[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 128 (Wednesday, September 25, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H5827-H5831]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    UNITED NATIONS ARMS TRADE TREATY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.


                             General Leave

  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my 
Special Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, which Secretary Kerry signed 
today at a U.N. ceremony on behalf of the United States.
  My opposition and my colleagues' opposition is not a Republican 
agenda. It is the defense of all Americans' right as enshrined in our 
Constitution and in our Bill of Rights.
  The Obama administration's participation in the Arms Trade Treaty has 
left a trail of broken promises, and all in the form of ``red lines'' 
this administration has laid out and later abandoned. I'd like to talk 
about a few of them right now.
  Mr. Speaker, I will submit into the Record the State Department's Web 
page listing ``Key U.S. Redlines'' for the ATT.

                           Key U.S. Redlines

       The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.
       There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or 
     trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by 
     the U.S. Constitution.
       There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign 
     control over issues involving the private acquisition, 
     ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain 
     matters of domestic law.
       The U.S. will oppose provisions inconsistent with existing 
     U.S. law or that would unduly interfere with our ability to 
     import, export, or transfer arms in support of our, national 
     security and foreign policy interests.
       The international arms trade is a legitimate commercial 
     activity, and otherwise lawful commercial trade in arms must 
     not be unduly hindered.
       There will be no requirement for reporting on or marking 
     and tracing of ammunition or explosives.
       There will be no lowering of current international 
     standards.
       Existing nonproliferation and export control regimes must 
     not be undermined.
       The ATT negotiations must have consensus decision making to 
     allow us to protect U.S. equities.
       There will be no mandate for an international body to 
     enforce an ATT.

  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Now, one of those red lines says: ``The 
Second Amendment to the Constitution

[[Page H5828]]

must be upheld.'' But the Treaty contains only a weak, nonbinding 
reference to civilian ownership and fails to uphold the fundamental, 
individual right to keep and to bear arms that is enshrined in our 
Second Amendment.
  Furthermore, the Treaty encourages nations to collect the identities 
of owners of imported firearms. It creates the core of a national gun 
registry. This violates existing U.S. law.
  But it doesn't stop there. The Arms Trade Treaty requires nations to 
report the data they collect to the United Nations. If this data 
contains information on individual owners, it would constitute a 
serious, dangerous privacy violation. Now, it sounds like this 
administration doesn't take this Second Amendment red line very 
seriously.
  Another red line says: ``The ATT negotiations must have consensus 
decisionmaking to allow us to protect U.S. equities.'' Now, in the 
U.N., ``consensus'' means unanimity--all members on board in totality. 
But when that failed, the Obama administration supported the ATT's 
adoption by a simple majority rule vote in the United Nations General 
Assembly. The administration broke its own most important red line.
  Now, the U.S. regularly demands that negotiations be conducted by 
consensus to protect our interests and our sovereignty, which is 
critical when the U.S. is in the minority or when we are standing alone 
at the U.N. Now, by breaking their own red line, this administration 
has seriously reduced U.S. credibility because other countries now know 
that if they push hard enough, America will accept a majority rule 
vote.
  In February 2010, Under Secretary of State Ellen Tauscher stated if 
the whole world does not sign on, then the ATT is ``less than 
useless.'' A number of key nation-states--including such stalwarts of 
