[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12705-12710]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           AMERICAN FREEDOMS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gibson) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GIBSON. Madam Speaker, this evening I will be joined with three 
other veterans, and among the four of us are three airborne Ranger-
qualified veterans and one Navy SEAL. We will be talking about our 
freedoms and this exceptional way of life.
  Madam Speaker, earlier this year, on the Fourth of July, we 
celebrated 240 years of our independence, celebrating our freedoms.
  Earlier this week in a series of somber memorials, I was in some of 
my towns across the 11 counties of the 19th Congressional District of 
New York, and we marked the 15th year since the 11th of September of 
2001.
  Madam Speaker, it has often been the case in the human experience 
that in adversity, character is revealed. I would submit that the 
character of the American soul was revealed on that day. Courage in the 
face of danger.

[[Page 12706]]

  At the World Trade Center, when so many Americans were working their 
way down the stairs, our first responders were on their way up to make 
sure that no one was left behind. Remarkable courage in the face of 
danger.
  And I think about what it must have been like on United Airlines 
Flight 93 when they had that revelation that the country was under 
attack and that their plane, which had been hijacked, was destined for 
some target, likely in the National Capital Region, and how they 
summoned up the courage to attack. Ordinary Americans doing 
extraordinary things. Courage in the face of danger. Part of the 
American soul, part of our character. Also, I would add, unity, unity 
of our country.
  Very often we celebrate the diversity in this country. And, in fact, 
we are very proud of the fact that we have freedom of thought, freedom 
of expression, and we celebrate that diversity. But, Madam Speaker, we 
also at the same time honor our unity, and that was clearly on display 
on the 11th of September and all the days after.
  Then, finally, what I would add is courage in the face of danger, 
unity, love, and support. I saw that firsthand again this week 
throughout my district at these memorials. It certainly was the case on 
the 11th of September.
  When you think about what it means to be an American and the freedoms 
that we hold dear, this is a way of life worth defending, and that is 
why I am excited to be with my colleagues here this evening to talk 
about that. Because oftentimes we don't think about this, it is no less 
true.
  What we did in the 18th century was truly radical. We changed the 
trajectory of history with our Revolution. Think about those summoning 
words in the Declaration of Independence:
  ``WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created 
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable 
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of 
Happiness--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted 
among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the 
Governed.''
  We have a tendency to look back on that and say, Well, of course. 
That was utterly radical. The 18th century was the era of the divine 
right of kings and queens and aristocracies. The heads of state of 
Europe, they gave us no chance. They never thought this would work. 
They scoffed at us. They believed that, ultimately, chaos would unfold 
and that we would beg for the monarchy to come back. And, Madam 
Speaker, we showed the world a humble nation, mostly farmers at the 
time; and we showed the world that we could not only survive, that we 
could thrive and flourish and really go on to be, as many have said, 
the greatest hope for mankind.
  Madam Speaker, that is why we are here tonight. We all believe 
passionately in this. We took an oath that said we were ready to give 
our life for that, and we are still fighting for that now, as we serve 
in the United States Congress.
  And when we consider the kind of government that we brought forward, 
this was a government of the people, by the people, for the people, a 
self-governing people. Philosophers had written about it. We had some 
forms of that in republics over the centuries. But really what many had 
theorized, we were really the first to put in full practice.
  And here I am talking explicitly about an independent judiciary. 
Heretofore, they had been, you know, extensions of the crown, 
extensions of the executive branch.
