Brad Carson

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. 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. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. 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. CARSON of Oklahoma

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. 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.

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1205.

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge that Congress make it a top priority to reform our outdated immigration laws and policies. The tragic events of September 11th awakened most Americans to the fact that our immigration system is seriously flawed and overwhelmed by the massive numbers of foreign visitors and immigrants flowing through it into our country. We all saw then that immigration policy has serious national security impacts and weaknesses. Since that time, Congress and the Executive Branch have made a number of statutory, regulatory and policy changes that have addressed from a homeland security perspective some of the many systemic flaws in thus immigration process. Of course, a great deal remains to be done to ensure appropriate levels of safety for America. We still have 12 to 15 million, or even more, foreign immigrants living and working here illegally. Fortunately, most are not security threats and are simply seeking to improve their economic status by working here where they can make much more than in their home countries. But, undoubtedly some number are here to do us harm either as terrorists, or, more likely, by engaging in criminal activities. We must continue working to identify and expel those who pose such public safety threats. We also must address the fundamental issue of reducing the extraordinary immigration numbers that we are experiencing year after year. I believe that immigration is a good thing, and most immigrants are good people, here seeking the American Dream. However, I have no doubt that the extremely high numbers of legal and illegal immigrants we have been allowing to come here in recent years represent ``too much of a good thing''--numbers matter, and simply put, our immigration numbers, two-thirds of which are due to legal admissions, are excessive. This is especially so given the changing nature of America's labor markets, where low-skilled workers find their jobs disappearing or wages stagnating. Our labor market clearly does not need the roughly 1\1/2\ million new immigrants who move to the United States every year. Inordinately high numbers of immigrants, most of whom are less educated and relatively low skilled are having real, and often adverse, impacts on American life. Citizens and earlier immigrants, who often remain lower skilled and less educated, are suffering serious job and wage losses due to the continuing massive cheap foreign labor inflows. Such problems would be greatly lessened if we reduce both legal and illegal immigration to more moderate and sustainable levels. Congress today has the power to do so, by reviewing legal immigration policy and by genuinely enforcing a policy against illegal immigration. We have been experiencing such a large immigrant inflow now for several decades due both to lax enforcement and more importantly to statutory changes made in the 1980s and 1990s that opened the immigration floodgates to an unprecedented degree. Congress essentially reset the immigration thermostat and forgot about it, despite the increasingly obvious and serious impacts this has been having. Congress can no longer ignore the immigration numbers issue. In addition to ensuring better enforcement of our laws so as to radically curtail illegal inflows, we must readjust legal admission policies to ensure that legal immigration fits the reality of America's 21st century labor market. It has been recognized for years by those who have bothered to examine how our current system works that statutory changes are needed to eliminate a number of unnecessary admission categories. For example, the Immigration Reform Commission, chaired by the late Rep. Barbara Jordan, recommended repealing the visa lottery, which allows thousands of people to come here merely because their name was drawn in a lottery, and the extended family visa categories which spawn literally endless chain migration. For starters, I believe that we need to reduce legal admission numbers by ending the visa lottery and the so-called extended family categories that fuel foreign worker inflow by chain migration. A positive first step at reforming our outdated immigration laws would be to pass H.R. 775, the Goodlatte bill that repeals the visa lottery. As a cosponsor of that bill, I urge the House Leadership and the Judiciary Committee to act to bring the bill before the full House for action, and to advance other legislation to ensure that our legal immigration policy, coupled with our blind eye toward illegal immigration, are reviewed.

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, on Thursday, May 20, 2004, I regret that I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall Nos. 200, 201, and 202. The votes I missed include rollcall vote 200 to eliminate the 2-year Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) delay contained in H.R. 4200; rollcall vote 201 expressing the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense should assist the Iraqi Government in destroying the Abu Ghraib prison and replacing it with a modern detention facility; and rollcall vote 202 requiring the Secretary of Defense to develop a comprehensive policy to prevent and respond to sexual assaults involving members of the Armed Forces. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 200; I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 201; and I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 202.