freedom and liberty as Russia, China, and others like India, Indonesia, 
Iran and North Korea, among many others--do not support the Arms Trade 
Treaty. Therefore, the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty is less than 
useless.
  Is the ATT less than useless, or is consensus just another red line 
that the Obama administration doesn't take very seriously.
  Today, Secretary Kerry said: ``This treaty will not diminish anyone's 
freedom.'' Here is yet but another promise. Do we really think it's 
credible?
  Last month, the Obama administration took executive action to ban the 
import of Korean War-era, vintage, collectible M-1 Garand rifles on 
spurious public safety grounds. These are collectors' items. This shows 
how this administration's action can be used to choke off firearms 
imports.
  The United Nations Arms Trade Treaty will only encourage more 
mischief. It only holds the good accountable and let's the bad do what 
they want.
  In the real world, promises do matter. We have made strategic, moral, 
and legal commitments to provide arms to key allies such as the 
Republic of China (Taiwan) and the State of Israel. What do these 
promises really mean to President Obama? And what message does the ATT 
send to our allies? And they wonder: Is America really there for us 
when we need them, or is this just more talk, more empty words?
  The American people have had enough of the Obama administration's 
broken promises and phony, nonexistent red lines on ATT. I urge my 
colleagues to join together to oppose the ATT.
  At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from Oregon (Mr. 
Walden).
  Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentleman, my friend, a great defender of the 
United States Constitution, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Kelly).
  This is a very troubling day--very troubling day--for those of us who 
believe in our freedom in America and our rights under the Constitution 
and every day defend America's sovereignty.
  Oregon's Second Congressional District is nearly 70,000 square miles. 
That's a lot of ground. It's home to some of the best hunting in the 
West, including mule deer, elk, cougar, bighorn sheep and antelope, in 
addition to various waterfowl and upland birds.
  Oregonians' proud heritage of hunting and owning firearms for sport, 
protection and their livelihood dates back to the days of the Oregon 
Trail--a trail my ancestors crossed in 1845 when they helped settle the 
West.
  As one hunter in Baker City, Oregon, told me earlier this year, he 
said: Congressman, you know why they call this the Second District? 
It's because we believe in our Second Amendment rights. And he's right. 
Yet today, about 10 hours ago, Secretary of State John Kerry signed a 
very vague U.N. treaty that leaves open the door to international 
influences trampling on our Second Amendment rights to keep and bear 
arms. And it encourages signatory nations to collect identities of 
owners of imported firearms, setting the stage for a potential national 
gun registry. And that is wrong.
  The United States is a sovereign Nation. I strongly believe that our 
Constitution--including our Second Amendment rights--must never be 
subjugated by a treaty. Now, what's worse, we understand the 
administration that signed this treaty may now never send it to the 
Senate for consideration. I view that as another blatant attempt by the 
Obama administration to act unilaterally--they seem to do a lot of that 
these days--without the consent or the approval of Congress.
  So I will strongly oppose not only this treaty, but also any funding 
to implement any policy related to this treaty. And I will continue to 
uphold the oath of office that each one of us in this Chamber took to 
defend our rights and freedoms as enshrined in that great document, the 
Constitution, and to make sure that our Constitution and our sovereign 
rights are always above any foreign treaty, including one that never 
even gets sent to the Senate.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I now yield to the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Lamborn).
  Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Congressman Kelly, for hosting this important 
hour to share with the American people the serious problems with the 
U.N. Arms Trade Treaty.

