Steve Russell

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. RUSSELL. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3082, introduced by Congressman Cedric Richmond of Louisiana. The bill designates the post office located at 5919 Chef Menteur Highway in New Orleans, Louisiana, as the Daryle Holloway Post Office Building. Madam Speaker, Officer Daryle Holloway was a 22-year veteran of the New Orleans Police Department and the father of three children. On June 20, 2015, Officer Holloway lost his life in the line of duty while transporting a suspect to the police station. Prior to his tragic death, Officer Holloway served his community for more than two decades. He attended Corpus Christi Elementary and graduated from St. Augustine High School, both located in New Orleans, the community in which he served. Madam Speaker, Officer Holloway had deep roots in the community he served. Throughout his life, he continued to attend the Friday night football games in support of the St. Augustine High School Purple Knights. His connection to the community was reflected in the way he approached his work. He became a police officer during the early days of community-oriented policing, an initiative where officers and residents worked together in order to combat crime and ensure safety. During his 22 years at the New Orleans Police Department, he not only protected the streets of New Orleans, but worked with children in the Cops for Kids summer camps. There, he again emphasized and maintained a healthy relationship among the police, youth, and their families. Madam Speaker, New Orleans will remember Officer Holloway as a dedicated law enforcement officer and, more importantly, as a friend. Naming this post office after Officer Daryle Holloway will memorialize both his unforgettable sense of humor and his lifelong dedication to the city of New Orleans. I urge Members to support this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSSELL. Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3274) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4567 Rockbridge Road in Pine Lake, Georgia, as the ``Francis Manuel Ortega Post Office''.

Mr. RUSSELL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. RUSSELL. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3274, introduced by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson). The bill designates the post office located at 4567 Rockbridge Road in Pine Lake, Georgia, as the Francis Manuel Ortega Post Office. Madam Speaker, Officer Ortega was a dedicated public servant who was tragically killed in the line of duty. He was born in New York City on February 27, 1980. He later attended Lawrence High School in Lawrence, Massachusetts. At the time of his death, he was pursuing an associate of science degree in criminal justice from Griffin Technical College in Griffin, Georgia. Officer Ortega had two children, Frankey and Kaylie. He worked as a part-time officer at Pine Lake Police Department and as a full-time officer at Georgia Regional Hospital. His dedication to peace and safety compelled Officer Ortega to regularly work 80-hour weeks. Tragically, on August 11, 2005, a suspect fatally shot Officer Ortega in front of the Pine Lake Post Office during a routine traffic stop. It is only fitting that this post office be named in honor of this dedicated public servant. Madam Speaker, Officer Ortega will be remembered for his commitment to justice and courage in the face of danger. He desired to stand up for what was right and not what was easy, having made the ultimate sacrifice in giving his life for the protection of his community. Naming this post office after Officer Francis Ortega will memorialize his passion for justice and tremendous dedication to the community of Pine Lake, Georgia. I urge Members to support this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. Madam 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 bill under consideration.

Mr. RUSSELL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 3601, introduced by my colleague from Rhode Island, Congressman James Langevin. The bill designates the post office located at 7715 Post Road, North Kingstown, Rhode Island, as the Melvoid J. Benson Post Office Building. Madam Speaker, Ms. Benson was born on February 13, 1930, in Jackson, Tennessee, and moved to North Kingstown, Rhode Island, in the 1960s. Once there, Ms. Benson dedicated her life to public service and to the people of the State of Rhode Island. In 1965, she began what would become a 25-year teaching career in the North Kingstown School Department. Ms. Benson then served in the Rhode Island State House of Representatives for 14 years and spent the subsequent 8 years serving on the North Kingstown School Committee. She served on the School Committee until 2014, when, at the age of 84, Ms. Benson made the decision not to seek reelection. Madam Speaker, all told, Ms. Benson spent nearly 50 years in public service. In February 2015, Ms. Benson was honored with a lifetime achievement award from the North Kingstown Democratic Town Committee. In continued appreciation to Ms. Benson, Representative Langevin introduced H.R. 3601, which names a post office in her honor. The Melvoid J. Benson Post Office Building would be an important fixture showing the gratitude of many for Ms. Benson's years of dedication to her community and her service to the State of Rhode Island. I urge Members to support the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSSELL. Madam Speaker, I also urge adoption of the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4046) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 220 East Oak Street, Glenwood City, Wisconsin, as the Second Lt. Ellen Ainsworth Memorial Post Office.