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I would like to thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for their leadership and tireless efforts to bring this important bill to the House floor today. This bill makes significant improvements over the previous legislation and I strongly support it. Though there is much work behind us, there is still more that can be done to continue to improve our nation's transportation systems. As a representative of the state that leads the nation in the highest percentage of bridges considered structurally deficient, we must recognize the importance of investing in our nation's infrastructure both for our economic well being, as well as public safety. This bill makes valuable improvements in programs of importance to many Oklahomans. The Indian Reservation Roads program has a significant impact in Oklahoma and allows tribal governments to partner with local communities to improve roads for all Oklahomans. Bridge improvement money will hopefully take Oklahoma out of the top position in this perilous category by providing funds for the state to improve our many deficient bridges. These improvements and repairs will then allow commerce, such as our state's wheat harvest, to again use the most direct routes to get their products to market. There are transit programs, which take rural Oklahomans to jobs and healthcare, that they would otherwise have no access to without this legislation. This bill is truly good government at work. This legislation will put Americans to work like no other legislation brought to the floor during my time in Congress. For every $1 billion invested in federal highway and transit programs, 47,500 jobs are created here in the United States. These are jobs in small businesses, in rural communities and cities alike. Investing in our Nation's infrastructure is one of the best investments we can make, both for the economic benefits as well as our transportation safety on roads and transit systems all Americans use everyday. Again I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member, as well as Mr. Petri and Mr. Lipinski for their dedication to this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, in September of 2003 Oklahoma lost one of its greatest public servants, Julian Rothbaum. Although Mr. Rothbaum was a successful oilman, he was perhaps best known for his work in education and politics. A close confidant of Speaker of the House Carl Albert, Mr. Rothbaum worked diligently to support and advance education and provided advice and counsel to many including many of Oklahoma's most influential public servants. Born October 3, 1913, in Hartshorne, a small town in Southeastern Oklahoma, Mr. Rothbaum spent his life in service to his state and his country. After graduating from Hartshorne High School in 1932 as the President of his senior class, he went on to the University of Oklahoma, where he earned a bachelors degree in 1936, a law degree in 1938, and where he served as president of the student body. At OU, Mr. Rothbaum received his commission in ROTC and served his Country as a field artillery officer in World War II. After the war, he returned to Oklahoma City where he began working as an attorney. He relocated to Tulsa in 1946 when he was named the first Director of the Tulsa District of the Federal Housing Administration. Mr. Rothbaum was the youngest FHA Director in the United States at the time. Following his work With the FHA Mr. Rothbaum owned and operated a mortgage banking company, and in 1953 served as president of the Oklahoma Mortgage Banking Association. Shortly thereafter Mr. Rothbaum joined the Francis Oil and Gas Company and worked his way to chairman of the board. However, Mr. Rothbaum was not only successful in the business world and consistently devoted a great deal of time and energy to the people of Oklahoma through his work in education and politics. Widely regarded as one of Oklahoma's most generous philanthropists, Mr. Rothbaum had a huge heart and was known to write hundreds of personal notes of thanks, congratulations, and encouragement while serving on the University of Oklahoma Board of Regents. His life-long support of and dedication to education was illustrated in many ways, including his two terms on the OU Board of Regents, one term on the State Board of Regents for Higher Education, and as Special Advisor on Higher Education. As a tribute to his good friend Carl Albert, Mr. Rothbaum created and endowed a scholarship in Albert's name at every school the Speaker attended in his life, including McAlester High School, the University of Oklahoma, and Oxford University. Mr. Rothbaum also created and endowed many other awards as a way of supporting, encouraging, and strengthening education, at institutions including OU, Hartshorne High School, Carl Albert State College, and Central State University. These awards recognize a wide variety of accomplishments in many fields. He also initiated the Rothbaum Lecture Series on economics, education, and government at Eastern Oklahoma State College in Wilburton. For all of his hard work and dedication to the people of Oklahoma, Mr. Rothbaum was presented for induction into the Oklahoma Hall of Fame by his good friend Speaker Albert in 1986. Mr. Rothbaum also received many other awards and accolades throughout his life, and, though he was grateful for each, he always preferred to give rather than to receive. In addition to his work with education, Mr. Rothbaum also served as an ardent supporter and advisor to many in Oklahoma politics, including Speaker Albert, former Governors George Nigh, David Boren, and David Walters, and many more. His interest in politics was grounded in the belief that the government should help people and that in order to make a better world, good competent people should be involved in politics. He believed in promise and possibility and lived his life as a shining example to all those whose lives he touched. On a more personal note, Mr. Rothbaum was also a beloved husband, father, grandfather, and great grandfather. Preceded in death in 1996 by Irene, his wife of 47 years, Mr. Rothbaum is survived by a daughter, Sue McCoy, of San Jose, California; a son, Joel Jankowsky, of Washington, DC; five grandchildren; and four great grandchildren. In all aspects of his life Mr. Rothbaum is remembered by everyone who knew him as a warm, kind, generous, caring and down-to-earth person who genuinely wanted to make this world, his country, and his state a better place to live. In commemoration of his life, his works and his impact on the people of Oklahoma, Governor Brad Henry dedicated September 29, 2003, as Julian Rothbaum Day. The State of Oklahoma has had no greater benefactor than Julian Rothbaum. He believed in the promise of our State and, most of all, in the importance of education to improve Oklahoma. He had such love for public service and no person had a greater impact behind the scenes on Oklahoma politics than did Julian. His life and legacy has and will continue to touch people in many ways. The State of Oklahoma is poorer for his passing.

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, Cliff ``C.J.'' Guffey is the Executive Vice President of the American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO. Vice President Guffey was elected as the Executive Vice President of the American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO in November 2002. Prior to his election to the American Postal Worker's Union's second highest elected office, he served as Assistant Director, Clerk Division from 1986 to 1999. Prior to serving as an officer at the American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO headquarters he was President of the Oklahoma City Area Local from 1979 to 1986. Vice President Guffey's job within the Postal Service was as an LSM Operator with brief tenure at a station. Vice President Guffey also served with the United States Marine Corps from 1968 to 1970 as a rifleman in the 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marine Division in Viet Nam. Vice President Guffey was born in Shawnee, Oklahoma. His father was a career navy pilot with the United States Navy and he and the family were stationed around the world living in: Hawaii, Naples Italy, San Diego and Alabama, just to mention a few. Cliff is married with children and numerous grandchildren. He and his wife Donna reside in Virginia. Cliff and Wife Donna, have two daughters; Carrie and Terrie. Daughter Carrie is married to Matt Benjamin. Daughter Terrie is married to Derek Kilgo.

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in opposition to my good friend the gentleman from California's (Mr. Filner) motion to instruct conferees on the Energy Policy Act of 2003. This motion will instruct conferees to drop a critical provision of domestic oil and natural gas production which would negatively impact this very important industry in my home State of Oklahoma and throughout the country. The provision in the Energy Policy Act simply clarifies current confusion in the Clean Water Act that has led the Environmental Protection Agency to believe it should regulate storm water discharges resulting from the construction of exploration and production facilities under a different standard than operating facilities. This was never the intent of Congress. The Energy Policy Act would clarify that one permitting standard would apply to both construction and operation of exploration and production facilities. This provides for sound, consistent and cost- effective regulations designed for the conditions associated with oil and natural gas facilities to be developed. I respectfully request that my colleagues join me in opposing the Filner motion to instruct. I appreciate the granting of the time.

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to acknowledge the achievements of the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association. I commend the association for its work in creating an unparalleled quality of life in the United States, and I challenge its members to continue this standard of excellence. The National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, previously the National Quarry Owners Association, was founded in 1903 and today we celebrate its 100th anniversary. In the course of these 100 years, the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association has worked tirelessly to ensure a strong infrastructure and transportation system for this nation. An international trade association, the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association represents producers of construction aggregates and, measured by product volume, is the largest mining trade association in the world. The National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association has made a vital contribution to the nation's economy. The transportation system, as well as homes, office buildings, schools, and hospitals, all have been created and maintained through the use of aggregates. This extraordinary contribution to the nation's economy has created an unprecedented quality of life for our citizens, helping to make the United States economy the largest and strongest in the world. The use of sand, stone, and gravel aggregates provides many environmental benefits. Providing control of erosion and floods, improving reclaimed land and water, creating and enhancing wildlife habitats, and constructing water and sewage treatment plants are only a few benefits of aggregates. In addition, the association has sponsored numerous educational seminars and encouraged its members in an unwavering commitment to safety in the workplace. Therefore, I rise today to congratulate the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association on the occasion of this 100th milestone. I challenge this organization to continue its commitment to the tradition of excellence born a century ago by increasing its research and development for the benefit of our citizens and by continuing to support a strong transportation infrastructure in this great nation.