  Mr. Speaker, as cochairman of the House Sovereignty Caucus, I assure 
you this ambiguous treaty poses serious threats to American national 
security, foreign policy, and economic interests, as well as our 
constitutional rights.
  U.S. arms exports are among the safest in the world. The United 
States should reject the U.N.'s attempt to force us into a system that 
could jeopardize the safety of our citizens or those of our allies.
  This treaty includes small arms and light weapons within its scope, 
which covers firearms owned by law-abiding Americans. It sets up a 
broad registration scheme that threatens the individual's firearms 
rights.
  The Arms Trade Treaty also threatens the ability of the U.S. to 
protect our allies around the world since it contains questionable 
language that could be misused to prevent America from arming allies 
such as Israel or Taiwan.
  President Obama knows that even members of his own party won't 
support this treaty in many cases. He must think that gun control must 
be pursued no matter what.
  In my own State of Colorado, voters just recalled two State Senators 
who pushed gun control against the wishes of their voters. These were 
historic elections because no Colorado legislator had ever been 
recalled in the history of the State.
  I urge the Members of the Senate to reject this treaty and protect 
our Second Amendment rights and our national sovereignty.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I thank my friend.
  I now yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out against the dangerous U.N. 
Arms Trade Treaty, which was signed this morning by Secretary Kerry. 
This treaty will impact the United States' sovereignty, encroach upon 
Second Amendment rights, and drastically affect U.S. foreign and export 
policies.
  It is common for a treaty of this kind to give definitions directly 
so member states can understand the treaty's meanings and implications. 
Instead, this agreement uses vague terms that are open for 
reinterpretation later. It leaves open the opportunity for current