Mr. RUSSELL. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), my friend and colleague.

Mr. RUSSELL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. RUSSELL. Madam Speaker, I urge the adoption of this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of S. 1596, introduced by Senator Rob Portman of Ohio. The bill designates a post office that is located at 2082 Stringtown Road in Grove City, Ohio, as the Specialist Joseph W. Riley Post Office Building. Mr. Speaker, on November 24, 2014, United States Army Specialist Joey Riley gave his life serving his country as part of Operation Enduring Freedom in Kabul Province, Afghanistan. Specialist Riley was just 27 years of age. A native of Grove City, Ohio, he graduated from Grove City High School in 2005. Specialist Riley made the honorable and brave decision to enlist in the United States Army in June of 2012. In March 2013, Specialist Riley was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 508th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. He became a decorated soldier with awards and decorations, including the Bronze Star Medal, the Purple Heart, the Army Commendation Medal, the Army Achievement Medal, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal with a Campaign Star, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon, the NATO Medal, the Combat Infantryman Badge, and the Parachutist Badge. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that we will name the post office in his hometown to memorialize the courage and sacrifice of the United States Army and this fine paratrooper, Specialist Joey Riley. I urge Members to support this bill to name a post office in honor of this soldier. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1826) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 99 West 2nd Street in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, as the Lieutenant Colonel James ``Maggie'' Megellas Post Office.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of S. 1826, introduced by Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin. The bill designates the post office at 99 West Second Street in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, as the Lieutenant Colonel James ``Maggie'' Megellas Post Office. Our colleague and fellow member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Representative Glenn Grothman, introduced a House companion bill, but we are pleased today to be taking up the Senate version, as it will get to the President's desk faster. Retired United States Army Lieutenant Colonel Megellas is a highly decorated veteran of World War II and an individual whose story is one of remarkable bravery. He graduated from college in 1942, accepting a commission as a second lieutenant in the United States Army, where he served--courageously, I might add--as an elite paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne Division. One of the most remarkable stories about Lieutenant Colonel Megellas comes during service in the Battle of the Bulge, where he single- handedly destroyed a German Panther tank and saved the lives of many of his men. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this bill and name a post office after this true American hero. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman), my friend and colleague.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, 19 August 2015, and I quote the President of the United States: I made sure that the United States reserved its right to maintain and enforce existing sanctions and even to deploy new sanctions to address those continuing concerns, which we fully intend to do when circumstances warrant. It is imperative that we take steps to deal with Iran's destabilizing activities and support for terrorism. This involves continued enforcement of international and United States law, including sanctions related to Iran's nonnuclear activities. I am quoting the President: We will maintain powerful sanctions targeting Iran's support for groups such as Hezbollah, its destabilizing role in Yemen, its backing of the Assad regime, its missile program, and its human rights abuses at home. This was in direct response, Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman who is saying that he is not for upholding these things today. We had many in a bipartisan fashion who voted against this agreement. The President has stated clearly that, under the terms of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010, he would not interfere with the terrorist list, that he would not interfere with the human rights list. But the simple fact is--and I have read every single word of the joint agreement--there are hundreds of people in Annex II on that sanctions list. Among them are more than 50 that are on the terrorist list and the human rights list as violators. The President said that they will not be lifted off, and yet there they are. That is what this bill does. It is interesting that last week--and I quote a letter by our esteemed colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker--and here is the letter that they sent to the President of the United States reinforcing why this bill is such a good idea: Iran's destabilizing behavior in the region and continued support for terrorism