  James Madison and many of the Founders came forward and they said--
and this is what was so revolutionary--we are going to put the 
individual at the center, the citizen at the center. Before that time, 
government really was the state, it was the king, it was the queen. And 
we said we are going to be self-governing.
  Madam Speaker, to do that, we brought forward a Constitution. And 
that was, again, what was really, I think, in the end, pivotal because 
we had a contemporary.
  Less than a decade later, France had a revolution, but, 
unfortunately, ultimately, they begged for the monarchy to come back. 
Their revolution did not succeed, but ours did. And it really was the 
genius design of the Constitution that diffused power, that celebrated 
liberty, and put the citizen at the center, the separation of powers, 
the checks and balances, the auxiliary checks that came with it. We are 
talking about Federalism.
  We chose the word ``state'' on purpose. We could have chose 
``province.'' We could have chose any other word. We chose the word 
``state'' because we believed in that cosovereignty. And, of course, 
undergirding all of that was the idea of an empowered citizen, as I 
mentioned.
  Some historians have said that when you look at all of this, when you 
look at Federalist Papers, when you look at the Constitution, when you 
look at the Bill of Rights, it has been argued that these are some of 
the most summoning words ever penned; and I agree with that. But, Madam 
Speaker, this was also very real.
  What our Founders instantiated in the Bill of Rights, everything they 
put there, had happened to us. I mean, King George had abused the 
colonists. He had abused us. And we said, No more. We said that we 
shall have liberty.
  So when you look at the First Amendment, for example, the king had 
denied us the ability of freedom of speech. He told us that we could 
not have freedom of religion. He superimposed his religious views on 
all of the colonists. He said that we couldn't meet in groups of more 
than three because he said we would be conspiring against him. It turns 
out he was actually right about that.
  Madam Speaker, he denied us the right to petition our government. We 
put together petitions. We sent it overseas to the king, anxiously 
waiting on a response. The king didn't even open them. He wouldn't open 
these petitions. He said they didn't have the standing, they don't have 
the right.
  Our Founders said that all of our citizens have the right to petition 
their government; they have the right to assemble; they have the right 
to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion. We 
hold these dear, and we are very proud of this.
  The Second Amendment. Madam Speaker, we often learn that the Brits 
marched on our guns; and that, in part, is why the Second Amendment was 
put there. Well, let's remember this: sure, it was the Brits, but that 
doesn't even make the point. That was our government. The Brits at the 
time were essentially our national government, and they marched on our 
guns. The Founders said, No more. Free citizens who have rights and 
responsibilities have the right to keep and bear arms.
  The Third Amendment. Madam Speaker, the king had quartered troops in 
our homes. He did that without asking; didn't pay us any money. Our 
Founders said that is a violation; it is a violation of the citizen; 
and that the only time that a government can quarter troops in a home 
is if Congress declares that there is a state of war and if citizens 
are reimbursed for that.
  Madam Speaker, the Fourth Amendment. The king routinely sent his 
troops into our homes. He didn't need cause. They turned furniture 
upside down. They could look for anything. Our Founders said that would 
not happen again. They said that we have the right--as citizens, we 
have the right to be reasonably secure in ourselves, in our belongings, 
and that the only way the government could get access to that is if 
they followed a process, due process where they stood before a judge 
and they showed probable cause for action. Only then shall warrants be 
writ, and those warrants shall have specificity in person, place, and 
thing. Central to liberty.
  Madam Speaker, the Fifth through the Eighth Amendments have to do 
with the rights of the accused. We have the right to hear the charges 
against us. We have the right to not be locked up, indefinitely 
detained without charge. We have the right to counsel. We have the 
right to not be forced to testify against ourselves. We also won't have 
double jeopardy. If we are facing a capital crime, it shall first go to 
a

