John Doolittle

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the author of the legislation. (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 659) to authorize appropriations for the protection of Paoli and Brandywine Battlefields in Pennsylvania, to direct the National Park Service to conduct a special resource study of Paoli and Brandywine Battlefields, to authorize the Valley Forge Museum of the American Revolution at Valley Forge National Historical Park, and for other purposes.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2821) to amend the North American Wetlands Conservation Act to provide for appointment of 2 additional members of the North American Wetlands Conservation Council, as amended.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Madam Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote; I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill), the distinguished author of the legislation. (Mr. HILL of Montana asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2140) to improve protection and management of the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area in the State of Georgia, as amended.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, at the recent convention of the Council of Khalistan, held October 9 and 10 in New York, the delegates passed a resolution to nominate Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President of the Council of Khalistan, for the Nobel Peace Prize. I believe that he would be an excellent candidate. Dr. Aulakh's organization leads the struggle to liberate Khalistan, the Sikh homeland, from Indian occupation. It is committed to peaceful action to achieve that goal. While the Indian government continues to murder, kidnap, and torture Sikhs, Dr. Aulakh has been a clear and strong voice for freedom. Dr. Aulakh would be an excellent recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. I urge the Nobel Prize committee to act favorably on his impending nomination. Mr. Speaker, I will place the Council of Khalistan's resolution nominating Dr. Aulakh for the Nobel Prize into the Record. Resolution Recommending Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh for the Nobel Peace Prize Passed at the Convention of the Council of Khalistan October 9-10, 1999, Richmond Hill, N.Y. Whereas Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President of the Council of Khalistan, has worked tirelessly to liberate the Sikh homeland, Khalistan; Whereas Dr. Aulakh is committed to promoting a Shantmai Morcha, or peaceful agitation, to liberate Khalistan, as well as free and fair plebiscite; Whereas Dr. Aulakh and the Council of Khalistan have consistently rejected militancy as a means of liberating Khalistan; Whereas Dr. Aulakh's efforts have helped to expose Indian genocide against the Sikhs, Christians, Muslims, Dalits, and others; and Whereas he has worked with the U.S. Congress, the American media, the United Nations, and the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization to promote the peaceful, democratic, nonviolent movement for Sikh freedom; Therefore be it Resolved by the delegates of this convention to the Council of Khalistan: That we recommend Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh for the Nobel Peace Prize; and That his name should be submitted to the Nobel Prize Committee at the first opportunity.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, when I picked up my Washington Times on October 7, I was pleased to see a letter from Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, whom many of us know well. Dr. Aulakh, who is the President of the Council of Khalistan, wrote about the Sikh independence struggle. He noted that Sikhs are ``culturally, religiously, and linguistically distinct from Hindu India'' and that they ruled Punjab independently for many years before the British conquered the subcontinent. Dr. Aulakh's letter asked why India, which prides itself on being democratic, doesn't hold a plebiscite in Punjab, Khalistan on the question of independence. That is the democratic way to do things. But India appears to care more about achieving hegemony in South Asia than it does about the democratic principles it proclaims. It is interesting that this letter ran on the 12th anniversary of the day the Sikh nation declared the independence of the Sikh homeland, Punjab, naming their new country Khalistan. The recent elections in India underline the instability of India's multiethnic state. India has 18 official languages and Christians, Sikhs, Muslims, and others suffer from religious persecution. Many experts predict that India will soon break up. America and the world should support the freedom movements in Khalistan, Kashmir, Nagaland, Assam, and the other nations seeking their freedom from India. We should cut American aid to India until it learns to respect human rights and we should work for an internationally-supervised plebiscite in Punjab, Khalistan, in Kashmir, in Nagaland, and in all the other areas seeking independence, on the question of their future political status. Mr. Speaker, I insert Dr. Aulakh's letter into the Record. I hope that my colleagues will read it. [From the Washington Times, Oct. 7, 1999] Sikh Independence Deserves International Support (By Gurmit Singh Aulakh) We appreciate Arnold Beichman's mention of the Sikh struggle for an independent Khalistan (``Crossing the mini- state frontier,'' Commentary, Sept. 23). Sikhs are culturally, linguistically and religiously distinct from Hindu India, and we have a history of self-rule in Punjab. Sikhs are a separate nation. Sikhs drove foreign invaders out of the subcontinent in the 18th century. Banda Singh Bahadar established Khalsa rule in Punjab in 1710. The Sikh rule lasted until 1716. Sikh rule was re-established in 1765, lasting until the British conquest of 1849. Sikh rule extended to Kabul and was considered one of the powers in South Asia. Since then, the Sikh nation has been struggling to regain its sovereignty. No Sikh has ever signed the Indian