[[Page H5829]]

restrictions to be tightened at a later time. This has the potential of 
heavily influencing our Nation's future policy without congressional 
consideration or approval.
  Our Second Amendment liberties, articulated in the Bill of Rights, 
are put at significant risk by this treaty. Approximately one-third of 
the domestic gun market is composed of imported firearms. The Arms 
Trade Treaty encourages nations to collect the identities of the owners 
of imported firearms. This could be the beginning of a national gun 
registry, which would violate current U.S. law. The treaty would also 
impose administrative burdens on the import and export of small arms.
  This treaty would directly affect how the U.S. handles foreign 
policy. The United States should be able to look into potential arms 
sales by weighing the risks, potential outcomes, and goals of each 
trade. Under the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, the U.S. would have to 
complete a checklist of items before exporting arms, regardless of 
their destination--even if that destination is Israel or Taiwan.
  It will come as no surprise that the Arms Trade Treaty is not being 
backed by Russia, China, India, Iran, North Korea, and numerous other 
nations--many of whom do not have our best interests in mind.
  In February 2010, this was called ``less than useless'' if not 
supported by all nations. Why is this administration now locking the 
United States into a treaty that other world powers have rejected? 
Their unilateral decision to sign the treaty allows other nations to 
trade arms knowing that the U.S. will be bound by a specific set of 
rules.
  Like the majority of the folks in Georgia's Ninth District, I cannot 
understand why this administration would sign a treaty with such 
drastic implications for our Nation's sovereignty and the right to bear 
arms at home. The United States should not join treaties outside the 
constitutionally prescribed process, which involves ratification by the 
Senate--this is a concept this administration just amazingly seems to 
not understand, especially from a constitutional law professor.
  There is a reason the Constitution dictates the method and manner by 
which the United States may enter into treaties: it is to ensure that 
the treaties so harmful to our freedoms, such as this Arms Trade 
Treaty, are never signed or ratified.

                              {time}  1945

  I strongly oppose this administration's endorsement of the U.N. Arms 
Trade Treaty and will work with my colleagues to prevent this agreement 
from affecting the rights of our citizens. The executive branch does 
not and should not possess a blank check to legislate domestically via 
international treaties.
  There is no treaty so important that it should be allowed to restrict 
the rights of Americans to exercise those freedoms enshrined in the 
Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms is not dependent on a 
global agreement. We don't need Russia and China giving their stamp of 
approval in order to speak freely in our homes and in our churches. We 
certainly don't need Iran and North Korea dictating our due process 
rights.
  I strongly oppose the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty and everything it stands 
for. I do not and will not support the decision made by Secretary Kerry 
to sign the treaty.
  I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his tireless leadership 
on this issue and hosting this Special Order tonight.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield to my friend from North 
Carolina, Mr. Richard Hudson.
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to join my colleagues to 
voice my strongest opposition to the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty 
currently before the United Nations.
  First and foremost, by signing this overreaching treaty, the 
administration is crippling one of our most fundamental rights: the 
Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment 
is our most fundamental right because it ensures that we can maintain 
our other rights.
  Second, by their own admission, the President and his administration 
have said this vague treaty is difficult to interpret. Why would we 
engage in an ambiguous and harmful agreement like this?
  Finally, the President's own State Department said this treaty will 
have international implications for U.S. arms sales to Israel and 
Taiwan. Why would we engage in an agreement that would damage our 
relationships with two of our strongest allies and give veto power over 
decisions to sell arms to our allies to other nations around the world?
  Mr. Speaker, I spent the past weekend in a deer stand and cannot 
imagine allowing the laws of other countries to stop my ability and the 
ability of other Americans from enjoying this tradition that I've 
enjoyed my entire life. The people I represent in North Carolina can't 
understand why this administration is seeking to damage our personal 
liberty and the sovereignty of our great Nation.
  We must oppose this treaty, and I encourage our colleagues in the 
Senate to do the same.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. 
Your comments are very timely and very needed.
  At this time, I would like to have Mr. Steve Stockman from Texas 36 
address the situation.
  Mr. STOCKMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am appalled. Our friend said Republicans 
are in the bedroom, but we have a President who is collecting our phone 
records, collecting our medical records, and now wants to collect our 
gun records. Where in the world and when do we say stop? Even our 
friends in the media, he collected their records. Now we have a treaty, 
so-called treaty, which stomps on our individual rights, undermines our 
Constitution, and strips us of any kind of protection.
  They said don't worry about it, the Senate will never ratify it. But 
in a tradition of treaties, once a treaty is signed--once a treaty is 
signed--our Nation typically follows that treaty. We are seeing before 
us a President who is not listening to the people. Time and time again, 
these actions are taken when there is--like a magician, he is over 
here, focusing over here, and he did this today when a Texas Senator 
was speaking.
  This is all designed for us to be asleep while our rights are being 
stripped. When are the American people going to wake up and realize 
that the book ``1984'' has come about? Your rights are being stripped, 
and I hear nothing. My friend, Bill Murray, who is an unwilling 
participant in a lawsuit to take prayer out of schools, said it best. 
His mother was an atheist who sued. He said the greatest fear that she 
had was that the American people would rise up, but what happened was 
nothing. Not a word was said.
  Today, your rights were stripped, and we hear silence. It reminds me 
when Jesus was praying and he turned to his disciples and they fell 
asleep; there was silence. Go on and sleep, America, go on and sleep. 
Your rights are being stripped, and you're saying nothing.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
  At this time, I would like to yield to Jim Bridenstine, who 
represents Oklahoma 51.
  Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, 
Congressman Kelly from Pennsylvania, for yielding me the time. I would 
also like to thank my good friend, the senior Senator from Oklahoma, 
Jim Inhofe, who has been the upper Chamber's fiercest opponent of the 
United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. I am proud that Senator Inhofe also 
stands firmly with Senator Cruz in his fight to defund ObamaCare. There 
seems to be some confusion about that back in Oklahoma, but he has been 
standing with Senator Cruz from the beginning.
  Mr. Speaker, already this year, the President tried to ban guns he 
thinks look scary. They don't operate any differently--they just look 
scary--so he tried to ban them.
  Rejected by Congress, the President tried to create what is 
effectively a national gun registry. The American people and their 
representatives rejected that plan as well. In response, President 
Obama today had his Secretary of State sign what is effectively an 
international gun control treaty that will ultimately force all of us 
to register our guns and our names and our information into an 
international database.

