn the flag do so for the sole purpose of striking horror into the hearts of veterans, members of armed services and patriots across the country.

For over half a century, every single State in the Union, and later the Federal Government, outlawed flag desecration without constitutional objection. Such laws have now been negated by a single opinion that the five Justices of the United States Supreme Court rendered in 1989 in Texas v. Johnson.

Countless Americans have fought and died under our flag. Our flag stands for our freedom as a Nation, a bulwark signifying not only our sovereignty but our resolve as a people against tyranny and terror. We must restore our great symbol of liberty to its rightful place under the laws so that our ancestors and immigrants, our friends and enemies, will have no doubt about its value, its meaning, or the very dear price paid to preserve our freedom.

I witnessed the desecration of hundreds of flags in this city this year. It is a sad and sickening sight. I urge you to vote for H.J. Res. 4 to protect our flag that Americans have fought and died for.

Mr. Speaker, I support the Jobs and Growth Package, H.R. 2, and want to express my appreciation to President Bush, House Leadership and the Ways and Means Committee members for their commitment to tax relief for Americans. Tax relief and simplification are desperately needed by working Americans all across this country and in my home state of Iowa. At a time when many families are feeling the pinch, it is essential that we allow Americans to keep more of their hard-earned dollars. Two hundred billion dollars will be brought into the economy by the end of next year with this legislation, giving much needed relief to over-taxed Americans and businesses.

Small business and farming are the backbone of Iowa's economy. What I believe may be the most important components of this tax package are the provisions encouraging business investment. Accelerated depreciation incentives and increasing the amount small businesses can expense to $100,000 are crucial to the success of entrepreneurs in Iowa. Our tax code is laden with anti-business provisions, and I am delighted that my colleagues in the House of Representatives have reversed trends and are growing American pocketbooks and not government. Our collective appreciation should really be for all the innovative and dedicated entrepreneurs who have run the gauntlet of high taxes and excessive regulation. Overall, this measure will create over 9,000 jobs in my home state in just the first year.

One of the most damaging elements of our tax code is the capital gains tax. It is unconscionable that we deliberately punish success. America's capital gains tax rates affect the cost of capital, investment and our economy's overall growth. By bringing down those rates in H.R. 2, we promote growth, raise the value of stocks and retirement plans, reduce tax on savings, and inject fairness into our tax code. I wholly expect that we will do much more in the very near future to rid this blight on America's economy.

I applaud the President for his unyielding support for a reduction in the tax paid by individuals on stock dividends. Half of all Americans who receive dividend income are seniors. As I represent one of the most senior districts in the country, I am grateful that the House of Representatives has chosen to support this vital priority of the President.

There is much more to like about the tax relief efforts included in H.R. 2. This initiative leads us in the right direction toward simplification and limiting government interference. Hopefully soon we can simplify the tax code right out of existence. As our economy grows, we should heed the lessons of unburdening Americans. If a lot of tax relief helps, what would a little do? H.R. 2 reduces the marriage penalty.

The House of Representatives has done well to support the overwhelming majority of Americans who support and need tax relief. Americans seeking jobs, need, and expect us, to free up investment. H.R. 2 will have a positive impact in stimulating the economy and growing the private sector and that means more jobs. I support tax cuts, I support our President and I support H.R. 2.

Mr. Chairman, our Nation is greatly blessed. We have a responsibility to our fellow man. When rampaging machete mobs began massacring Rwandans, I believed then and I believe now that we should have deployed troops to save them.

I agree with the principles expressed by President Bush in this very Chamber in his State of the Union speech when he said: ``We exercise power without conquest and we sacrifice for the liberty of strangers. Americans are a free people who know that freedom is a right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to all humanity.''

Now we face an AIDS crisis in Africa. It is severe. We have the unique opportunity to help save and extend the lives of Africans. However, we must ensure that our efforts to fight AIDS in Africa do not infringe upon their liberty, their freedom, and the right to life of unborn Africans.

The travesty of family planning and population control funding being used to subsidize abortion providers and counseling is not new to Congress. In fact, in 1970, Congressman John Schmitz of California accurately predicted the consequences of providing funding without restrictions.

We know the results of that. He said on that day: ``The bill before us today . . . would commit the U.S. Government to the life prevention business at an initial cost of more than a quarter of a billion dollars.'' As we know, the rise in the cost of the program is under way, with no end in sight. Congressman Schmitz was right. In 1999, Planned Parenthood received $51 million. Effectively, we are subsidizing abortion services.

Today we are poised to distribute AIDS assistance to those who are currently without hope in Africa. Hopefully, a large portion will go to proven abstinence, medical treatment, and as a last resort, condom distribution.

However, none of the billions for relief in Africa should be used to fund abortions. No United States taxpayer money should fund groups that provide abortion services or counseling. We will save lives by providing humanitarian AIDS relief to Africa. No lives are as innocent as those lives of babies taken by abortion.

We must show compassion for Africans and ensure that the words of Congressman Schmitz when we committed the United States to the life prevention business do not come true with this excellent bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I rise in support of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. If I had listened to the opposition on this and we had followed that path of logic, then auto dealers would be next. Lawful commerce in anything, where there are far more accidents and far more injuries with automobiles, I cannot disconnect the logic between the lawful manufacturers of firearms. But the goal of this reckless law is to financially destroy the firearms industry by filing countless meritless lawsuits. These suits are based on the absurd legal theory that gun manufacturers and dealers should be held responsible for the acts of violent criminals who use safe, nondefective firearms to commit violent crimes.

Although losses in court continue to mount for lawyers who bring these baseless suits, the firearms industry is still saddled with the cost of defending them in court. We should be outraged that certain lawyers and gun-ban advocates feel that they can circumvent the legislative process by moving their anti-second amendment efforts into the courts.

I am a stalwart defender of our second amendment freedoms. They are guaranteed to us by the Constitution, and I oppose any attempt to water down the principles embodied in the second amendment. The first and most important reason for the second amendment as intended by our Founding Fathers was to provide a deterrent for tyrants.

The right to keep and bear arms was meant to ensure that citizens can defend our democratic republic from despots and those who seek to take away our rights and free society.

Today, lawsuits against the firearms industry threaten to drive it out of business. These businesses are vital to our national interest. They supply our troops with weapons that they use in the war in Iraq. Our homeland law enforcement officers also need the weapons manufactured by these companies to defend us against terror and protect our homeland. If we allow frivolous lawsuits to bankrupt the industry, we are only hurting ourselves, both at home and abroad.

Offered by: Mr. King

Amendment No. 1: At the end of title I of Division D, add

the following new section: