John Sweeney

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. If the gentleman will yield further, that is not the effect at all. I think the effect is one that is a basic premise of citizenship, and that is the right of citizens to know the impact that their government or any other entity might have on their particular property.

Mr. SWEENEY. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. SWEENEY. There have been a number of instances where private property owners in the use of their property, in the valuation of their property and their ability to develop and cultivate that property have been infringed upon based upon the designation. I think the gentleman misses the point, that the most predominant frustration that those constituents of mine have----

Mr. SWEENEY. In the Adirondack region of New York State that are privately owned.

Mr. SWEENEY. If the gentleman will yield, seven million acres.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for affording me the opportunity at rather a late moment to introduce my amendment. My good friend the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) just said that all roads in this bill and this debate and this discussion seem to lead to the New World Mine. The reason I am happy I am able to introduce my amendment is because I think it will serve a number of purposes. But one point that can definitively be made is that that is not true, that all roads are not leading in this matter to the New World Mine, that it has impact on the individuals, of people throughout this Nation and in particular in my district. We have heard eloquent debate on both sides of the issue, speakers who have spoken of the need for greater local input and greater input from individuals, and those who have said or who have perceived that these issues involve just the use of public lands. That is not true at all. My amendment expands the existing provisions of H.R. 883 by requiring the Secretary of Interior as part of the management plan to also ensure that the biosphere designation does not affect the revenue of State and local governments, including and probably most importantly the revenue for public education programs. Mr. Chairman, as we have heard, the manner in which international land use agreements have been carried out can tend at times to infringe on the authority of our local municipalities and individuals. My amendment would help protect State and local governments from experiencing a decrease in real property values. As those in many struggling local townships and counties in upstate New York which I represent know all too well, depressed property values serve to depress property tax revenues, the major source for education funding in this country. Today, there are 47 U.N. Biosphere Reserves and 20 World Heritage Sites and there is not an argument on this side of the aisle that there is not some legitimacy and need for these agreements. But many of these international agreements were established without local input and certainly without congressional input or approval. This is not government of the people, for the people, by the people, it is detached internationalism in the eyes of many. Most U.N. designations, including the ones in my district, encompass privately held lands, not just public lands. Most of all, there have been instances where no communication with local officials and community residents took place about the effects of designating these lands. These are the people that it affects the most. These are the people in most instances who have rightful ownership of the property that is being affected, who define their freedom in fact by virtue of that ability to own these lands. The current process of selecting U.N. Biosphere Reserves with no recourse for those local residents and their elected officials affected must end. In the 22nd Congressional District of New York, which I represent, there is now one of the largest U.S. Biosphere Reserves housed in the Adirondack Mountains. The private landowners and townships in the Adirondacks had no idea that the Adirondack Park Agency, a quasi-State agency, quietly approved the U.N. biosphere designation and residents were helpless to impact on that, to stop it, to comment on it. In fact, that designated area encompasses 7 million acres of privately held land. It encompasses territories outside the purview and jurisdiction of the Adirondack Park Agency. Yet it has become part of that designated area. Let me tell my colleagues from experience, the U.N. biosphere is an unwanted cloud now that hangs over a good part of the Adirondack region. My congressional district is one with the greatest interest in seeing that this practice is reined in, that the input and the voice of the local individual be heard. It is unfair that my constituents are not included in any discussions that directly affect them and that I as their representative in Congress have practically no avenue to express their concerns. The Secretary of Interior must be required to make the case of U.N. designation to State and local governments as well as this Congress and our Federal bureaucracies should be held accountable to this Congress for any of the effects that international agreements will cause. It is imperative that we protect the rights of our private property owners and the legitimate interests of local governments and their citizens. This bill accomplishes those objectives and my amendment I believe strengthens it by elevating the interests of State and local governments and the effects of U.N. designations on their ability to collect revenue. It is important to the private property owners, it is important to the citizens of those regions, it is important to public education in those areas. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and support this important bill. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to take this opportunity to speak today in support of this important legislation, H.R. 883--the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act. My district in upstate New York has one of the largest U.N. Biosphere Reserves in the United States, thus I have a direct interest in H.R. 883 and strongly support its passage. H.R. 883 clearly addresses the concerns many of us have had with the U.N. Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage Sites programs. As we know, the U.N. Biosphere Reserve program has been operating with essentially no public or congressional oversight for the past 25 years. And without such oversight often, no one is accountable. These designations can have a marked impact on the properties in and around the biosphere region, yet, in most cases, neither local government nor property owners are ever consulted regarding the designation or site consideration. As an example, in my congressional district, the Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve was created in 1989 at the request of a quasi- governmental agency--the Adirondack Park Agency. This was done without hearings or formal input from local citizens of the Adirondacks; thus the residents were left feeling helpless and in the reality had no impact upon it. The result was a very bitter feeling and rightfully so over an unwanted imposition on private landowners. Given negative effect on property values, and compounded by the cavalier attitudes of those handing down designations and the blatant disregard for local authority, I would submit that with congressional oversight and public input, many of these U.N. sites would not have been approved in their current form. The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act unequivocally states that no land in this country can be included in international land use programs without the clear and direct approval of Congress. H.R. 883 is a first step in the right direction in returning power to the local citizens as well as the elected Representatives in Congress. Most importantly, this bill reasserts the constitutional rights of property owners to make property decisions, within local zoning authority, without interference from the United Nations whose mandate does not necessarily include concern for our town halls, school houses, or individual property owners in any given area. What recourse do affected landowners have against the United Nations bureaucracy? Absolutely none. This bill changes that. I urge your support.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, let me first congratulate my colleagues, specifically the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) from the subcommittee and the ranking member, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) for their fine work on the NASA reauthorization bill. There have been two major occurrences within the past 10 years that have proven to be a striking blow to the national security interests of our great Nation. First, China used information it obtained as a result of our cooperation on satellite technology to upgrade its ballistic missile force, improving range and accuracy of its booster systems. Secondly, the Chinese are also using information they obtained as a result of deliberate and, mind you, successful espionage efforts at our nuclear laboratories at the Department of Energy in order to improve their nuclear warhead arsenal. Mr. Chairman, the combination of these two events means that the Communist Chinese government, which currently has at least 40 ICBMs, will soon have the capability to launch multiple warheads, MIRV missiles, in just 3 to 5 years instead of the 20 years it would have taken without these two pieces of American technology. Mr. Chairman, we should be outraged as Americans that these two events were allowed to occur, seemingly without a hint that the national security breaches were occurring at all. With these grave events as a backdrop, I offer my amendment today as an attempt to reestablish that it is the policy of the United States to ensure that our good faith efforts to share our technological advances with world partners are not turned against us in the form of military threat. The amendment addresses two areas of concern to NASA. First, the Chinese espionage experience at the Department of Energy labs is not repeated within our space program. The amendment requires the Inspector General of NASA to assess on an annual basis in consultation with our intelligence community NASA's compliance with export control laws and the exchange of technology and information that can be used to enhance the military capabilities of foreign entities. Secondly, my amendment requires that NASA, before it enters into an agreement to exchange technology and information with the People's Republic of China to certify with Congress that the exchange of technology and information cannot be used to enhance China's ballistic missile capacities. This policy is consistent with our export controls regarding trade and satellite technology and actually mirrors language in the 1999 defense authorization which requires the President to certify approved satellite technology exports to China. It is entirely appropriate that we hold that same standard to the potential technological exchanges between our space program and the PRC. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that the serious transfers of military technology have occurred at NASA, and I stress this, that has not happened at NASA yet, yet we need to recognize that there is a potential danger that must be addressed. A few years ago we were pretty certain that top secret scientific information at our nuclear labs was secure. We now know that that was not the case. This amendment insures that the appropriate steps are taken to prevent the repeat of the breach of our Department of Energy labs and strengthens existing controls on the flow of military critical technology being diverted to China. This amendment also responds to another provision in the 1999 defense authorization and approved by a vote of 417 to 4 by this House which states that the United States should not enter into agreements with China involving space. This amendment does not go as far as to prohibit space cooperation with China, but it does raise the bar with respect to the types of sensitive technological information that we can exchange through NASA. Mr. Chairman, NASA is one of the most respected government institutions in the world, and its contributions to technology development in the United States are enormous. This amendment insures that that reputation so painstakingly earned is never tarnished.