constitution. On Oct. 7, 1987, the Sikh nation declared its independence, forming the separate nation of Khalistan. Our effort to liberate Khalistan is peaceful, democratic and nonviolent, but our declaration of independence is irrevocable and nonnegotiable. India claims that the struggle for independence is over. If that is the case, why doesn't ``the world's largest democracy'' hold a plebiscite in Punjab to decide the question of independence the democratic way? India is not one country. It is an empire of many countries that was thrown together by the British for their administrative convenience. Like the former Soviet Union, it is destined to fall apart. In the June 17, 1994, issue of Strategic Investment, Jack Wheeler of the Freedom Research Foundation predicted that within 10 years, India ``will cease to exist as we know [it].'' Stanley Wolpert, a professor at the University of California in Los Angeles who wrote a biography on the late Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, predicted on CNN that both India and Pakistan will soon break up. Sikhs oppose tyranny wherever it rears its head. Consequently, we support freedom for the people of Kashmir, Nagaland and other countries seeking their freedom. The world helped East Timor achieve its freedom. The world helped Kosovo achieve its freedom. It is time for the free nations of the world to cut off aid to India and support an internationally supervised plebiscite to help the people of Khalistan, Kashmir, Nagaland and all nations of South Asia to achieve their freedom.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I was distressed to read an article from the Indian Express of September 24 which reported that a nun was abducted in the Indian state of Bihar. This is the state where a priest was beheaded last year. Will the religious violence in India never stop? I thank Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President of the Council of Khalistan, for bringing this terrible event to my attention. Sister Ruby of the Congregation of the Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary was abducted September 20 after being forced into a rickshaw in the village of Chapra. The kidnappers threatened to rape her. The two men accused Sister Ruby of trying to convert Hindus and they threatened to ``teach all Christians a lesson.'' This is unfortunately typical. Christians were subjected to a wave of church burnings, as well as attacks on prayer halls and schools earlier this year. Another priest was murdered last week. Missionary Graham Staines and his two sons, ages 8 and 10, were burned to death while they slept in their Jeep by a Hindu fundamentalist mob. Last year four nuns were raped and four priests were murdered. In 1997, police broke up a Christian festival with gunfire. These incidents are related to religious conversions by members of the lower castes. To the Hindu militants, all conversions are forced conversions. But it is not just the Christians who have suffered from this kind of religious persecution. Many of my colleagues and I have detailed the religious repression of Sikhs and Muslims by the Indian government and its agents and allies. Sikhs continue to be murdered for their religion and their Golden Temple remains under surveillance by plainclothes police officers fifteen years after the Indian government's attack on the Sikh Nation's holiest shrine. Muslims have seen their most revered mosque in India destroyed and many of their adherents killed. We should support the right of the minority peoples of Khalistan, Kashmir, and Nagaland to a free and fair vote on independence from India. Mr. Speaker, I insert the Indian Express report on the abduction of Sister Ruby into the Record. [From the Indian Express, Sept. 24, 1999] Nun Kidnapped, Stripped in Bihar; Bishops Protest (By Arun Srivastava) Patna.--A nun was kidnapped, tied up and stripped in Chapra on September 20. The nun, belonging to the congregation of the Sisters of the Immaculate Heart (better known as Pondicherry Blue Sisters), was forcefully taken in an autorickshaw by two unidentified men on Monday morning to a secluded spot. Her hands were tied behind her back, she was stripped and was forced to drink their urine. The nun, who hails from Pondicherry, came to Bihar recently and does not know the dialect. She is an inmate of the St. Joseph's Convent in Khalpura Inchapra which is involved in working with the poorest of the poor. She had left her convent around 9 in the morning for Gandhi Chowk from where she took an autorickshaw for the local post office. There were two men in the autorickshaw. When she realised that she was being taken through an unfamiliar route, she asked to be dropped off. They did not stop the vehicle and one of them took out a knife, threatened to kill her and accused her of converting people. He asked her why she and others were still in Chapra and why they have not left for south India. He told her that Christians would be taught a lesson once the elections were over. According to the Bishop of Bettiah, who in a statement narrated the whole incident, the nun was dragged out of the vehicle, her hands tied and then she was stripped. The two men urinated in a bottle and threatened to rape her when she refused to drink. Later she was given back her clothes and warned not to contact anyone on the phone. One of the attackers followed to make sure that she did as told. Director General of Police A R Jacob said: ``I have been briefed by the Bishop of Patna about the incident.'' He added: ``Right now, I am unable to say anything about the incident. But I am seriously looking into it. I can assure that no one will be spared.'' Jacob has assigned IG A K Gupta and the SP of Chapra to ``personally investigate the matter.'' He has also sent to Chapra a senior woman officer who knows Tamil to investigate the incident. The DGP said the FIR was filed only today as the local police station refused to register the case yesterday because the petition was in English. He is also looking into the delay in registering the case. The Bishop of Bettiah, Rev Victor Henry Thakur, visited the convent. The Archbishop Benedict J Osta and the Bishop of Bettiah have strongly condemned the outrageous attack and have demanded a thorough probe. They stated that the Christians will not be frightened by such threats and will continue to serve the poor and the distressed more zealously. Allen R Johannes, press secretary of the Diocese of Bettiah, said the ugly and inhuman act has shocked the entire Christian community in North Bihar and is creating an atmosphere of fear and panic among the Christian minority as the news spreads over the state.