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I am here to voice my strong objections to the language included in the fiscal year 2004 Interior appropriations bill. This language, as has been discussed, delays justice to over 500,000 individual Indian money account holders. I represent a district with the most heavily Native American population in the entire country. And as a member of the Committee on Resources, the committee with jurisdiction over this important matter, I had no opportunity nor ability to participate in discussion on this language's effect on my constituents. For this reason, although I am a strong supporter of a number of provisions in this bill, I cannot in good conscience vote for it. I respectfully request that my colleagues vote yes on the motion to recommit and no on final passage.

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1626.

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 1409, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Land Exchange Act, and I rise in strong support of that bill. This particular bill has personal and professional interest to me as my father was a long-time housing agent on the Eastern Band of Cherokee's reservation, and I spent several years of my youth in the beautiful Smoky Mountains. The Great Smoky Mountains, which are very beautiful, offer a rich cultural heritage to the Eastern Band of Cherokees; but sadly, they provide little in the way of developmental land. This legislation today, as other speakers have said, is necessary to provide for the educational and cultural benefits of the Eastern Band of Cherokees by enabling the tribe to construct three new school facilities: one elementary, one middle school, and one high school. The current facilities, as the pictures we have seen show, are greatly in need of replacement. The Cherokee Elementary School, to take one example, was built by the Department of the Interior over 40 years ago with the capacity to hold 480 students. Today, this facility holds approximately 800 students. To accommodate all of the students, the school has been forced to add temporary facilities. In addition, the main school and temporary facilities are located at a dangerous highway intersection in downtown Cherokee, North Carolina. Today, the tribe offers the National Park Service, in exchange for the 143-acre Ravensford Tract, 218 acres of highly desirable, pristine land. The building of this new facility will enable the Eastern Band of Cherokees to teach Cherokee language and culture so as to foster and preserve tribal practices for future generations. I can think of no better use for a tract of land than the construction of a complex to further the educational and cultural pursuits of Eastern Band children and to replace the current overcrowded and aging schools. After all, the key to a brighter future for Indian country runs through the classroom door. I believe the Federal Government must actively assist the tribe in this endeavor, and I respectfully urge my colleagues to vote in support of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indian Land Exchange Act.

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am honored and pleased to support H.R. 1668, a bill I introduced to designate the courthouse in Muskogee, Oklahoma, as the Ed Edmondson United States Courthouse. Congressman Edmondson devoted his life to the service of the country and people of Oklahoma. It was a call to service that many members of his family, past and present, have answered. Congressman Edmond A. Edmondson was born in Muskogee, Oklahoma, on April 7, 1919. And after graduating from the University of Oklahoma in 1940, he came to Washington, D.C. to study law at Georgetown University. While working on his studies, he became a tour guide at the Federal Bureau of Investigation and was quickly elevated to clerk and then special agent. His studies and service to the FBI were interrupted by a call to higher duty in the Navy during World War II where he served for 25 months in the South Pacific. During the war he met and married his lovely wife, June, who was serving as a WAVE in the war effort. After the war, Congressman Edmondson's military service continued until 1970 in the United States Naval Reserve. After returning from the war and completing his education, Congressman Edmondson returned to Oklahoma to serve as county attorney in 1949, until he was elected to represent the people of the Second Congressional District of Oklahoma in 1952. During his time in Congress, he served on the Committee on Public Works and the Committee for Interior and Insular Affairs, until he left the House to run for the United Nations Senate in 1972. As a member of the Committee on Public Works, he championed water projects, especially for arid Western lands. Congressman Edmondson was a supporter of programs of the new frontier and also a champion of veterans like himself. His political style helped lay the foundation for Oklahoma's conservative Democratic traditions. He had a tremendous respect for public service and came from a politically active family. His brother, J. Howard Edmondson, served as the Governor of Oklahoma, and his work inspired many people, including two of his own sons, to make careers in the public sector and to work for the people of Oklahoma. His son, Drew Edmondson, is today the attorney general of Oklahoma; and his other son, Jim, is a State district judge in Muskogee County. The naming of this Federal building in the honor of Ed Edmondson would commemorate his long-time service to his community and to his State. I ask Members' support for this legislation. I thank Members for the opportunity to commemorate this great Oklahoman with this honor. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 898.