Mr. SWEENEY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I introduced legislation that will prohibit the sale of the Cray SV1 supercomputer to Hong Kong, now a territory of Communist China. The export of this computer threatens our national security, and I urge you to join in cosponsoring this bill. In February of this year, a contract was awarded to supply the Hong Kong Observatory with the fastest computer the territory has ever seen. The Cray SV1 supercomputer runs at the speed of 21,000 million theoretical operations a second. If the battlefield and simulation capability of the system were to fall into the wrong hands, it could seriously undermine our national security. This should trigger a ``red flag'' for dual-use militarily significant technology transfers. To think that China would use this computer for scientific purposes only is pure folly. Last month, a Hong Kong company went before local courts for allegedly :``selling a supercomputer to a Chinese advanced weapons institute.'' A separate Hong Kong company is also facing charges that it imported strategic commodities without a license. It diverted a dual-use computer to a mainland military research institute. Officials from the departments of Defense, Commerce, Energy and State have raised objections to the sale of the Cray SV1, yet the export is still under consideration by the Clinton Administration. I urge all of my colleagues to please join in co-sponsoring my bill by contacting my office.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. That is correct, Mr. Chairman, that was my intent.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. The gentleman is correct in saying that what the bill essentially does is extend the protection to retired agents. Also, in establishing mandatory minimums, my intent was to raise the level of Section 601 to the highest levels and the highest priorities, which I believe our national security interests dictate. I will point out that what the mandatory minimum sentences that I have prescribed in my amendment do is cut in half the mandatory maximums, so I think proportionately, it is very reasonable. Let me also just say that in relationship to Federal mandatory minimums, there are hundreds, literally hundreds, as I am sure the gentleman knows, of Federal crimes, including food stamp fraud, including bribery of meat inspectors, that have mandatory minimum sentences. I think in order for this Congress to send a very strong message about the protection of agents and former agents, the inclusion of the mandatory minimum is an essential part.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, before addressing my amendment, allow me to first express my strong support for the intelligence authorization bill and commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon), the ranking member, for their great work on this important bill. Mr. Chairman, our intelligence community is truly our first line of defense; and we must do everything in our power to ensure that our counterintelligence operations are as strong as our potential enemies. The amendment I am offering today is intended to complement this fine bill on an important national security issue, the protection of our intelligence agents. Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply increases the criminal penalty for individuals who expose covert agents and expands the Intelligence Identities Protection Act to protect the identities of former agents as well. First and foremost, my amendment establishes a minimum mandatory penalty for the willful identification of a United States intelligence agent. The existing criminal penalties against such an offense are woefully inadequate. While several lesser criminal offenses require mandatory minimums, few are as consequential to the interests of our national security as the protection of those who serve our country in this capacity. Secondly, the amendment extends the scope of these protections to former covert agents as only current agents are now covered by the law. By increasing the criminal penalties for disclosing identities for existing agents and by including former agents, my amendment accomplishes several important national security objectives and appropriately emphasizes the high priority with which we make national security. It protects agents and former agents from possible harm as a result of the disclosure of their true identities and past locations and activities. It also protects the entire intelligence network that often remains in place after an individual agent leaves his or her assignment. By protecting retired agents, the amendment protects those active operatives who may have assumed the former agents' positions. Through the Freedom of Information Act people obtain information relevant to U.S. intelligence operations. Currently no statutory protection exists to prohibit identification of retired intelligence agents. This initiative strengthens the penalties against disclosing the information that identifies covert agents. Penalties in my amendment are proportional, yet tougher to those which exist under current law. The majority of our current and former intelligence agents serve or have served the United States at considerable risk, Mr. Chairman, and there is absolutely no justification for exposing them to danger. Identifying current or former agents warrants serious criminal liability, and my amendment does just that. Ensure the safety of our intelligence community and provide adequate penalties to those who jeopardize America's national security by voting yes on the Sweeney amendment to H.R. 1555. Amendment Offered by Mr. Goss to Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Sweeney

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment number 10, which is printed in the Record.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise before the House today, taking this opportunity to speak out about one of the 20th century's earliest atrocities and worst atrocities. I do so because this subject is close to my heart. Mr. Speaker, I am the son of a second generation Armenian American. My own grandfather, a native Armenian, witnessed the bloodshed firsthand when on April 24, 1915, 254 Armenian intellectuals were arrested in Istanbul and taken to the provinces in the interior of Turkey, where many of them were later massacred. My grandfather often told my sisters and I how he had witnessed the execution of his own uncle and his teacher in a one room classroom as a child. In total, approximately 1.5 million Armenians were killed in a 28-year period. This does not include the half a million or more who were forced to leave their homes and flee to foreign countries like our own. Together with Armenians all over the world and people of conscience, I would like to honor those that lost their homes, their freedom and their lives. Many Armenian survivors came to the United States seeking a new beginning, among them my grandfather, who was a recipient of the Russian Medal of Honor during World War II as a demolition specialist. He was awarded this honor for his incredible valor in the midst of this premeditated genocide. In fact, my grandfather went back to his own country to fight the Turks, to fight the Turks to stop the massacres of his family and his friends. It is important that we do not forget about these atrocities. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of my Armenian heritage, and I believe my Armenian grandfather, if he were still alive today, would be proud to know that he has such strong defenders of Armenians in the United States Congress, and I thank my colleagues who have risen today to support this recognition.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I missed rollcall No. 91. My daughter is a finalist in ``Writing Olympics'' and I will be attending her contest. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, growing up, one thing I learned from my father, a veteran of the Second World War, was that when you shake hands and make a promise with someone, you stick to it. This might seem a little old-fashioned, but it is a value I will never forget. Our servicemen and women enlist in the Armed Forces with a simple understanding. To their country they pledge their youth, their dedication, and if need be, their lives. In return, their country promises that veterans will have some basic needs provided for when they leave active service. The Clinton-Gore administration has broken this promise to our Nation's veterans. The administration's budget neglects our veterans' health care needs. The VA faces cost increases of more than $1 billion, and a shortfall of more than $100 million in medical insurance collections. In other words, our veterans are shortchanged by $1 billion under the President's budget. If we add those costs up with the Clinton-Gore proposal, do we know what that amounts to? Disaster. Our veterans deserve better. That is why I support the largest increase in history for VA medical care over the administration's budget request. The majority's $1 billion increase over the Clinton-Gore budget for veterans will head off predicted closures of needed VA facilities. This is our promise to veterans, and we are going to keep it.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully request all of my colleagues to join me in signing a letter requesting the President to use the upcoming visit with China's Premier Zhu Rongji to express our profound concern regarding several issues, including: Human rights violations in China and Tibet; China's ongoing public vilification against Japan; China's deployment of several hundred missiles against Taiwan; China's buildup of their nuclear strike capability; China's clandestine efforts to acquire secret United States military technologies; China's assistance to the development of the North Korea missile program; and China's sales of missile and nuclear technologies to terrorist states. If you agree with me that the time has come for some truth and realism to be put back into our relations with the People's Republic of China please join in signing the letter I have submitted into the Record by contacting my office. Dear Mr. President: We are taking this opportunity, in advance of Premier Zhu Rongji's visit, to express our profound concern about several issues involving the People's Republic of China. Since 1994 the P.R.C. has been constructing military facilities in the Spratly Islands. The size and nature of these facilities suggest that the P.R.C. is attempting to establish a permanent strategic presence in the area, from which it could patrol the sea lanes in the South China Sea, the waterway through which one sixth of the world's trade is shipped. The military buildup in the Spratly Islands has been accompanied by an ever more strident campaign of public vilification against Japan, a treaty ally of the United States and the base for 50,000 United States troops, the largest single concentration of United States military forces abroad. In another strategic concern, in March 1997 a Chinese controlled company was able to obtain, from Panama, the rights to the port facilities that flank the canal zone. Then there is the matter of the democratic nation of Taiwan. The P.R.C.'s 1995 military exercises and 1996 missile firings in the Taiwan Strait have been followed by an offensive military buildup on the Chinese mainland itself that includes tripling the number of missiles (to more than 100) already deployed against Taiwan. With several hundred more missiles expected for similar deployment, the recent Defense Department study on the military balance in the Taiwan Strait describes an ``overwhelming advantage in offensive missiles which Bejing is projected to possess in 2005.'' These developments are all the more alarming when seen against the backdrop of (1) China's overall military modernization, its abandonment of a traditional, land-based ``people's army'' in favor a comprehensive strategic and nuclear strike capability by land, sea, and air; (2) China's clandestine efforts to acquire the most secret and sensitive of United States military technologies, including the know- how to replicate the W 88 warhead, the most dangerous security breach in 50 years; and (3) allegations that China has assisted the North Korean missile program, on top of its known and suspected sales of missile and nuclear technologies to terrorist states. Mr. President, with respect to China, our country has looked the other way for too long. And we have tolerated a ballooning trade deficit for too long. We request that you make it emphatically clear to Premier Zhu that the United States has legal and moral obligations to our allies that we will honor. And if that means, as we believe it does, a land or sea based missile defense in the Western Pacific--then so be it. Mr. President, we would also request that you emphasize the P.R.C.'s worsening record regarding human rights violations in China and Tibet. Among these violations are the recent excessive jail and labor camp sentences for pro-democracy activists, Xu Wenli, Qin Yongmin, Wang Youcai, and Zhang Shanguang, the latter for allegedly ``providing intelligence to hostile foreign organizations'' while giving an interview on Radio Free Asia regarding farmer protests. And as for Taiwan, now is the time to remind Beijing that the Taiwan Relations Act--the law of the United States-- mandates the United States to ``make available to Taiwan such defense articles in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability. That is our law, period. And that same law mandates that the determination of what Taiwan needs will be made by ``the President and the Congress.'' Mr. President, the United States policy toward the P.R.C. has been based on wishful thinking for far too long. Policy makers in the Administration of both parties have time and time again been willing to give Chinese leaders the benefits of the doubt only to be consistently let down. The occasion of Premier Zhu's visit provides a timely opportunity to put some truth and realism back into this relationship. It will take the same kind of resolution you showed by sending aircraft carriers into the Taiwan Strait in 1996. We applauded you then, and we will support you now in taking the necessary steps to protect the United States interests and our allies in the region.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I also want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler). I rise today in strong support of H.R. 707, the Disaster Mitigation and Cost Reduction Act. In particular, I would like to stress the importance of section 208 to my constituents. On the first day of the 106th Congress, also my first day in Congress, I introduced a bill that would help provide emergency assistance to the dairy farmers in my congressional district. I could not be more pleased that the language of that bill has been incorporated into H.R. 707. Mr. Chairman, the 22nd Congressional District of New York is notorious for its harsh winters, but no one could have prepared for the January, 1998, ice storm disaster. Below-freezing temperatures, coupled with record rainfall combined to coat a region extending from Western New York to Maine in solid ice. As you all know, the results of this storm were devastating. Seventeen lives were lost, and roughly 1.5 million people were without electricity, some for more than 3 weeks. The hardest hit in the storm were the dairy farmers. The prolonged power outage severely jeopardized their livelihood. The production and distribution abilities of the dairy community came to a sudden halt. Without power, the farmers were unable to store or produce milk properly. This resulted in the loss of approximately 14 million pounds of milk, taking money right out of the dairy farmers' pockets. As a result of the storm, farmers were forced to apply to the Dairy Production Disaster Assistance Program. To give my colleagues some understanding of the scope of the disaster, 362 farmers, Mr. Chairman, applied for assistance and over $600,000 was committed. However, this process took incredible time, and some of the farmers still have not received their assistance. Quite frankly, the response was not fast enough. The problem was that the people working in the field lacked the authority to make critical decisions. No action was taken until they checked with their supervisors. This time-consuming decision-making process must be changed. Let me give a perfect example. A constituent of mine who helped coordinate the disaster relief operations complained about the lack of a direct line of communications with officials from FEMA. For instance, he told one official over the phone that the farmers were in desperate need of generators, yet he had to make several appeals with three separate people before the message was heard. It still took over a week for the generators to arrive. In the meantime, these farm families had no income. Going a week without power is a disruption to all of our lives, but to be unable to make a living jeopardizes one's entire existence. Actually, the first generators to reach the