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just observe how odd that the Constitution would give the individual the right to freedom of religion, the right to free speech, then give a right to the State about keeping and bearing arms and then go back to the right of the individual to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. It just does not flow. The fact of the matter is, the gentleman says there is no Supreme Court decision that supports my position. I have quoted the author of the Second Amendment and of the Constitution, James Madison, and of contemporaries who voted on the amendment themselves. Those are the ones the Supreme Court looks to when it renders its decision. Are the Supreme Court decisions muddled on this issue? Yes. Have we had a Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment in the last 60 years before the gentleman and I were even in existence here on this Earth? We have not. So the fact of the matter is, we need the Supreme Court to speak out, but I did say what one member of the Court said, Justice Scalia. I do want to just also point out with reference to the Brady law, this book contains the most comprehensive study of gun control laws ever done. It is entitled, More Guns, Less Crime, Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. It is by John R. Lott, Jr. So with that background, I just want to cite this statement in rebuttal of what the gentleman said. No statistically significant evidence has appeared that the Brady law has reduced crime and there is some statistically significant evidence that rates for rape and aggravated assault have actually risen by about 4 percent relative to what they would have been without the law. So here are the facts and the statistics, but better than that we have the Constitution itself. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I find it unbelievable, that we are the ones who are accused of distorting the Second Amendment. The gentleman from Virginia submitted a list of cases which he claims supports his position. I will tell my colleagues, not one of those cases that he has submitted supports the proposition that the Second Amendment is not an individual right, because the U.S. Supreme Court has never so held. I heard Justice Burger quoted. He is not a member of the Supreme Court anymore. But Justice Scalia is, and he just wrote it is an individual right. He is a well-known conservative on the court, but let us take a well-known liberal, not on the court, but a legal scholar known to all, Laurence Tribe who, in his latest treatise, has just acknowledged that the Second Amendment is, surprise, a personal right. Is Laurence Tribe committing gross distortions? I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is clear what Madison and the founders intended, and I have submitted a list of his statements and other statements of the Founders to be in the Record. It is very clear they believed it to be an individual right. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) got up here and said well, the Second Amendment is outdated. Well, in view of all of the violent crime we are seeing, we ought to have a little more of the Second Amendment, and we would reduce some of that crime. But the fact of the matter is if the Second Amendment is outdated, then introduce a bill in Congress to repeal it and submit it to the States for ratification. That is the procedure we go through. Alternatively, he can abandon or waive his Second Amendment rights, but do not waive mine and do not waive the rights of the people I represent and the people we collectively represent. Mr. Speaker, I would submit that it clearly is an individual right. Reference to slavery was made. I cannot resist doing this. The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott decision, rendered a lengthy opinion. In that opinion, the supporter argued that the States adopting the Constitution could not have meant to consider even free blacks as citizens, and outlined the rights which black Americans would have if given citizenship. And then in Dred Scott they outlined these rights that blacks would have if indeed they had been citizens at the time. Guess what one of them was? I am quoting from Dred Scott: ``And to keep and carry arms wherever they went.'' So that was Dred Scott. Now, we fought a Civil War over that. When the slaves were freed as a result of the Civil War, the southern States reenacted the slave codes, which made it illegal for blacks to exercise basic civil rights, including the right to purchase, own, and carry firearms. So then the co-equal branch of Congress to the Supreme Court responded to this action of the States by passing the Freedmen's Bureau Act of 1866, which provided ``the right . . . to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of estate, real and personal, including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens of each State or district without respect to race or color or previous condition of slavery.'' That was what the Congress did in 1866 by passing that law. Obviously, they believed that citizens had the right to keep and bear arms because they put it right there in the Federal statute. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler). (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, what is great about this issue is we can quote liberals and make our point. I quoted Lawrence Tribe who says it is a personal right. I am going to quote the icon of liberal journalism throughout the country, the Washington Post. Sunday, September 19, 1999, the headline, and this is in the front page of the paper by the way, ``Gun controls limited aim bills. Would not have stopped recent killings''. For weeks we have heard people come up here on the other side and orate about the terrible killings that have occurred, and, yes, they are terrible. What is also terrible is that they have represented that the bills, the legislation that they are trying to pass would have prevented them. What this article goes on to say, if I may quote, ``None of the gun control legislation under discussion in Congress would have prevented the purchase of weapons by shooters in a recent spate of firearms violence, including last week's massacre at a Texas church, gun control supporters and opponents agree.'' The fact of the matter is I find the left's approach on gun control is just like it is on the so-called campaign finance reform. The assault on the Second Amendment is just like the assault on the First Amendment. These things do not work. They are undesirable. They are unconstitutional. But they do not give up. The more violence we hear about, the more shootings we have, the more bad legislation that comes forward promising to do something when, in fact, what they have already given us has utterly failed. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, we need to take a new approach. Here is an interesting quote by the way, just to see what the other half of society thinks about all of this, the criminal half. This is a quote from Sammy ``The Bull'' Gravano, former Mafia member. Check this one out: Gun control, it's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you, the law-abiding citizen, to have nothing. If I am the bad guy, I am always going to have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I will pull the trigger without the safety lock. We will see who wins. This is tragic that we continue to push this disastrous legislation which strips us of our constitutional right and, further more, which does not even work, which disarms the very communities that need protection. I told my colleagues about this book, More Guns, Less Crime, by John R. Lott, Jr., the most exhaustive authoritative statistical analysis of gun control laws in the United States. Let me just quickly cite some points that he makes in his conclusions in this book, because I think it illustrates what we are really up against. Point number one, ``Preventing law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns does not end violence; it merely makes victims more vulnerable to attack.'' So now we have the professor saying this, agreeing with the former Mafia member, and, by the way, agreeing with what we all know is perfect common sense. Number two, ``My estimates indicate that waiting periods and background checks appear to produce little if any crime deterrence.'' Most exhaustive study ever done. Point number three, ``The evidence also indicates that the states with the most guns have the lowest crime rates. Urban areas may experience the most violent crime, but they also have the smallest number of guns.'' Point number four, ``Allowing citizens without criminal records or histories of significant mental illness to carry concealed handguns deters violent crimes and appears to produce an extremely small and statistically insignificant change in accidental deaths. If the rest of the country had adopted right-to-carry concealed-handgun provisions in 1992, about 1,500 murders and 4,000 rapes would have been avoided.'' This approach works. Our constitutional approach works. Our constitutional approach is still the law. Because the other side cannot manage to change the law, it does not give them the right to do an end run and try and pass a bill through Congress which strips us of our sacred constitutional rights. I ask my colleagues to vote for my motion.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time each side has remaining.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Second Amendment has everything to do with it; that is my point. The proponents of unconstitutional gun control want to avoid the Constitution because we do have a Second Amendment, and that cuts against them, so they want to talk about gun safety and how they have such reasonable, responsible proposals, proposals which have never worked, which have utterly failed. Crime continues to get worse or has gotten worse until demographic trends kicked in in the early 1990's, having nothing to do with gun control, and yet we continue to see these relentless efforts by our left wing advanced to take away our precious fundamental rights. So I believe it has everything to do with it. The issue is precisely joined here, and that is why I began with talking about the Second Amendment and with the statements of the author of the Second Amendment, and with contemporaries who wrote and voted on the Second Amendment back in the days when it was approved. I just think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that that be noted. I also want to point out that the Supreme Court has never ruled that the Second Amendment is not an individual right. Interestingly enough, Justice Scalia has come out with a book recently where he says it is a personal right. Now, that is one member of the Court, I stipulate, but nevertheless it is a member of the Court. Justice Thomas in the Printz case, which thankfully overturned the Brady law, it was a great decision, made this observation, This court has not had recent occasion to consider the nature of the substantive rights safeguarded by the Second Amendment. If, however, the Second Amendment is read to confer a personal right to keep and bear arms, a colorable argument exists that the Federal Government's regulatory scheme, at least as it pertains to the purely intrastate sale or possession of firearms, runs afoul of the amendment's protections. So the fact of the matter is, it has been some 60 years since the Supreme Court has actually interpreted the Second Amendment. We may have a case heading there now, and we will finally get to hear what the justices think that it means. I just want to emphasize, we have never had a U.S. Supreme Court decision where they have held that the Second Amendment is not an individual right, nor could they reasonably so hold, because it is so clearly in the history of statements of Madison, the other Founders, meant to be an individual right. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth).

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have heard numerous statements made about the further efforts to secure gun control which I believe to be in violation of our fundamental liberties as citizens of this Republic and which I believe do violence to our United States Constitution and the Second Amendment contained therein. And I offer this resolution to instruct our conferees to abide by the Constitution and to do no harm thereto in the deliberations that will occur in the points of agreement arrived at in this conference committee. Mr. Speaker, let us begin with the Second Amendment: ``A well- regulated militia being necessary for security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'' I would submit that it is not the right of the Army, not the right of the National Guard; it says the right of the people, an individual right. In the Second Amendment, James Madison used the phrase: right of the people, as he often did throughout the entire Bill of Rights. In each case the right secured has been considered an individual right. For example, the First Amendment contains the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The Fourth Amendment contains the provision, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and affects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The structure of the Constitution is persuasive, I believe, in upholding the right of the individual to exercise his Second Amendment rights. The right to bear arms appears early in the Bill of Rights, listed with other personal liberties such as the personal right to free speech, the right to the free exercise of religion, the right to assembly as well as the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. Even more persuasive evidence comes from Madison's original proposal to interlineate the new rights within the Constitution's text rather than placing them at the end of the original text as, in fact, actually happened. Madison in his proposed Constitution placed the First and Second Amendments immediately after Article 1, section 1, clause 3, which includes the Constitution's original guarantees of individual liberties, freedom from ex post facto laws, and from bills of attainder. If, as some claim, that the Second Amendment protects a collective right that resides with the State or the local militia, in his original plan Madison surely would have placed the Second Amendment in Article 1, section 8, which deals with the powers of Congress including Congress' power to organize and call out the militia. But Madison did not do that. He placed it with the individual rights because that is what it was intended to protect. In Federalist Paper No. 46, James Madison, who later drafted the Second Amendment, argued that, quote, the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other Nation, would deter the central government from tyranny. That view was consistent with Madison's contemporaries and certainly with the framers of the Constitution. The new Constitution respected individuals' rights, Madison wrote, whereas the old world governments, quote, were afraid to trust the people with arms. Surprise, surprise. Nothing has changed over 200 years later, and the present governments of the world are afraid to trust people with arms, and unfortunately some in their own government have now succumbed to that fear. But indeed that is what we face today, a distrustful government that wants to take away guns from the people in the name of safety and which unfortunately at State and local levels all too often has been successful, and we see a direct rise in violent crimes as a result of that limitation of handguns. Not only does this effort discount the thousands of lives saved by firearms each year, it strips away a precious freedom. Let us not forget what Benjamin Franklin said, quote: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. The importance of individual gun rights was a point on which both the Federalists led by Madison and the anti-Federalists agree. Though he was strongly critical of Madison in the course of many other constitutional disputes, Richard Henry Lee wrote, quote: To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. Patrick Henry, the great Virginian, said, quote: The great object is that every man be armed. When Madison wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights, he was not writing on a clean slate. Many States were demanding inclusion of a list of fundamental rights before they would agree to ratify the Constitution. Madison purchased a pamphlet containing the demands of the States of over 200 rights listed therein. He chose a total of 19 for express listing. This number was eventually whittled down, but one right Madison had to include, which was demanded by State conventions in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Virginia, and New York was the express right to keep and bear arms. The States did not equivocate as to whether this right belonged to individuals or the State militia. Here from Pennsylvania is what was contained in their Constitution, quote: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own State or the United States or for the purpose of killing game. New Hampshire Constitution says this, quote: Congress shall never disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion. End of quote. New York has this. Quote: That the people have the right to keep and bear arms, that a well- regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state. Here is a great one. I am not going to