[[Page 12707]]

grand jury. We have the right to speedy and public trials by jury, and 
we have the right to protection from unjust punishment.

                              {time}  1830

  Madam Speaker, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are an affirmation of 
limited government because the Founders said that anything that wasn't 
explicitly written in the document would be left for the States or the 
people.
  Madam Speaker, this changed the history of the world. This was an 
incredible moment when freedom was born. And every generation since, 
servicemen and -women have had to stand up to protect those freedoms 
because we believe in the idea of the citizen and we believe in the 
idea of liberty.
  Madam Speaker, I want to be clear. There has been a lot of discussion 
in this Chamber about the safety and security of our families and our 
communities. I want to state very clearly that all of us veterans here, 
we believe deeply in this. We love our families, we love our friends, 
we love our communities, and we want to assure their safety. That is 
partly what inspired us to go forward, to deploy, to fight our enemies: 
to ensure the protection of our loved ones.
  We don't believe that by targeting with law law-abiding citizens we 
are going to be safer. We believe in background checks. Of course, we 
do. We don't want terrorists to get guns. In fact, we endeavor to kill 
or capture terrorists.
  We believe this. We believe that any public policy that is enacted 
needs to actually solve the problem while at the same time protecting 
our liberties, assuring us of the freedoms that we fought for.
  As we look across, what is evident is that we have issues right now 
with gangs and narcotraffickers, and so we support action. In fact, we 
helped pass, in this Chamber, legislation that addressed that. When we 
addressed the opioid issue, we addressed education, which is so 
important to cutting down on opioid abuse. We addressed treatment. We 
also addressed enforcement.
  Federalism has many virtues, but it has some challenges, too. There 
are seams. There are seams that these narcotraffickers and gangs can 
exploit, and we helped address that.
  Madam Speaker, these are constructive actions that can help make us 
safer. We fought to defend these freedoms. We are still fighting to 
defend these freedoms.
  Madam Speaker, we are now going to hear from a series of speakers. I 
want to first bring up my friend from Oklahoma, Steve Russell. He 
represents the Fifth District in Oklahoma. He served in the United 
States Army for 21 years. He commanded a battalion. His battalion was 
actually the main effort that captured Saddam Hussein back in December 
of 2003 in Iraq. This is an incredible person. He is a warrior. He is 
scholar. He is a statesman. He was decorated with the Combat 
Infantryman Badge. His servicemen and -women were awarded the Valorous 
Unit Award, and he personally was decorated for valor. He is also a 
small-business owner, rifle manufacturing business. He was a 
representative in Oklahoma before he came here. I am very honored to 
serve with him.
  I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Russell).
  Mr. RUSSELL. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and fellow warrior 
from New York and my brother warriors who are joining me in this effort 
today. It is an honor to have a sister warrior who is also sitting in 
the chair with us here tonight.
  The right to keep and bear arms is as fundamental to our freedom as 
any other inalienable right we enjoy as Americans. This right is God-
given--as much as the freedom of religion and to exercise worship, the 
freedom to assemble and express, the freedom to own property and 
protect our privacy.
  As such, serious-minded individuals must have serious deliberation on 
any attempt to alter these fundamental rights. In a time where 
Americans face uncertain threats from terrorists at home and abroad, 
most Americans clearly understand why we must preserve the right to 
defend ourselves, our families, and our property.
  For those who would refuse their right to defend themselves, they 
certainly have the freedom to do so. They do not have the freedom to 
make that decision for others.
  In terms of human behavior, our survival instincts are inherent. The 
Creator of the universe did not make human beings with fangs, claws, 
quills, odors, or poisons for their self-defense. Instead, he gave them 
their intelligence and, by extension, their hands to fashion implements 
to protect their lives.
  While the Progressives are certainly welcome to choose not to defend 
themselves, as is their right, it is not their right to prohibit others 
from protecting their lives, liberty, and property or the Bill of 
Rights of the Constitution of the United States.
  It was New Year's Eve in Blanchard, Oklahoma. Eighteen-year-old 
mother Sarah McKinley, who was alone with her 3-month-old son, heard a 
ruckus at the door. Two men were outside trying to break it down. 
Grabbing her baby and barricading the door with her sofa, she 
immediately called 9-1-1.
  In the frantic and desperate situation, it became clear that law 
enforcement would not arrive in time to prevent the assault by armed 
intruders with designs that can only be imagined. She informed the 
dispatcher that she had a shotgun and asked if it was all right to 
shoot the intruders if they made it inside. Wisely, the dispatcher told 
Sarah: I can't tell you to do that, but you do what you have to do to 
protect your baby.
  Sarah already knew what she had to do and hoped against hope that law 
enforcement, while responding quickly, would arrive in time. When the 
armed intruders broke down the door, 24-year-old Justin Martin climbed 
over the couch and was greeted with a shotgun blast to the chest. While 
his accomplice ran for his life, Sarah had saved hers and her son's.
  A year ago, 88-year-old Arlene Orms was at home in Miami, Florida, 
when an intruder kicked in her door. Orms responded by retrieving a 
small .25-caliber pistol and fired at the home invader, prompting the 
criminal to flee.
  Following the incident, Orms' neighbors expressed support for her 
actions, with one telling a local media outlet: ``You have to do 
something . . . You have to do something to protect yourself.''
  Americans all across this land understand inherently you have the 
right to defend yourself, your property, your loved ones, and your 
liberty.
  Progressives can no more rewrite history than they can rewrite the 
Constitution. From Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, and Adams, all the way 
to the Supreme Court decisions with Heller and McDonald, this 
inalienable right has been affirmed in defense of its articulation in 
the Bill of Rights.
  While the President complains of congressional inaction on the right 
to keep and bear arms, we can no more take action to deny this right 
that we could deny a free press, free religious expression, or property 
rights of individuals. Congress cannot become a vehicle to destroy the 
Bill of Rights.
  Madam Speaker, my fellow warriors and I have nearly lost our lives 
like you defending this Republic in our Nation's Armed Forces doing 
very hard things. We stand as brothers in arms to declare that we will 
stand in the way of any Executive who will not uphold the Constitution 
of the United States, plain and simple.
  Still, the administration and progressives press forward with passion 
and conviction, convincing Americans that the threat is so grievous, 
the injury so great, that Americans must now act. We are told that mass 
shootings are on the rise and gun deaths are out of control and the 
worst possible environment exists among developed nations.
  Before America signs up to eliminate one of her inalienable rights, 
let's deliberate with a sober mind on this issue. The President and his 
party would report outrage if conservatives suggested that the First 
Amendment must be scrapped because of outrageous libel, hate speech, 
religious bigotry, and sit-ins warranted necessary commonsense reforms 
so that

[[Page 12708]]

we could take away the first of our enumerated freedoms embodied in the 
Bill of Rights. There would be outrage over such a suggestion. 
Americans recognize that we must face the unpleasantness of its abuse 
to secure its inviolable status.
  Not the same, some may say. We are talking about outrageous loss of 
life and injury, and it has to stop. Since when did our security become 
substitute for our liberty? Americans for 240 years have rather 
sacrificed to secure it.
  My brother warriors with me here, Madam Speaker, along with you and 
your service, we stand in that group of those who have defended and 
supported the Constitution since we were very young adults.
  What about the facts? With more than 33,000 gun homicides last year, 
the question is asked: Don't you think it is time to do something about 
gun violence?
  Well, here are the facts:
  More than 60 percent of these homicides are suicides. While tragic, 
it is not the same.
  Only 8,124 were with firearms of the 11,961 that were murders. That 
is 8,124, not the 33,000 that you hear.
  This is a 9 percent decline in gun murders since 2010. Haven't heard 
that one, a 20 percent decline in gun murders since 2005. Again, you 
haven't heard that one. A 50 percent decline in gun murders since 1995.
  The laws seem to be working. With shall-issue carry laws and good 
lawmaking in States, we have seen a 50 percent diminishment in the 
problem. That is called success. Why on earth would people want to 
change that?
  Here is another one that we see people asking: People are being 
slaughtered by these assault weapons. Don't you think it is time we ban 
them?
  Assault weapons are fully automatic and unavailable to the public. 
Semiautomatic rifles make up the majority of rifles owned in the United 
States. Here is an interesting fact. Of those 8,124 murders with 
firearms in 2014, the last full statistical year, only 248 were with 
rifles of any kind--that would be flintlocks; that would be 
semiautomatic rifles; that could be anything. 8,124--not the 33,000. Of 
those, 248 were with rifles. Yet people think that: Oh, my goodness. 
This is the problem. This is what we have to ban. Statistically, the 
facts are simply not there.
  To put that in perspective, of other murders in different categories, 
435 people were murdered in 2014 with clubs and hammers; 660 were 
murdered in 2014 with hands, fists, and feet.
  So let's have the deliberative debate, but let's look at the facts. 
Don't you think a terrorist, if they can't board a plane, they ought 
not to be able to buy a firearm. News flash: the terrorist watch list 
has over 1 million names; 99 percent of them are foreigners. As the 
only firearms manufacturer in Congress, I can assure you in the 18 U.S. 
Code and in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms regulations that 
govern manufacturers and dealers, guess what. They can't purchase a 
firearm, not as a nonresident alien. Ain't going to happen. If we were 
to do that, we would be committing a felony.
  Of the less than 1 percent that might be eligible, an even smaller 
fraction of these are on separate no-fly lists. Yet you don't hear 
these facts. You are hearing them tonight in the people's House.