[[Page H5830]]

     President Obama once again demonstrated his hostility to the 
     Constitution, to the Second Amendment, and to the U.S. 
     sovereignty by signing the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. This 
     President is fundamentally antagonistic toward both our 
     constitutional right to keep and bear arms and American 
     independence from international bodies.
  Why is the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty so dangerous? First, the treaty is 
ambiguously worded. Its basic terms are not even defined, which permits 
gun-grabbing U.N. bureaucrats the widest possible interpretive scope. 
We all know that the U.N. gun-grabbers will interpret this treaty just 
as loosely as the President interprets the Constitution of the United 
States.
  Second, the Arms Trade Treaty is a direct shot at the Second 
Amendment of the Constitution. Lawful ownership and use of firearms--
including for self-defense--are basic constitutional rights. The treaty 
does not recognize this. In fact, the Arms Trade Treaty ``encourages 
governments to collect the identities of individual end users of 
imported firearms at the national level.'' This is the core of a 
national gun registry.
  The treaty also creates a national ``responsibility'' to prevent the 
``diversion'' of firearms to illegal trade. Since illicit trade is not 
defined, does this mean one American selling a gun to another American 
counts as illegal? Who is to say? Groups like Amnesty International 
have already stated that the Arms Trade Treaty is a ``start'' down the 
path of control for ``domestic internal gun sales.'' This is 
international gun control, plain and simple.
  Mr. Speaker, the Arms Trade Treaty is fully consistent with the 
President's policy of ceding more U.S. sovereignty to international 
bodies. He's pushed the Senate to ratify treaties that do nothing 
except diminish U.S. sovereignty. These treaties include the U.N. 
Conventions on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, the Rights of 
Children, and the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women.
  Does this mean that the United States finds no morally compelling 
interest in protecting disabled persons, children, or women? Of course 
not. In each of these, cases U.S. domestic law imposes far higher 
standards of protection than many of the countries that have ratified 
all three of these treaties. For example, such beacons of human freedom 
as Cuba, China, Nigeria, Russia, and Syria have ratified all three of 
these treaties. North Korea and Iran have ratified two of the three. 
Unlike these countries, though, the United States actually upholds its 
treaty obligations.
  Mr. Speaker, the Arms Trade Treaty is a perfect example of a 
dangerous trend in international legal thinking called 
``transnationalism.'' The goal of transnationalists is to ``circumvent 
resistant legislatures'' and ``download'' so-called ``global norms.'' 
We've heard the President talk about global norms ad nauseam. But the 
idea is to circumvent resistant legislatures and download global norms 
into U.S. and other domestic law. Let me say that again: the 
transnationalists pushing the Arms Trade Treaty, like Amnesty 
International, want to avoid Congress, they want to avoid us--the 
people's representatives--and impose international law from foreign 
bodies.
  Mr. Speaker, perhaps the pro-Arms Trade Treaty supporters need a 
lesson in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of 
the land. We choose those that govern us and under which laws we live. 
We should not give up our God-given rights and liberties to foreign 
bodies such as the United Nations. The Second Amendment is not up for 
debate. The individual right of Americans to keep and bear arms is not 
a matter of discussion for foreigners.
  The President will treat the Arms Trade Treaty as binding on America 
no matter what the Senate does. He can't impose gun control in Congress 
so he's going to use an international treaty instead. I pray that the 
Senate rips this treaty to pieces and that our next President removes 
America's signature and, with it, this hideous assault on our 
Constitution.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Thank you, Mr. Bridenstine.
  At this time, I would like to yield to the Member from Mississippi 1, 
Mr. Alan Nunnelee.
  Mr. NUNNELEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from 
Pennsylvania for yielding, but also for his leadership on this 
important issue.
  I rise in strong opposition to the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
  The Obama administration has a disturbing tendency to favor 
international regulation over American sovereignty. The Arms Trade 
Treaty is just the latest example.
  The Government of the United States was created by ``we the people.'' 
``We the people'' established the Constitution in order to limit that 
government; but as a condition of establishing that Constitution, ``we 
the people'' insisted that a Bill of Rights be adopted, a Bill of 
Rights that would guarantee every citizen of our Nation rights. An 
important plank in that Bill of Rights includes the right to keep and 
bear arms, and it's guaranteed by our Constitution.
  Under no circumstances should we ever agree to a treaty that 
undermines that right. This Arms Trade Treaty encourages nations to 
collect the identities of owners of imported firearms, which 
constitutes the core of a national gun registry.
  The treaty also requires nations to report the data they collect to 
the United Nations. If that data contains information on individual gun 
owners, it would be a serious violation of privacy.
  The treaty could also restrict the ability of the United States to 
conduct foreign policy and to sell arms to our allies, such as Israel.
  Now, we've seen in recent months what happens when we rely on the 
international community to act on America's interests. Russia, China, 
and the rest of the United Nations should never be given veto authority 
over American foreign policy; and we should never, ever subject the 
United States Constitution to the whims of the United Nations. The 
Second Amendment is sacred. We should always stand up and protect it.
  That is why I strongly oppose the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty 
and urge the United States Senate to reject it forthrightly.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard from a number of Members tonight. I think 
this is a day that we really have to reflect back and look at mixed 
messages.
  Back in 2009 at a NATO summit in Strasbourg, France, the President 
said:
       I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect 
     that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the 
     Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.
  Yesterday, the President stood in front of the United Nations and 
said:
       Some may disagree, but I believe America is exceptional, in 
     part because we have shown a willingness through the 
     sacrifice of blood and treasure to stand up not only for our 
     own narrow interest, but for the interest of all.
  I would just like to suggest to the President that ``integrity'' is 
defined by ``saying what you mean and meaning what you say.'' Taking a 
moment to express something that may or may not be the true core value 
of who you are or what you believe is not acceptable. What makes us 
truly exceptional as Americans is we are there every day in every way 
to those who we told we would be.
  The U.S. has the most sophisticated arms export control system in the 
world. It has commonly been called the gold standard. That term ``gold 
standard'' was used by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Yet 
this Arms Trade Treaty does nothing at all to improve our system.