represent an unacceptable threat to our closest allies as well as our own national security. As the international community prepares for implementation of the joint agreement, Iran must understand that violating international laws, treaties, and agreements will have serious consequences. We call on the administration--this is their words, Mr. Speaker--to immediately announce new, U.S. sanctions against individuals and entities involved in Iran's ballistic missile program to ensure Iran is held accountable for its actions. I continue to quote this letter: Inaction from the United States would send the misguided message that, in the wake of the joint agreement, the international community has lost the willingness to hold the Iranian regime accountable for its support for terrorism and other offensive actions throughout the region--including Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, and the Gaza Strip. This behavior--including ballistic missile tests, as the chairman spoke about--poses a direct threat to American national security interests and those of our allies. Mr. Speaker, this was signed by Representative Lowey; our esteemed colleague that is at the podium now on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Engel; the leader of the Democratic National Committee for Congress, Debbie Wasserman Schultz; and our esteemed colleagues Mr. Sires, Mr. Connolly, Mrs. Davis of California, and Mr. Nadler. Do you know what? We agree with them. We agree totally with them that these sanctions should be upheld, that the law is the law, and that the 2010 Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act is still the law. That is what this bill does. There have been claims that it was not done in a bipartisan fashion, and I find this somewhat puzzling because I personally talked to Mr. Engel about this bill. I went item by item through it and what its content was. I reached out to the Democratic leadership in August. I have been working this bill since July. So, yes, we can do it in a bipartisan fashion. I regret, because I am a freshman and only have fought on three continents and have a foreign affairs and national security background, that I am not on the Foreign Affairs Committee. But that doesn't denote, Mr. Speaker, a lack of understanding of the way the world works and what the threat is in the United States of America when we have made a law that says that, if you are a terrorist or a human rights violator, we are not going to allow you to have sanctions relief under the JCPOA. The President said that that is what he is going to do. Democrats and Republicans have said that is what they will uphold. That is what this bill does, and yet we see, puzzlingly, opposition to these very things. Here is what the bill is: Annex II of the joint agreement lifts sanctions for hundreds of individuals for nuclear proliferation or human rights violation or terrorist violation. More than 50 of these individuals and entities have been identified on the joint agreement for sanctions relief. This simply requires that, before those are delisted, the President certify why. It doesn't say they can never come off. Read section 4. It is pretty clear. It says that the President must certify justification on why that is the case. What this bill is not: a knee-jerk reaction, a partisan ploy that is quickly crafted due to recent events. We have been working for months on this. The bill was crafted without major efforts--not true, as I have proven this morning. This is upholding the law. Mr. Speaker, I urge that we have the discussion. I know my colleagues feel deeply about this. I know that they also would like to see this continued. Let's pass this bill.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership on this bill. There have been a lot of accusations about what is in this bill and the content. The fact of the matter is, what is being quoted is simply not in the bill. It says that it would deprive the President of the authority to make decisions. That is simply not the case. Page 2, line 20; page 5, line 17; page 7, line 7: ``The President may lift''--spelled out--if he meets the certification criteria. What is that criteria? That they are no longer conducting activity and they have justification for that relief. Where this language ``never at any time'' is being quoted, Mr. Speaker, by my esteemed and caring colleagues on this issue--I know how they feel about this issue personally, and I commend them for it because we are on common ground here--but they are quoting something that is simply not in the bill. When they say ``never at any time,'' that is simply not there. The President may lift the sanctions. What we are calling for is a certification as to why. If he comes in and makes the case--look, this bank has corrected its behavior, general Soleimani has had some epiphany and he is no longer a terrorist--then, fine, we can have that certification, and the President does that. Talking about several of them and that there was no bipartisan effort, every single speaker that has said that there was not a bipartisan effort I have personally been in contact with--personally-- talking on this particular issue. So that is simply not the case. I am kind of hurt by that because I reached out to all