                              {time}  1845

  All Federal prohibitors would trigger an alert to the FBI on any 
firearms transfer, even if they were eligible.
  What about the gun show loophole? Don't you think businesses should 
be forced to conduct background checks at gun shows? I have a firearms 
business. If we were to go to a gun show and set up there, and we were 
to do a firearms transfer under that license without a NICS check and a 
4473, we would be committing a felony.
  No firearms licensee can transfer a firearm without a background 
check, period. If so, a felony is committed with stiff penalties. On-
site business or off-site transfer, it doesn't matter. It is 
irrelevant. These are the facts.
  What about Internet gun sales, don't you think there should be a 
background check on those? Why, you can just go on the Internet and 
they mail you a firearm.
  No licensee will transfer a firearm to another location without 
sending it to another licensee to make the transfer. When people order 
our products, we send them out to another Federal firearms licensee. 
They do the background checks. They do the transfer. If that doesn't 
happen, nothing is transferred. To do so is to commit a felony 
otherwise.
  Further, no firearm can be transferred through the mail or a shipping 
service unless by a licensee, and unless--the only exception--it is the 
owner sending it back to the manufacturer to have some repair made or 
something of that nature.
  And so these are the facts that we see and that we deal with. As we 
go into this debate, we have to go into it with deliberation. We often 
hear: Why aren't we having these issues? Why aren't we discussing this 
issue? Let's have the debate. Let's go after the facts.
  Serious people decline to trivialize any right expressly addressed in 
the Bill of Rights. A government that abrogates any of the Bill of 
Rights, with or without majority approval, forever acts illegitimately 
and loses the moral right to govern this Republic. This is the 
uncompromising understanding reflected in the warning that America's 
gun owners will not go gently into the utopian woods.
  While liberals and gun control advocates will take such a statement 
as evidence of their belief in the back-water, violent, untrustworthy 
nature of the armed American citizen, as gun owners, veterans, combat 
veterans, defenders of this Republic, we understand that hope, that 
liberals hold equally strong conviction with theirs about printing 
presses, Internet blogs, and television cameras. We get that. It is the 
same Bill of Rights, inalienable.
  The Republic depends on the fervent devotion to all of our rights, 
not selective rights. This is the oath we take, and no President's 
tears or progressives' passionate pleas will shake us from the defense 
of the Constitution of the United States.
  Mr. GIBSON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma. I 
want to thank him for providing real illumination on important data and 
also on law. I think too often we can move off quickly without having a 
firm understanding of what the current law is, and so we really 
appreciate him bringing clarity to that subject.
  And also inherent in the gentleman's talk, this idea, this Bill of 
Rights, is formed with the basis of a citizen that has rights and 
responsibilities. We know as citizens that we have a responsibility to 
follow the law. And if we don't follow the law, we are fully held to 
account for that. That is another piece I think that is occasionally 
missing from all this. And certainly what is missing, I believe, is the 
fact that all of us here tonight and, indeed, Madam Speaker, all of us 
acknowledge your very distinguished career in the United States 
military and, in so many ways, how you were a trailblazer and how you 
really are a role model for everyone. We are so honored to serve with 
you.
  We recognize the fact that for all of us, we believe with every fiber 
in our body that we are going to stand for these rights, that the 
policy that we bring forward is going to be based on those rights, and 
also looking to solve the problem which, as I pointed out, when you 
actually look at the facts and you listen to the data, you know that 
where the problems are are these narcotraffickers. You know, we have 
issues with that, and we need to take action with that. So when we 
focus our policies in the area that is causing the problem, we will 
actually begin to see an even more safe and secure environment.
  By the way, also the deterrence, along with addressing the issue with 
narcotraffickers and gangs, is the deterrent value itself of the Second 
Amendment. So I want to thank Mr. Russell.
  At this point, I want to bring up another great American, Ryan Zinke. 
He is the at-large representative from Montana. Congressman Zinke spent 
23 years in the United States military. He was a United States Navy 
SEAL. In

[[Page 12709]]