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 1036, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. As my esteemed colleagues have discussed, H.R. 1036 would prohibit civil lawsuits from being brought against gun manufacturers by parties that have been injured by the unlawful use of firearms. Mr. Chairman, I am a great believer in personal responsibility. It is one of the key principles upon which America was founded. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act would strengthen this great notion. Imposing liability on an entire industry for harm caused solely by the unlawful actions of others is an abuse of the United States legal system--it undermines public confidence in our judicial system and threatens the viability of law-abiding companies. Frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry are nothing more than an attack on the Second Amendment. It seems a logical anti-gun tactic to me, if you can't lawfully prevent the sale of guns, then you go after the people who sell guns and make them afraid to sell their lawful products for fear of incurring substantial financial liability. Thus far, these frivolous and merit-less lawsuits have had little success in court. Their only success is in placing an enormous financial burden on gun manufacturers. However, these litigation costs are then passed onto consumers and makes it more difficult law-abiding citizens to own guns. In the end, the ones who suffer the most are law- abiding consumers. H.R. 1036 would help protect our second amendment rights by protecting legitimate businesses that comply with Federal, State and local gun laws. It is time to stop these frivolous lawsuits that threaten to bankrupt a responsible American industry by blaming the firearm industry for the actions of criminals. I urge my colleagues to support the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1036, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. As my esteemed colleagues have discussed, H.R. 1036 would prohibit civil lawsuits from being brought against gun manufacturers by parties that have been injured by the unlawful use of firearms. Mr. Chairman, I am a great believer in personal responsibility. It is one of the key principles upon which America was founded. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act would strengthen this great notion. Imposing liability on an entire industry for harm caused solely by the unlawful actions of others is an abuse of the United States legal system--it undermines public confidence in our judicial system and threatens the viability of law-abiding companies. Frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry are nothing more than an attack on the Second Amendment. It seems a logical anti-gun tactic to me, if you can't lawfully prevent the sale of guns, then you go after the people who sell guns and make them afraid to sell their lawful products for fear of incurring substantial financial liability. Thus far, these frivolous and merit-less lawsuits have had little success in court. Their only success is in placing an enormous financial burden on gun manufacturers. However, these litigation costs are then passed onto consumers and makes it more difficult law-abiding citizens to own guns. In the end, the ones who suffer the most are law- abiding consumers. H.R. 1036 would help protect our Second Amendment rights by protecting legitimate businesses that comply with federal, state and local gun laws. It is time to stop these frivolous lawsuits that threaten to bankrupt a responsible American industry by blaming the firearm industry for the actions of criminals. I urge my colleagues to support the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I stand today to recognize almost 1,200 constituents of mine whose job is unknown to most Americans. They go to work every day at a 45,000 acre compound the size of the District of Columbia with a sense of pride and patriotism as they do their part to help this country defend our freedoms and fight the war on terrorism. Ever since October, 1943, the McAlester Ammunition Depot has led our country in the production of ammunitions. Through World War II, the depot employed 8,000 people and produced 325,000 tons of ammunition. During the Korean and Vietnam Wars, the depot employed more than 3,000 workers. Today, this state-of-the-art maintenance and renovation facility for the weaponry of the United States Armed Forces continues to build vital ammo to defend and protect our great country. These workers, most all of them civilians, come to work every single day with a very deep understanding about the purpose of their job. As one worker who has passed through those guarded gates for the last 14 years stated, ``I have always felt a lot of pride having a job here. But now, when I come through that front gate, I just feel so good knowing that what we do supports the people who are out there really taking care of this country.'' Mr. Speaker, I will close by saying that I am proud and honored that I can call these 1,200 workers my constituents; and at a time when our Nation is at war, let us not forget those men and women in and out of uniform who dedicate their lives so that we can all live in peace and freedom.