tell my colleagues who said this, but let me just read it, and I will tell them at the end. Quote: What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. That was not a quote from a modern militia member. That was a quote. It was not Charlton Heston talking or it was not some official from the National Rifle Association. Those words were spoken by the author of the Declaration of Independence himself, Thomas Jefferson. Mr. Speaker, I have taken the time to go through these quotes by way of background to illustrate that the Second Amendment is a precious personal right of every American. I believe, if we gave full force and effect to it, that we would see a safer society, and it is my desire to have a safer society that leads me to stand up and make this privileged motion. I believe it is very wrong to continue to head down this path of Federal regulation, taking away fundamental rights on the supposed premise that somehow this is going to improve our society when, in fact, all of the empirical evidence shows that restrictive gun control makes us a less safe society, that it makes our cities very dangerous places to be. The urban areas have the most violent crime, have the least number of handguns. There is a direct correlation, and later on here I will talk about that, but for now, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7(c) of rule XXII, I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 1501 tomorrow. The form of the motion is as follows: Mr. Doolittle moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendments to the bill H.R. 1501 to be instructed to insist that the conference report not include Senate provisions that-- (1) do not recognize that the second amendment to the Constitution protect the individual right of American citizens to keep and bear arms; and (2) impose unconstitutional restrictions on the second amendment rights of individuals.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7C of rule XXII, I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 1501 tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, the form of the motion is as follows: Mr. Doolittle moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendments to the bill H.R. 1501 be instructed to insist that the conference report-- (1) recognize that the primary cause of youth violence in America is depraved hearts, not inanimate weapons; (2) recognize that the second amendment to the Constitution protects the individual right of American citizens to keep and bear arms; and (3) not impose unconstitutional restrictions on the second amendment rights of individuals.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, last month several of my colleagues and I sent a letter to Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee calling for the release of political prisoners in India. So far we have received no response. According to Amnesty International, thousands of political prisoners are being held in illegal detention without charge or trial. Several Sikh political prisoners wrote a letter from the Nabha Security jail on the Sikh Nation's 300th anniversary in which they urged Sikhs to get involved in getting them released. Some of these Sikh political prisoners have been held since 1984. Fifteen years in illegal detention without charge or trials is the tactic of a police state, not of the democracy India claims to be. Our letter reminds the Indian leader that if India is going to proclaim its democratic principles, it should release all political prisoners and bring the police who have committed atrocities against the Sikhs to justice. If it does not, we should be ready to take appropriate action to deprive India of the privileges that accrue to democratic and friendly countries. If India continues to oppress its minorities and hold thousands of political prisoners without charge of trial, America should stop aid and trade to the repressive Indian regime. In addition, we should support self-determination for all the nations and peoples of South Asia. This is the way to ensure that all the people and nations of South Asia may live in freedom. Mr. Speaker, I would like to place the Congressional letter to Prime Minister Vajpayee into the Record. Washington, DC, July 30, 1999. Hon. Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Prime Minister of India, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi, India. Dear Mr. Prime Minister: We are very disturbed by a recent Amnesty International report that thousands of political prisoners are being held in Indian prisons without charge or trial. In a democracy, there should not be political prisoners. In addition, a group of political prisoners held at Nabha Security Jail wrote to the Sikhs earlier this year asking for help in getting them released. There are thousands of Sikh political prisoners being held in India. Some Sikh political prisoners have been held since 1984 without charge or trial. How can a country that proclaims its support for democratic principles continue to hold political prisoners? Human-rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra wrote a report showing that tens of thousands of Sikhs were abducted, tortured, murdered, and declared ``unidentified,'' then their bodies were cremated. After Mr. Khalra published this report, he was kidnapped by the police and they killed him six weeks later, according to a witness. The police responsible for this act have never been punished, despite a court order. Neither has Swaran Singh Ghotna, the police officer responsible for the torture and murder of Akal Takht Jathedar Gurdev Singh Kaunke, who was torn in half. Mr. Khalra's findings were confirmed by a recently-issued report from the Committee for Coordination on Disappearances in Punjab, which issued an ``interim report'' that identifies at least 838 cases of arbitrary execution and secret cremation. These are not the acts of a democratic country. As members of the United States Congress, we will be watching with interest the actions that you take. If these kinds of acts continue, we will be forced to consider cutting off American aid and trade to India. We expect a democratic state like India to live up to the principles of democracy and the rule of law. Sincerely, Edolphus Towns, Dan Burton, William Jefferson, Roscoe Bartlett, John T. Doolittle, Jack Metcalf, Sam Farr, George Radanovich, Eni Faleomavaega, Bobby L. Rush, James Traficant, Wally Herger, Gary Condit, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Peter King, J.C. Watts, Donald Payne, Cynthia McKinney, Brian P. Bilbray, Major R. Owens, Bernard Sanders, Richard Pombo, Albert R. Wynn, Carlos Romero-Barcelo, James Rogan, Duke Cunningham, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, David McIntosh, Collin C. Peterson.