farmers were loaned by farmers from other regions of the State. They recognized the severity of the situation and acted accordingly. They were able to ship generators to the needy farmers in just 2 days. Mr. Chairman, this type of relief should not only occur because of the generosity and understanding of our neighbors. We must install a quicker, more decisive policy for providing immediate assistance to the agricultural community. My language, included as section 208 of the bill, begins to address this problem. It directs FEMA to develop methods and procedures to accelerate emergency relief to rural communities. Mr. Chairman, I believe the United States does a better job than any other country in the world in responding to natural disasters. Yet, in the words of Thomas Edison, ``There's always a way to do it better. Find it.'' Simply put, my bill requires the director of FEMA to find a better way to help dairy farmers who are hit by a natural disaster. I believe this legislation is vital to provide a meaningful long-term benefit to the farm families I represent. I commend the gentlewoman from Florida for her great work and the members of the committee as well.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I just recently became a Member of this House, so I have not been a part of some of the occurrences of the past and some of the events of the past. I have heard, though, that some people believe this House is divided by partisanship. Mr. Speaker, this House is not divided by partisanship, as my good friend the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) pointed out. To show proof of that, I commend my colleagues' attention to the list of original cosponsors of the bill to be introduced tomorrow. There are more than 230 names on this list. More than 230 Members of this House have extended their hands across the aisle to join together to cosponsor the Flag Protection Amendment. I congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) for going forward and putting in the hard work and the effort to obtain those cosponsors. Together we represent the united front of Republicans and Democrats working to ensure that Old Glory will be protected from physical desecration through an amendment to the United States Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I bring your attention to the testimony of Professor Richard D. Parker given before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary July 8 of last year. Mr. Parker is the Williams Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and a self-proclaimed liberal Democrat who, as a young man, participated in the Civil Rights movement. In the marches, Professor Parker proudly waived the flag, using it as a symbol to emphasize that we are all Americans despite our differences. Professor Parker stated, A robust system of free speech depends, after all, on maintaining a sense of community. It depends on some agreement that, despite our differences, we are ``one,'' that the problem of any American is ``our'' problem. Without this much community, why listen to anyone else? Why not just see who can yell the loudest? Or push hardest? It is thus for minority and unpopular viewpoints that the aspiration to, and respect for the unique symbol, of the national unity is thus most important. Mr. Speaker, though we have a broad base of support, the Flag Protection Amendment does have its opponents. The small minority who oppose a constitutional amendment prohibiting the physical desecration of the flag believe that such a law would infringe on the first amendment. In his testimony, Mr. Parker also makes an interesting point to those who oppose the Flag Protection Amendment. He says, As the word goes forth that nothing is sacred, that the aspiration to unity and community is just a ``point of view'' competing with others, and that any hope of being noticed (if not getting a hearing) depends on behaving more and more outrageously, won't we tend to trash not just the flag, but the freedom of speech itself? Mr. Speaker, there is a reason, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) has pointed out, that we don caskets of fallen heroes with this great flag. In fact, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) pointed out, it is entirely appropriate and fitting today that I stand before my colleagues in support of this bill, because it was a year ago today that my father, a veteran of two theaters during World War II, passed away. I know that one of his greatest honors was serving his country, and I know that my family thought it was a great honor to have his casket draped with our great flag. I had intended initially when I first came to this Congress to introduce my own bill, and I step back and recognize that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) had put in many, many years in an effort to pass this legislation. Rather than stand before that and serve as an obstacle to that passage, I join happily and willingly with them for passage. Opponents of the proposed amendments imagine themselves as champions of the theory of free speech, but their argument is based in a strange disdain for it in practice. Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is a single Member of this list of cosponsors who does not passionately defend the right to free speech. I do as well, and I just as passionately defend this amendment. The right to free speech is the bedrock of America's founding, and the flag is a symbol of our freedom. I implore my colleagues in this House to duly consider the remarks of Professor Parker, the considerations of all of us Americans who support this amendment and join our efforts to protect the great flag of the United States of America.

