United Nations Arms Trade Treaty

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source