of them, and I didn't deny any of them a chance for amendment, for dialogue, or discussion. I do think that we have much common ground to go on here. I think it is also important that it says that it doesn't advance goals. It is upholding the law. The law, which is the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions and Divestment Act of 2010, says that if there are people on terror and human rights list, that they shouldn't come off without certification. We agree. That is why we are saying we have to have the similar certification for those that overlap on the joint agreement. That is why we have identified them. The hundreds of others that were mentioned by the opponents of this measure, Mr. Speaker, they weren't on those lists. That is why they are not there. They weren't targeted for this. Only those that are on the terror and human rights or nuclear proliferation with missiles list, if they are there, then that is why they have been targeted. This isn't apparently about the merit of the measure or how we feel about the national security of the United States. It has now become an issue about process. Well, I guess that experience doesn't matter. It is about process. We need to do what is right for the country, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, it was New Year's Eve in Blanchard, Oklahoma. Eighteen-year-old mother Sarah McKinley, 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 911. In the frantic and desperate situation that followed, it became clear that law enforcement would not arrive in time to prevent the assault by armed intruders. She informed the dispatcher that she had a shotgun, and asked if it was all right to shoot the intruders, should they make their way inside. Wisely, the dispatcher told Sarah: ``I can't tell you to do that, but you do what you have to do to protect that baby.'' Sarah already knew what she might have 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 baby's. Eight weeks ago, 88-year-old Arlene Orms was at home alone in Miami, Florida, when an intruder kicked in her door. Orms responded by retrieving a .25-caliber pistol, but fired it at the home invader, prompting the criminal to flee. Following the incident, Orms' neighbors expressed absolute support for her actions, with one telling a local media outlet: ``You have to do something. You have to protect yourself.'' Arlene Orms, like most Americans, inherently understands that you have the right to defend your life, your property, and your liberty. 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 to protect our privacy. As such, serious-minded individuals must have serious deliberation on any attempt to alter these fundamental American rights that are embodied in the Bill of Rights, inalienable, not granted by government. In a time where Americans face uncertain threats from terrorists at home, 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 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, or odors for their self-defense. Instead, he gave them their intelligence and, by extension, their hands, to fashion implements to protect their lives. While the President is certainly welcome to choose not to defend himself, as is his right, it is not his right to prohibit others from protecting their lives and property. The President has histrionically compared his gun control agenda with the advancement of women's suffrage rights and the elimination of slavery, chiding Republicans for their lack of advancement of the human race. If we look historically, rather than histrionically, it was Republicans who eliminated slavery and embraced Republican activist Susan B. Anthony, the women's suffragist, to get voting rights for all women, where his party had stood in the way. The President can no more rewrite history than he can rewrite the Constitution. While he may be a constitutional scholar, he needs to be schooled on constitutional history. 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, it can no more take action to deny this right than it could deny a free press, a free religious expression, or property rights to individuals. Congress will not act to destroy the Bill of Rights, and we will stand in the way of any executive who will not uphold the Constitution of the United States. Still, the administration presses forward with passion and conviction, convincing Americans that the threat is so grievous, the injury is so great, that Americans must act to inhibit our liberty. We are told that mass shootings are on the rise and gun deaths are out of control and the worst among developed nations. But before America signs up to eliminate one of her inalienable rights, let's deliberate with a sober mind. The President and his party would report outrage if conservatives suggested that the First Amendment must be scrapped because of such abuses as libel, hate speech, religious bigotry and sit-ins, warranted necessary commonsense reforms to the first of our enumerated freedoms embodied in the Bill of Rights. Americans recognize that we must face the unpleasantness of abuse of these rights on occasion to secure its inviolable status. Not the same, some may say. We are talking about outrageous loss of life and injury and it must stop, they claim. Since when did our security