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, another Christian missionary has been murdered in India, according to recent press reports. According to India West, the priest, whose name was Aruldoss, was killed on September 2 with poison arrows by a Hindu mob in the village of Jambani in the state of Orissa. This is the same region where Graham Staines, an Australian missionary, and his 8-year-old and 10-year-old sons were set on fire and murdered by a Hindu mob allied with the ruling party while they were sleeping in their van. The mob surrounded the van and kept anyone from getting to the Staines family, chanting ``Victory to Lord Ram'' while the Staines family was burning to death. Now the government has designated a single individual in the mob to take the fall in order to protect the government's allies. Apparently, Aruldoss has been involved in conversions of Hindus to Christianity. According to the Hindu fundamentalists who run the government and their allies, virtually all conversions are called ``forced'' conversions. One of the ministers in the Orissa government, Ajit Tripathy, claimed that Christians were causing all the trouble by ``trying to separate families after converting tribals and others, which is leading to social tensions.'' This kind of religious intolerance and excuse for mob violence has no place in a country that proudly labels itself ``the world's largest democracy.'' Authorities have said that the mob was angry about the observance of a religious festival. While the Hindus in the region were celebrating the festival of Nuakhai, the local Christians were holding a festival of their own. Remember that in 1997, a Christian festival was broken up by police gunfire. There is a disturbing pattern of religious intolerance in India, not only towards Christians, but towards Muslims and Sikhs as well. None of these groups can enjoy full religious or political rights, and they are among the 17 freedom movements within India. The Indian government's response to these efforts to achieve freedom is bloodshed. Thousands are being held in Indian jails as political prisoners without charge or trial. Some have been there for 15 years. I would like to submit the India West article on this event into the Record to inform my colleagues about the kind of country that India really is. Orissa Priest Murdered, Linked to Conversions Bhubaneshwar--Unidentified assailants killed a Christian missionary with poisoned arrows in a remote village in Orissa, a senior government official said Sept. 2. ``Preliminary reports say that a Christian . . . was attacked and killed by poisoned arrows last night,'' Orissa state chief secretary Sahadeva Sahoo told Reuters by telephone. Police said Sept. 3 that an incident linked to the religious conversions of Hindus may have led to the murder of a Christian priest in a remote eastern Indian village this week. ``Local issues seem to have led to the killing,'' Pradeep Kapoor, police chief of Mayurbhanj district in Orissa, told Reuters. He was speaking by telephone from Karanjia town near the village where the priest, identified only as Aruldoss, was killed Sept. 2. ``It was a dispute over the observing of some festival,'' Sahoo said, without giving details. ``It is a very remote, inaccessible jungle area. Information is not coming easily. Even the ministers couldn't go there because helicopters cannot land within 5 km (3 miles) of the jungle area,'' Sahoo said. Assailants shooting bows and arrows killed the missionary in Jambani, a hamlet of only 12 families in Mayurbhanj district. Christian groups and Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee have condemned the killing, which took place in the region where an Australian missionary, Graham Staines, and his two young sons were burnt to death in January as they slept in their jeep. ``There was a dispute over the celebration of Nuakhai, a Hindu festival. The (Christian) converts separately held the festival which might have angered the nearby villagers,'' Kapoor said. ``Several people have been rounded up for interrogation but no one has been arrested so far,'' he said. Sahoo said earlier that two people had been arrested but gave no details. Ajit Tripathy, the Orissa home secretary, said priests were causing tension in the area. ``Catholic priests are trying to separate the families after converting tribals and others, which is leading to social tension,'' Tripathy said. Mayurbhanj district chief R. Balakrishnan said 10 of the 12 families in the hamlet had been converted recently by the slain missionary. Christian missionaries had ignored warnings by authorities after the killing of Staines not to visit remote villages without informing them, he said. Staines also worked in the districts of Mayurbhanj and Keonjhar. An inquiry into Staines' murder blamed a lone religious fanatic wanted by police. It exonerated a Hindu group considered close to Vajpayee's ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janat. Party to which fingers of suspicion were initially pointed. Hindu activists accuse Christian missionaries of using coercion or economic incentives to force religious conversions in remote tribal areas of India. Christian missionaries deny the charge. Meanwhile, the Election Commission Sept. 5 rejected the Orissa government's proposal to shift general