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure today to welcome Pastor Wayne Jenkins from First Baptist Church of Alexandria, Virginia, as our guest chaplain. Pastor Jenkins has served as the Pastor for Education and Married Adults for 8 years. His wife of 34 years, Carolyn Jenkins, is the Minister of Education at Downtown Baptist Church in Alexandria, and they have two adult children, Rand Jenkins who works with the Baptist General Convention of Texas and lives in Fort Worth with his wife, Denise, and Clare Jenkins, who serves on my staff as a legislative assistant. A man of strong faith, members of his church and community recognize Pastor Jenkins as a wise spiritual leader and encourager. As Pastor of Education and Married Adults, Pastor Jenkins enjoys a wide range of ministry at First Baptist and impacts lives through counseling, teaching and preaching. Pastor Jenkins leads a growing ministry for developing Christians, starting 40 new Bible study classes in 5 years and baptizing 82 into the faith last year. Throughout his career of over 30 years, Pastor Jenkins has demonstrated consistent church leadership and a passion for God's service. Admired by his parishioners and loved by his family, it is my pleasure to introduce Pastor Jenkins today, and I thank him for giving us a wonderful word to start our business this morning.

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, for more than a decade, American foreign policy has struggled to define its role in the post-Cold War world. Unsure of when to use military force, how to use it, and with which allies, we have stumbled from engagement to ad hoc engagement from Somalia to Kosovo. We have at times acted hastily in the world; more often, far too late. Our recent fecklessness points up the foreign policy confusion that the welcome end of the long war with totalitarianism has left with us. Confronted with the Soviet Union, Democrats and Republicans were united in the goals of containment and deterrence, this latter purpose backed up by the threat of nuclear annihilation. Such strategies are, of course, still not outdated, as we face an unstable Russia and a growing China, both armed with significant nuclear arsenals. But the primacy of these doctrines has no doubt receded with the Peace of Paris and with the difficult challenges that have arisen since. As our Nation enters the 21st century, we are confronted by some of these challenges, like humanitarian crises in Somalia which are brought into our homes through the global reach of communications technology, and world opinion demands action to bring relief. Ethnic cleansing, with its echoes of the Holocaust, insist that the United States and its Western allies make good on the promise of ``never again.'' And the spread of weapons of mass destruction, which means that, for the first time in history, a nonstate actor can inflict lethal harm on a State, compels us to develop new doctrines of defense. It is amidst this intellectual muddle that the current crisis with Iraq arises. There are certain undeniable facts about Saddam Hussein, who has so ruthlessly ruled Iraq for more than 20 years. He alone in the world has used chemical weapons, against his own people. He has a sophisticated biological weapons program. Most importantly, he has an insatiable appetite for nuclear weapons, which, but for the foresight of Israel and the success of the Gulf War, he would already possess. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein has repeatedly tried to dominate the Middle East, a region of critical importance to the United States. These facts alone dictate immediate action to disarm Iraq. If Saddam Hussein were to acquire a nuclear weapon, he would be able to muscle surrounding states, as he attempted to do with Kuwait in 1990, with relative impunity, for the threat of nuclear reprisal would deter all but the most determined vindicators of international law and Middle East stability. Were Saddam Hussein to control not only his own mighty oil fields but also those of his neighbors, the havoc to the world economy could not be overestimated, as would the danger to our long-standing ally, Israel. Many people over the last 2 days have spoken eloquently of the need for United Nations approval before any American action against Iraq. President Bush was wise to recently address the U.N., and I am confident that the United Nations will acknowledge the need to enforce its own resolutions demanding the disarmament of Iraq; and recognize, too, that only the threat of military force can make those demands understood. But if the United Nations itself has so little self-regard as to not demand compliance by Iraq, then that body's impotence should not forestall the United States from making the world's demands on its own. While consistency is not always valued highly in Congress, my own party would well remember that President Bill Clinton chose to take action in Kosovo without any approval from the Security Council; indeed, against the opposition of at least one permanent Security Council member, but with the approval of most Democrats in the House of Representatives. Still others of my colleagues have suggested that we must wait for further provocation by Iraq. Somehow, they argue, it is against the American tradition to take preventative military action; or they argue that Iraq can be deterred in the same manner as was the Soviet Union. Grenada, Panama, and Haiti rebut the notion that the United States is a stranger to unilateral preventative action, as does the commonsense realization that times have changed, and it is not so much the detonation of a nuclear bomb that threatens the United States but Iraq's mere possession of such a weapon. Deterrence works well when it must, but the assumption that all are deterrable is, in the wake of September 11, on very shaky footing, indeed. There is, in the end, no choice about disarmament. The only alternatives are between forced agreement or nonconsensual military force. Paradoxically, it is the threat of force which we authorize in this resolution that offers the best chance for a peaceful disarmament. The authorization of force, which has in recent years taken the place of formal declarations of war, is the most grave and momentous decision anyone in Congress can make, but we will authorize force against Iraq tomorrow, and we will be right to do so. We will be right not because we desire war with Iraq, but because we desire to prevent it; right not because we lead this cause, but because no one else will; and right not because war is our first resort, but, unlike Iraq, it is always our last.

