```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 77 (Wednesday, May 10, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4792-H4794]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                 DEFENDING DEMOCRACY AGAINST TERRORISM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 1995, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] is recognized 
for 45 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in an effort to shed light on a 
problem on nearly everyone's mind these days--the problem of 
terrorism--the problem of a relatively small number of violent 
lawbreakers who have set out to undermine our democratic way of life 
and seek either to blackmail the government through violence or the 
threat of violence to comply with their demands, or to overthrow the 
government entirely.
  What these misguided zealots are attempting to do is to create a 
climate of fear so great that Americans can't even drop off their 
children at day care in the morning without having to worry if it will 
be the last time they will ever see them. This climate of violence and 
fear is sometimes fostered by people who organize or join so-called 
militias 
[[Page H4793]]  and say they are acting in the name of patriotism. They 
invoke our Founding Fathers to defend heinous acts of senseless 
violence, or to advocate such violence.
  How ironic! How tragic!
  In Hamilton, MT, U.S. District Court Judge Jeff Langton received the 
following letter:

       We are prepared . . . to defend with our life, our Rights 
     to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. We number in 
     the thousands in your area and everywhere else. . . . How 
     many of your agents will be sent home in body bags before you 
     hear the pleas of the people? Proceed at your own peril.

  It was signed by the ``North American Militia.''
  In April of this year, in eastern Montana, approximately 15 men, 
calling themselves ``freemen,'' placed million-dollar bounties on a 
county judge, a sheriff, a county attorney and on other local officials 
who they felt were infringing on their rights.
  While these particular threats have not yet resulted in violent 
terrorist acts, they well illustrate the dangers that now confront law-
abiding Americans.
  We must not give in to the terrorists. We need to enforce the laws we 
have, and to enact whatever legal authority we need to deal with this 
domestic terrorist threat. But we must also be ever vigilant not to 
destroy the very freedoms we are attempting to protect. If we do that, 
then America loses and the terrorists win.
  We have seen some attempts here in Congress to deal with both 
domestic and international terrorism. Many of these initiatives will 
bring much needed and appropriate relief. Some threaten the rights of 
law-abiding citizens. We must be careful not to use a scatter-shot 
approach, because, as every hunter knows, scatter-shot often strikes 
innocent bystanders along with, or even instead of, the intended 
target.
  Some proposals, already presented to the Judiciary Committee, would 
violate such fundamental and sacred protections of our liberties as: 
the right to a fair and public trial; the right to confront witnesses; 
the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; and 
the right to require that government prove criminal charges beyond a 
reasonable doubt.
  These rights set our Nation apart. They safeguard our freedom. We can 
defend our families, our communities, and our laws without violating 
the Constitution, without tearing down the bulwarks of our liberties, 
and without trampling on the rights of the accused.
  I have introduced H.R. 1544, the Domestic Insurgency Act of 1995, 
which would give our law enforcement officers the legal authority they 
need to crack down on one major aspect of domestic terrorism--the 
private armies or militias that have recently proliferated across our 
land.
  This narrowly focused bill would prohibit participating knowingly in 
private paramilitary activities is it can be demonstrated beyond a 
reasonable doubt to a jury of twelve Americans that the individual 
intended to use violence against the United States or any State or for 
any other illegal purpose.
  This bill does not limit the right of free speech or of free assembly 
or association. People would still be free to express any ideas they 
choose, no matter how offensive others might find them. It would in no 
way threaten legal activities such as the Boy Scouts, rod and gun 
clubs, of people participating in nonviolent citizen activist efforts. 
It would
 not affect nonviolent civil disobedience. It would not threaten the 
right to associate freely with like-minded people. It would penalize 
only those who have in their hearts the desire to overthrow our legally 
constituted, democratically elected government and who are bent on 
taking violent action to do so and who assemble arms and weaponry and 
practice military techniques for the purpose of doing so. Only the 
terrorists have any reason to fear this bill.

  There are those who do not understand, or who deliberately will not 
understand, that this bill does not violate the Constitution in any 
way. They use self-serving, so-called patriotic arguments to justify 
their opposition.
  While vigorous debate is a healthy and necessary part of the 
democratic process, invoking our Founding Fathers to rationalize 
terrorism does not promote productive discourse. I want my colleagues 
and the American people to hear what some have argued.
  One American writes: ``particularly in jeopardy seem to be habeas 
corpus, the First, Second and Fourth Amendments and restraints on the 
Executive Branch.''
  Another writes on the Internet, ``This is an attempt to undermine the 
Second Amendment by outlawing the concept of `citizen militia man.'''
  Still a third writes,

       This final act of unsurpation should be considered by all 
     who love their country, not government, as the Final Straw, 
     and they should prepare themselves for the imposition of a 
     police state to complete the task for denial of our rights 
     granted by G-d. ``It is their right, it is their duty to 
     throw off that government'' and it appears that, should this 
     bill be passed, duty calls!

  A fax sent to my office reads as follows,

       Apparently you have never read the Constitution, if you 
     had, you would know that your Bill is not only illegal but 
     treasonous as well. You cannot undo what is a constitutional 
     right (the Second Amendment), except by repeal of the 
     Constitution itself through a Constitutional Convention! How 
     the hell did you get in office as ignorant as you are?

  A fair question. Why don't we read the second amendment together?

       A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security 
     of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear 
     Arms, shall not be infringed.

  What did the people who wrote the Constitution mean by ``a well-
regulated Militia''?
  Fortunately, the people who wrote these words provided a written 
explanation for future generations in the Federalist Papers.
  In Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton makes clear, ``that the plan 
of the [Constitutional] Convention [which adopted the Second Amendment] 
proposed to empower the Union `to provide for organizing, arming and 
disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be 
employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States 
respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of 
training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by 
Congress.'''
  Hamilton further explains that, ``[i]f a well-regulated militia be 
the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be 
under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is 
constituted the guardian of the national security,''--in other words 
Congress, to which the Constitution grants the power to raise armies.
  Therefore, Hamilton points out, ``[t]he power of regulating the 
militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and 
invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the 
common defence, and of watching over the internal peace of the 
Confederacy.''
  So, clearly, just because a private group of people who arm 
themselves with the intent to take violent action against our 
Government or its citizens call themselves a militia, does not make 
them part of the well-regulated militia referred to in the second 
amendment. The authors of the Constitution did not see it that way and 
neither has the Supreme Court.
  The Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and Supreme Court precedent 
all make crystal clear that a well-regulated militia means the 
auxiliary armed forces of the States that can be called into national 
service by the President--what we today call the National Guard.
  Those who attempt to cloak acts of terrorism or sedition as rights 
under the mantle of the second amendment ought to reread these crucial 
passages.
  We should all think about what kind of country we want to live in. To 
be truly patriotic means recognizing our responsibilities to uphold the 
democratic principles which make this the freest nation on Earth. It is 
important to remember that the opening words of the Constitution are 
``We the People'' not ``I the People.'' Being a citizen in a democracy 
means that you can't organize your own private army because you 
disagree with the actions of the democratically elected government. If 
you settle political differences with bullets instead of ballots, you 
don't live in a democracy, you live in Beruit or Bosnia. This is 
America, and I don't think we want that to happen here.
  We have a responsibility--indeed, in a democracy we have a patriotic 
duty--to speak out against what we believe to 
[[Page H4794]]  be wrong, against that with which we do not agree, and 
about that which we want to change. Peacefully, lawfully, 
democratically, and with respect for the rights and liberties of those 
with whom we disagree--that's the American way.

                          ____________________
```