of police Dilip Mohapatra in the wake of his reported controversial remarks on the killing of the priest. Chief Election Commissioner M.S. Gill told PTI: ``We are in the midst of elections which will end by October 10. Therefore, the commission desires that Mohapatra, who is a key functionary, be not be shifted till October 10.'' Gill made it clear that the Orissa chief secretary, home secretary and the DGP should under no circumstances be disturbed in any manner till the conclusion of the poll process. The state government had sought the commission's permission to transfer and revert Mohapatra to the rank of additional DGP for his reported remarks linking Catholic priest Aruldoss's killing to ``forced conversions.'' Chief Minister Giridhar Gamang faced an angry outburst from church leaders Sept. 4, who demanded immediate suspension of home secretary Ajit Kumar Tripathy as well over his reported statement that Catholic priests were trying to split families through conversions. Gamang had gone to attend the funeral of the slain priest at Balasore.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I hate to talk about myself as an example but I think I will, just to illustrate the point of view that I have about this. I could talk about Eugene McCarthy, the Senator who was able to run for President, was not subject to this because this law did not exist in those days. I think he said he raised a million dollars from ten people. It was enough money to basically successfully move out of the presidential race the incumbent President Lyndon Johnson. He definitely made a huge impact on the affairs of the Nation by the step that he took. I think many, looking back, would view what he did as a positive step for the Nation. I could talk about Senator James Buckley who has authored an excellent article, and it is interesting because this is the plaintiff in the famous Buckley versus Valeo case, who is now a senior judge with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. If I have time, I will quote from this article, but it is in the current issue of National Review. September 27 is the date; great article. It is an interesting perspective by the author. Let me just talk about why I am so opposed to the other approach, the big government one, the increased regulatory approach, which I submit has never worked and cannot work and will not work, which I also submit is largely unconstitutional and would be struck down by the Supreme Court under the precedents that have been set, but even beyond that is highly undesirable because it is going to have the effect of curtailing political speech before elections, which is just when we want to have all the information and speech that we can get. Yes, people are cynical, I acknowledge that as well, but unfortunately this sort of failed approach piling on more of the same old failing approaches is not going to relieve the cynicism. The Washington Times correctly refers to this as a campaign finance charade; and unfortunately, I believe that is correct. Let me just go to my own case. When I ran for office in 1980, no one had ever heard of me. I had never held any political office of any kind, but I cared about crime and education and taxes and I ran and I was able to get support from a relative handful of people that were willing to put in substantial amounts of money just like they did for Senator McCarthy. Had I been forced to run under the present laws we have today, I would never have been successful; I could not have been because when one does not have any name ID or any notoriety, one cannot get lots of contributions from the general electorate just by sending out a mailing. Nobody has ever heard of his name. So one needs the ability, as a challenger, to be able to go and raise seed money. It is not because money buys elections. Money does not buy elections. That has been demonstrated time and time again. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) very accurately stated the realities there. However, one can never win an election without money. Money is what gives one the opportunity to present their views to the electorate. I just think the arguments are so circuitous; it is like black is white and white is black when I listen to this debate. I am taking the position I am taking because I want the average person to be able to run for office. The wealthy can already run for office. In fact, they are the only ones in the whole country that have no spending limit under the present law. They can spend whatever they choose to get elected. It is only the rest of us that are limited in terms of the contributions that we can receive. Existing government regulation of campaigns is poisoning our system, and yet despite that fact, despite the fact that soft money is a symptom of the problem, it is not the problem, it is being treated as the problem. What happens with a patient? I am not a doctor but I have been sick and we all know people who have been. What happens when the doctors treat the symptom rather than the problem? The patient is not cured. This problem has been misdiagnosed for 25 years. We have been piling on more and more and more regulations. It is like the doctor that gives a prescription and the patient is still sick so he doubles the dosage. The patient comes back sicker yet. He doubles it again. Voter participation has continued to decline coincidentally, though not a coincidence in my view, with the enactment of the 1974 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act, the very law that we are faced with today. The more we pile on regulation, the more we discourage people from participating; the more we reward the wealthy and those who have notoriety. What is the matter with a person of average means being able to run for office and going and getting some other people who have greater means to back him, or back her, and get those views out? Money does not buy the elections but money is the means of communicating the views to the electorate and then the electorate can decide. I ask for an ``aye'' vote.