Mr. SWEENEY. I just want to say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), as one of my first pieces of legislation that I have been able to cosponsor, I am honored to be here, honored to be here as part of the gentleman's effort to push forward. The flag is a part of my family's heritage, and I feel very honored to be here.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, in the wake of the tobacco lawsuits, many in our nation's legal profession have fallen into the wrong-headed idea that courts, rather than legislatures, should decide all public policy issues. Nowhere is this more notable than in the lawsuits recently filed by several cities against the firearms industry. Mr. Speaker, even many publications that support restrictive gun control laws have spoken out against this trend. The Schenectady Daily Gazette, a newspaper that serves many of my constituents in upstate New York, blames violence on the lack of gun laws. I strongly disagree with that view--in fact, our nation has tens of thousands of gun laws at every level of government, and the laws in New York state are particularly strict. However, I do agree with the Daily Gazette's conclusion that the lawsuits are ``hugely misguided'' and nothing but an ``absurd money grab'' designed to make a scapegoat of a highly regulated industry that manufactures a lawful product. Mr. Speaker, I urge the nation's courts and legislatures to reject these ridiculous lawsuits, and I insert the Daily Gazette editorial for printing in the Congressional Record. [From the Daily Gazette, Nov. 5, 1998] Don't Sue Gun Makers New Orleans is a great destination for music lovers and gourmets, but it's also a good place to get shot. In fact, until a law-and-order mayor took office there four years ago, it had the dubious distinction of being ``the murder capital of the United States.'' Now the city has filed a huge--and hugely misguided--lawsuit against 15 gun manufacturers. Numerous other large cities reportedly want to join the suit. Unbelievable. A cousin to the numerous lawsuits pending against the tobacco industry, the suit attempts to make manufacturers a scapegoat for products that are wholly lawful and used primarily for their intended purpose. (Granted, guns aren't supposed to be used to commit murder, but there's little ambiguity about their primary function as weapons for killing and maiming, whether for hunting or self-defense.) The lawsuit focuses on the product liability angle, claiming that because gun makers fail to use enough safety devices, their weapons are ``unreasonably dangerous.'' This might be arguable if most gun deaths were accidental--if typical lines like ``I didn't know it was loaded,'' or ``It just went off'' were true. But in New Orleans--as in most cities--the killings are intentional. And most adults who handle guns know to take at least a little care to guard against accidents. Are the gun makers to blame when some drug dealer steals a pistol and wastes his rival with it? Not unless they're handing out the weapons, or glamorizing this sort of behavior with advertising, etc. And if some kid gets his hands on his parents' gun and accidently blows his friend away, aren't the parents really at fault for not doing a better job securing the weapon? Where cigarette manufacturers can be accused of promoting irresponsible usage, gun makers almost never advertise--at least not handguns. And where the cigarette's primary function is to provide smokers with pleasure--with illness an unfortunate consequence--guns are inherently lethal. So let's stop this absurd money grab. Gun makers may not be completely devoid of responsibility for this country's gun problem, but a government that allows guns to be made and people to buy and possess them seems a lot more culpable.