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 448.

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins) for his great leadership on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Utah Mr. Hansen and the gentleman from West Virginia Mr. Rahall for working on the details of the bill, supporting it and bringing it to the Floor. I would also like to take this opportunity to extend a special thank you to my colleagues the gentleman from Oklahoma Mr. Watkins, the gentleman from Oklahoma Mr. Sullivan, and the gentleman from Michigan Mr. Kildee for their strong support and co-sponsorship of this legislation. I rise in strong support of H.R. 3534, the Cherokee, Chacotaw, and Chickasaw Nations Claims Settlement Act. The dispute involving the three tribes along the Arkansas River has been ongoing since 1907. This settlement will lay to rest and compensate these three tribes for the lands and resources that have been wrongfully taken from them, misused, and left dormant. The leaders of the tribal nations--Principal Chief Chad Smith of the Cherokee Nation, Governor Bill Anoatubby of the Chickasaw Nation and Chief Gregory Pyle of the Choctaw Nation have all communicated to me and the Resources Committee their unanimous support for the legislation and the great need for settlement. First, in order to understand the need for this legislation, you must turn to the history of these tribal lands. In the 1830s, the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek and Seminole Nations were forcibly removed to Indian Territory, now known as Oklahoma, to occupy lands ceded to them by the United States, through which the Arkansas River runs. In 1907, due to an erroneous legal opinion, the Arkansas riverbed was conveyed to the new State of Oklahoma. All navigable rivers of the United States were deemed property of the State under the Equal Footing Doctrine. However, the treaties of the three tribes came long before the Equal Footing Doctrine. And, in 1970, in Choctaw Nation vs. Oklahoma, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the tribes and determined that the tribes, indeed, were the rightful owners of the riverbed and not the State of Oklahoma. Nevertheless, from 1907 through 1970, the Bureau of Indian Affairs acted on the assumption that Oklahoma owned the riverbed and, therefore, took no action to protect tribal resources such as oil and gas production, sand and gravel, grazing and croplands. The Government itself constructed hydroelectric powerheads and other improvements in the channel of the river on tribal lands, using sand and gravel belonging to the three Indian Nations. Due to the Bureau's inaction, individuals with property near the Arkansas River also began to occupy the three Indian Nations' ``dry-bed'' lands--amounting to approximately 7,750 acres of land that was under water at the time of statehood but that is now dry due to changes in the course of the river. Enactment of H.R. 3534 will bring about clear and tangible benefits to Indians and non-Indians. In exchange for $40 million dollars provided to the Nations under this settlement legislation, the Indian Nations agree to dismiss and release claims asserted against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims. The Indian Nations also agree to disclaim its right, title and interest in the 7,750 acres of disclaimed drybed lands, thus eliminating the need for the Department of Justice to bring hundreds of defendants into court due to their occupancy on parts of the drybed lands. The Indian Nations reserve the beneficial interest and title to all other Riverbed lands, including minerals, and the right, title and interest that each Nation may have in any water flowing in the Arkansas River and its tributaries. H.R. 3534 directs that the $40 million dollars be disbursed in four annual installments and deposited into a tribal trust fund for the Indian Nations. I would like to make it clear that the funds appropriated into the tribal trust funds are to be made available to the tribes as the funds are appropriated. This will assist the Indian Nations in further economic development in the region, benefiting Indian and non-Indian members of these communities alike. Since the Supreme Court decision of 1970, there has been little disagreement that a settlement should be reached. Recent discussions between Federal, State and tribal entities involved in this dispute have been extremely productive and make the 107th Congress a most appropriate time for settlement. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and bring closure to an issue that has plagued eastern Oklahoma for far too long. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.