                              {time}  2000

  We not only have laws on the export of arms; we actually enforce 
them. People can and regularly do go to jail for breaking those laws.
  Now, the Arms Trade Treaty will not improve the systems in other 
countries, which, in many cases, actually have no systems at all. There 
is a lot more to running an effective arms export control system than 
simply signing a piece of paper and using your signature to express 
something that is not truly in your heart.
  There is so much vagueness with this Arms Trade Treaty. Our 
regulations describing what we control are the most sophisticated in 
the world. It is really extremely difficult to evade them with word 
games. We mean what we say, and we say what we mean. It's just 
integrity. Simple. The Arms Trade Treaty, by contrast, is so vague that 
it

[[Page H5831]]

offers many opportunities for nations to claim they are complying with 
the treaty while really carrying on as normal. This has the effect of 
legitimizing the actions of bad actors.
  We have a regular system for actually making the decisions about what 
we will export and to whom we will export. This system takes many 
things into account, but it is fundamentally based on upholding the 
United States' national interest. It is not controlled by exporters, 
unlike in Europe, where exporter interests actually dominate their 
policies. This Arms Trade Treaty will do nothing to change that, but it 
will give exporter-dominated nations a shield to hide behind.
  Every nation-state can control the arms trade if it is truly willing 
to do so--and the United States is ready to help--but few have 
meaningful laws about the arms trade, and even fewer make any attempt 
to enforce them. The United States has two major programs to help the 
serious countries:
  First, the Export Control and Related Border Security Assistance--and 
it goes by the term EXBS--is run from the State Department. The second 
is the Humanitarian Mine Action Program, HMA, which includes stockpile 
conventional munitions assistance, intended to assist in the disposal, 
demilitarization, security, and management of explosive stockpiles, 
which is run by the Department of Defense.
  According to the State Department, the U.S. has contributed over $2 
billion to reduce the harmful effects of illicit, indiscriminately used 
conventional weapons through the Conventional Weapons Destruction 
Program, which includes the HMA. In other words, the United States 
actually backs its words with money and investment, and we have made 
that attempt throughout the whole world.
  Listen, our arms export control system is the gold standard of the 
world. We are not greedy with our gold. We are willing to share our 
practical knowledge with nation-states that are serious about arms 
export controls. Let us not fall for the fool's gold of a treaty that 
truly overpromises and underdelivers.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my gratitude to the Members of 
Congress from around the country who joined me tonight in this Special 
Order to oppose the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
  I would ask the citizens of the United States, as Mr. Stockman said, 
to please wake up. We are losing our country day by day in ways that we 
do not recognize, in ways that we do not know, and, truly, the 
sacrifice that this Nation has made over the years is of our 1.4 
million men and women in uniform who have died to preserve those 
personal freedoms and liberties.
  This is not a good day for the United States. This is a day when the 
United States lowered its expectations in its exceptionalism to 
something that does not truly protect the United States and that has a 
dire effect on our sovereignty as a Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, as a gun owner and lifetime member of the 
NRA, I support the Second Amendment and every individual's right to 
keep and bear arms.
   But today, that right is threatened by the United Nations Arms Trade 
Treaty. I am outraged by the administration's intention to sign this 
treaty--a treaty that directly attacks our Second Amendment rights 
through subversion and bureaucratic tricks.
   How does the treaty do so, you ask? I'll name two . . .
   First, this treaty is purposely ambiguous. It binds the United 
States to a treaty that has yet to be fully written. That means that 
only after signing will the treaty's fine points be written. Why are we 
signing onto a treaty when we don't know what's in it? How many times 
have the American people endured thousands of regulations written into 
a law only after it has been signed by the administration?
   Second, and most offensive, is the treaty's encouragement to signing 
governments to collect the identities of the ultimate owners of 
imported firearms. This treaty appears to give the administration the 
cover it needs to start a gun registry--a gun registry that I'm sure 
they will claim is harmless.
   For those and other reasons, I am disturbed by the consequences this 
treaty could have on America's Second Amendment rights. And many of my 
constituents back home in Texas share this same concern.
   No government--be it foreign or domestic--should be allowed to 
infringe on our constitutional Second Amendment rights.
   I remain strongly opposed to the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. I will 
continue to work with my like-minded colleagues in the Senate to reject 
this or any future treaties that would seek to barter away our Second 
Amendment rights and outsource American sovereignty.

                          ____________________