become substitute for our liberty? Americans for 240 years, rather, have sacrificed to secure it. And the simple truth is, the facts supporting this liberal gun control call to give up an essential American liberty have been widely and unfairly distorted. According to the Centers for Disease Control, 199,756 people lost their lives to firearms in 2014. But on examination, only 15,000 of that number were homicide. That is only 8 percent of the total. The vast majority, over 68 percent, were accident-related, and even that has steadily declined in recent years. Suicides accounted, sadly, for most of the remainder at 21 percent But the truth about gun homicides is that you are as likely to die from malignant neoplasm of the esophagus as you are to violent homicide with a firearm. You are twice as likely to die from the result of a fall. You are 2\1/2\ times more likely to die by accidental poisoning. Still, while these incidents are tragic, and many beyond the scope of civilized thinking, we cannot substitute emotion for examination. Contrary to those most vocal--and most funded--voices on this issue, we are not the most violent civilized country on the planet. In fact, according to data compiled from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the United States ranks in the bottom half of homicides worldwide among civilized or uncivilized nations. Still, the President often touts Europe as a commonsense model for better policy and security. A remarkable seven European countries have higher overall per capita homicide rates than the United States. Where is that news flash? Disarming law-abiding citizens as a solution to curtail those that break the law does not necessarily make people safer, but it certainly makes them more defenseless. On our own shores, we can find an example of this line of thinking by examining the most violent cities in America. They are most likely to be ones with the strictest gun laws. If gun control advocates ignore this body of evidence, as they are wont to do, they will explore ways to eliminate this essential right in America through other means. We often see them turn to the false assertion that the Second Amendment was never intended for individuals--remarkable, considering that James Madison insisted on enumerating inalienable individual rights into the body of the Constitution before he accepted the compromise to secure them through an amending process known as the Bill of Rights. Like all of our Framers and Founders, he understood common or natural law and its roots in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, and it guaranteed the individual right to bear arms. All of our constitutional Framers would have relied heavily on Sir William Blackstone's thought on law and liberty. This brilliant jurist secured complete influence among every colonial attorney and all of our Founding Fathers with his Commentaries on the Law published in 1765. He was explicit in his assertion that to secure individual life, liberty, and property, it was necessary ``to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense.'' It comes as no surprise then, in the language of common and natural law so clearly understood in the context of the time that the Second Amendment would be so highly placed in the order of individual rights at number two. Gun control advocates argue the amendment was only for militias, not individual people. Despite that argument being struck down for 225 years in Supreme Court rulings to include the most recent cases of Heller and McDonald in 2008 and 2010, it is instructive to see what the Framers said themselves about the meaning of people and militias. Richard Henry Lee wrote in Federalist Number 18, that brilliant group of papers known as the Federalist Papers that argued for our Constitution: ``A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves. To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.'' In fact, when one examines the First and Third through the 10th original amendments, it is difficult to interpret any other meaning than that they apply to individuals. The Second Amendment is no exception. The Supreme Court has always agreed. The famous 14th Amendment, during Reconstruction after Black Americans were freed from slavery--you know, that famous amendment that is the most referred to--guarantees equal protection under the law for all American citizens. It started out, and most Americans are not aware of this, as a Second and Fourth Amendment issue. The Southern Democratic Party lawmakers were nullifying individual liberty with their State Black Code laws which deprived Black Americans of their right to liberty, property, and to keep and bear arms as they attempted to defend their homes. Republicans fought back against these lawmakers and then led the fight to pass legislation addressing the issue in 1868. Democratic President Andrew Johnson vetoed the bill. Congress overrode it and then secured their rights forever in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. In fact, the Supreme Court has determined with clarity that the constitutional individual right of Americans to bear arms is guaranteed on Federal enclaves such as Washington, D.C., with the Heller v. District of Columbia decision. In McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court in 2010 held that the individual right extends to keeping and bearing arms to all States and territorial jurisdictions. Okay. Fine, you say. But there is no reason why people need military- style firearms. Those need to be banned. The Framers of the Constitution and the Supreme Court, strangely, to those who would have this way of thinking, would disagree. In 1939, United States v. Miller, Justice Holmes speaking for the Court in the case where one Mr. Miller asserted he had a constitutional right to bear a sawed-off shotgun without paying a special exemption tax of $200, the Supreme Court held that no such right existed on the grounds that sawed-off shotguns of the very short length Mr. Miller possessed were not suitable as a military-type firearm if needed for common defense--a paraphrase, not a quote. 1997, Printz v. United States, Justice Clarence Thomas, our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment prior to the late Supreme Court decisions, stated that they reversed the District of Columbia's invalidation of the National Firearms Act enacted in 1934. In Miller, we determined the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed-off shotgun because the weapon had not been shown to be of ``ordinary military equipment'' that could ``contribute to the common defense.'' Ban military rifles you say? Throughout our history, they have been guaranteed as an essential portion of the defense of our liberty, our homes, and our lives. What about the terrorist watch list? Nobody on the terrorist watch list ought to be able to own a firearm. The terrorist watch list is only on suspicion--no court, no rule of law, no jury of your peers. It is on suspicion for surveillance, and it can be done bureaucratically and administratively. In fact, we have had several Members of Congress, such as my colleague from Alaska, Don Young, who was falsely and inadvertently put on the terrorist watch list. Under this line of thinking, his Second Amendment rights would be removed. Well, we can't have these terrorists coming here and then being able to buy a firearm. They can't. People do not understand 18 U.S. Code. They don't understand the law. If you are a nonresident legal alien, you cannot possess, purchase, or receive a firearm. It is the law. There are only very small rare exceptions for that, such as if you were approved for a specialized hunting trip or maybe you were armed security for a head of state, for example. Well, what about that gun show loophole? Businesses shouldn't be able to sell firearms without a background check. News flash: You cannot sell a firearm under a business license without a background check. If you do so, whether you are on your property or off your property at a gun show, you are committing a felony and with strict sentencing laws often that are minimum sentences of 10 years or more. Well, what about Internet sales? You can go online and you can just order a rifle, and they will ship it to your home--again, false. People do not understand the law. The United States Postal Service and our commercial carriers do not allow shipping of firearms except under licensed dealers. The only exception to that would be if you had an original manufacturer's warranty and you ship it directly back to the manufacturer under their license, and they will receive it and send it only directly back. As the only Member of Congress who owns a firearms manufacturing business, I know about what I speak. If someone in another State were to try to order a firearm off of our Web site, it would never get shipped to their home or I would go to prison. Instead, we tell that person: You need to get the local firearms licensee in your area to send a certified copy of your license to us, and they are in a form where we can recognize what is a real license. When we receive that, we will ship it to him, they will do the check, and you will fill out forms and you can receive your firearm. That is the way the law works. So all of this outrage from my colleagues on the liberal left of trying to fix things, the law already exists. It is like saying that we need to do something about murder. We need to make some laws to stop murder. Maybe they will quit doing that. Oh, we already have those laws, and people still commit crime. Therein is where we need to focus. Target the abusers, not the law- abiding American citizen, and do not target the Republic of the most incredible constitutional form of law the world has ever known. 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 the Republic. This is the uncompromising understanding reflected in the warning that America's gun owners will not go gently into these utopian woods. While liberals and gun control advocates will take such a statement as evidence of their belief in the backwater, violent, and untrustworthy nature of the armed American citizens, we gun owners hope that liberals hold equally strong conviction about their printing presses, their Internet blogs, and their television cameras. The Republic depends upon the fervent devotion to all of our fundamental rights. That is the oath that we take, and no President's tears will ever shake us from the defense of that Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.