fact, he commanded SEAL Team Six. He was the commander of Joint Special 
Operations Task Force in the Arabian Peninsula, leading over 3,500 
special operators in Iraq. He also established the Navy Special Warfare 
Advanced Training Command and served as the first dean of the Naval 
Special Warfare graduate school. He earned two Bronze Stars during his 
service, and his service continues now. His daughter was a former U.S. 
Navy diver, and she is married to a Navy SEAL.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Zinke), my 
good friend.
  Mr. ZINKE. Madam Speaker, when I was a Commander at SEAL Team Six, I 
can tell you I was never the best jumper, diver, explosives expert, but 
I always knew who was. I was able to surround myself with, I think, the 
greatest team that this country could muster.
  I feel privileged and honored also in Congress to be able to surround 
myself with what I think are the greatest team of patriots, both men 
and women who have served our country and have a great love for our 
Constitution.
  Tonight's discussion is about the Constitution. All of us took an 
oath to defend and support the Constitution against all enemies, 
foreign and domestic; and this time in our government's history, I 
don't think there is more of an important message to do that today.
  Our Constitution is about individual rights granted to us not by the 
government but by God, secured by the people. What we find ourselves 
today is not a Republican or Democrat issue. This is an American issue, 
and it strikes at the very heart of our country.
  Across our great land, there is a sense that America has lost her 
place. There is a sense that tomorrow is not going to be a better day, 
that America's greatness has passed. I don't share that thought because 
I believe in the people of America.
  What I think has happened is this: We always thought that our 
President or elected officials would always have our best interests at 
heart. And America went busy doing the things that are required every 
day, moms were dropping the kids off to school, we were working, 
building small businesses, mom-and-pop stores were out there doing 
commerce, and we always thought, again, that our officials, our elected 
officials, would always do what is right.
  Well, there is a saying in the SEALs that you have to earn your 
Trident every day. In America, we have to earn our freedoms every day. 
And earning our freedoms is participating in our elections, and it is 
holding our elected officials accountable, making sure that this great 
democracy, which is the light of the world, maintains its place.
  John F. Kennedy, in his inaugural address, said that our great Nation 
would pay any price and bear any burden in the defense of freedom. That 
sounding call was a call to all men and women worldwide that the United 
States would be there in the defense of our freedoms. There was a bond, 
a democracy, and a government by the people and for the people that 
provided the most opportunity for all of us. At the heart of it is the 
defense of our individual freedoms--our freedom of speech, religion, 
and our freedom to bear arms. They are sacred. They are sacred to 
Americans and the envy of the world.
  So tonight, as we think about what is important in our country, I say 
this: It is time for America to stand. It is time for us to rally. Our 
country is worth fighting for. Our values are worth defending. Our 
Nation requires all of us to act. We all rise and fall on the same 
tide. We all share the same experience of being American.
  With that, I am honored to be with you tonight. Thank you, and God 
bless.
  Mr. GIBSON. I want to thank the gentleman. I want to thank him for 
really putting in focus the fact that these natural rights--life, 
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--these natural rights come from 
God, and that governments are instituted among men and women to secure 
those rights, deriving their just powers from the consent of the 
governed.
  As I mentioned earlier, what really made us different from the rest 
of the world, this exceptional Nation which many people thought would 
never work out, I want to thank the gentleman for putting that in 
focus. I thank him for his service to our Nation, thank him for his 
leadership.
  We are now going to hear from one of our newest Members here in the 
House, Warren Davidson, who represents the Eighth District in Ohio. He 
is no stranger to service. He is certainly no stranger to hard work. He 
graduated from the United States Military Academy in 1995, and he spent 
11 years in the United States Army. He served in some of our most elite 
units. He served in the 75th Ranger Regiment, the 101th Airborne 
Division, and right here in Washington, D.C. with the Old Guard.
  After 11 years having defended these freedoms, he went back home, and 
he began to work in his family business. Then later, he branched out on 
his own and started his own small business in manufacturing, something 
very important to an independent nation. We are very proud of his 
service. We are glad he is here with us now, and we know we see great 
things in his future.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).
  Mr. DAVIDSON. Madam Speaker, it is an honor to be here with my 
colleagues. It is a different way to support and defend the 
Constitution than I ever expected to have. I began my service here much 
like, well, everyone else. We all start the same way. We swear an oath 
to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and 
domestic. And that was the first time that I swore it, or any of us 
here tonight.
  In 1988, at the climax of the cold war, I enlisted in the infantry. I 
was honored to serve in Germany after Ronald Reagan had uttered the 
famous words, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.'' I was honored to 
be there at a time when many people in the world worried that Ronald 
Reagan, with his intense rhetoric, would somehow cause world war III, 
that maybe he was pushing too far, too hard, or asking too much.
  I was honored to be there when East Germans tore down their own wall. 
Word had gotten past the Iron Curtain and penetrated the lies they had 
been told, and they knew what we had here. They tore down their own 
wall, and, for once, the oppressor did not stop them.

                              {time}  1900

  I was honored that Thanksgiving to meet East Berliners who could not 
believe what they were seeing. They were seeing stores with goods on 
the shelves, open at night.
  They asked: Is it like this everywhere?
  I thought they were talking about how big Berlin was, but they were 
just in shock because they had not experienced what we had.
  And what did we have?
  We had the birth of plenty. We had the world's best markets--and 
still do--for goods, for services, for capital, for intellectual 
property, for innovation. We are the world's land of opportunity, and 
they were hungry for it.
  Ronald Reagan, much earlier in his career, had a famous speech: ``A 
time for choosing.'' I would encourage everyone one who has not watched 
it, to watch it, and everyone who has not watched it in a while, to 
watch it again. Reagan said--back then, famous words--``Freedom is 
never more than one generation away from extinction.''
  Sadly, that is more true today than perhaps at any time since he 
uttered those words then.
  No one knows the divide between freedom and oppression better than 
servicemen and -women. They fight our Nation's wars. They risk their 
lives to defend our Constitution. Sadly, the threat to our Constitution 
is not just from foreign enemies. Sometimes, sadly, it is right here in 
the Halls of Congress.
  In my short 3 months here, I have seen attempted infringements on the 
First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth 
Amendments. That is hard to believe.
  Just this past summer, we had Members of Congress obstructing the 
people's work here, staging a sit-in on the

[[Page 12710]]

House floor to subvert our Second Amendment with a radical gun control 
agenda. It is an agenda that seeks to deprive us of the very rights our 
Founding Fathers sought to preserve with the Constitution and the Bill 
of Rights.
  Anyone could do a plain reading of the Constitution and see that the 
right to bear arms is named right there, to be applied at the 
individual level. The rest of the Bill of Rights is certainly talking 
about rights at the individual level, and the Second Amendment is no 
exception.
  Justice Scalia wrote it in the Heller decision, ``Nowhere else in the 
Constitution does a `right' attributed to the people refer to anything 
other than an individual right.''
  ``The people'' refers to all members of the political community, not 
an unspecified subset. We start, therefore, with a strong presumption 
that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs 
to all Americans.
  You see, for more than 100 years, the 14th Amendment has been used to 
link the rest of the Bill of Rights to the State. Somehow, the same 
folks that are onboard with applying the First Amendment to States, 
whether it is free speech, voting rights, or freedom of religion, in 
some cases, they are reluctant to let the same be true for the Second 
Amendment.
  When they want a uniform view of things that aren't even addressed in 
our Constitution, like marriage, they are not willing to apply the same 
logic to our Constitution with something that is very plainly stated: 
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
  I take that right very seriously. Those of us who served in the 
military know all too well what a society looks like when freedoms are 
squashed. We have seen these places and met the people who have lived 
under tyranny.
  Our Founding Fathers knew the battle between freedom and tyranny too 
well, many sacrificing their lives in the struggle to establish this 
Nation. It is not an accident that they enshrine that right to keep and 
bear arms squarely right after the right to speech and freedoms of 
religion. It is so essential to stave off oppressors that we cannot be 
truly free without it.
  After these men sacrificed life and limb, let us not besmirch their 
legacy by subjecting it to an agenda which would seek to attack away 
this freedom one firearm or one freedom at a time.
  The threats are real. It is hard to imagine. It is not just rhetoric. 
Those words, ``freedom is never more than one generation away from 
extinction,'' sound like political rhetoric, but it is just so real and 
we have to take it very seriously. It is an honor to be here to talk 
about it.
  Mr. GIBSON. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues, and I 
really want to express what a privilege it is to serve in this House. I 
believe in this country and this exceptional way of life. Not that we 
don't have warts and challenges--we certainly have those--but there is 
nothing that we can't solve together.
  We also need to recognize that what we did in the 18th century that 
allowed for the most freedom and the opportunity in the history of 
mankind is not a birth right. It is not a foregone conclusion. Every 
generation has to defend it. They have to defend it from threats from 
abroad and also be vigilant for unintentional or perhaps intentional 
encroachment here at home.
  Our colleagues here believe deeply in protecting this exceptional way 
of life. As I stated earlier, we love our family, we love our friends, 
we love our communities. We want to ensure that they are safe. We are 
ready to work with our colleagues on that. As we do, we need to keep 
forefront this exceptional way of life which the first generation of 
Americans fought to provide for us and that every successive generation 
has fought to preserve and that we also take commonsense approaches 
that are based on data and that are focused on actually solving the 
problem.
  We identified some of those problems tonight and areas where we think 
we can find some common ground. I mentioned one of them we already have 
in terms of the law enforcement and cracking down on the 
narcotraffickers.
  Madam Speaker, we are here tonight because we also wanted to make it 
very clear that--while there are passions and emotions in every 
direction, we wanted to make it very clear that what we hold so dear, 
this exceptional way of life, the liberties, the Bill of Rights, the 
Constitution, this is something we will defend. We have defended it and 
we continue to defend it. May God bless this country.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________