[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 175 (Wednesday, November 16, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H7661-H7690]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1340
NATIONAL RIGHT-TO-CARRY RECIPROCITY ACT OF 2011
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H.R. 822.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Franks of Arizona). Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 463 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 822.
{time} 1341
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 822) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national
standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry
concealed firearms in the State, with Mrs. Miller of Michigan in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Conyers) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, was
introduced by Mr. Stearns of Florida and Mr. Shuler of North Carolina
and is cosponsored by 245 Members of Congress on both sides of the
aisle. This landmark legislation recognizes the importance of the
Second Amendment and makes it easier for individuals with concealed
carry permits to travel to other States. Forty-nine States now allow
concealed carry permits, and 40 of these States also extend some degree
of reciprocity to permit holders from other States.
This bill simply applies the States' reciprocal agreements
nationwide. This legislation requires States that currently allow
people to carry concealed firearms to recognize other States' valid
concealed carry permits, much like States recognize driver's licenses
issued by other States. The bill recognizes the right of States to
determine eligibility requirements for their own residents.
State, local, and Federal laws and regulations regarding how, when,
and where a concealed firearm can be carried that apply to a resident
will apply equally to a nonresident. For example, many States bar
individuals from carrying firearms in a bar, at a sporting event, or in
a State park. Under this legislation, all of these restrictions will
apply to nonresidents as well.
H.R. 822 also addresses concerns regarding the ability of law
enforcement agencies to confirm the validity of an out-of-state
concealed carry permit. The bill requires a person to show both a valid
government-issued identification document, such as a license or
passport, and a valid concealed carry license or permit.
State law enforcement agencies can verify the validity of an out-of-
state concealed permit through the Nlets system. Nlets is available to
law enforcement officials in all 50 States 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week. Data from the FBI's annual Uniform Crime Report shows that right-
to-carry States, or those that widely allow concealed
[[Page H7662]]
carry, have 22 percent lower total violent crime rates, 30 percent
lower murder rates, 46 percent lower robbery rates, and 12 percent
lower aggravated assault rates, as compared to the rest of the country.
Opponents of this bill have noted that some States would be required
to recognize concealed carry permits issued by States with different
standards of eligibility. However, 40 States already grant reciprocity
to other States, including to States with different eligibility
requirements. The States would not do this if different eligibility
requirements were a concern.
The Second Amendment is a fundamental right to bear arms that should
not be constrained by State boundary lines. Opposition to this
legislation comes from those who believe concealed carry permit holders
often commit violent crimes, which is demonstrably false, or from those
who want to restrict the right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms.
This legislation enhances public safety and protects the right to bear
arms under the Second Amendment. I urge my colleagues to support H.R.
822.
Madam Chairwoman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Members of the House, the measure that we have under consideration
today is a very curious one in that there is some misunderstanding of
what the constitutional right to carry loaded, hidden guns in public is
really all about.
I would begin our discussion pointing out that under the proposal
before us, a concealed firearm permit issued by any State would be
valid in every State that allows a concealed carry provision. So, for
example, a visitor to my home State of Michigan would be allowed to
carry a loaded, hidden weapon in public, even if he has not met the
minimum requirements to do so mandated by our State law.
Different States have enacted different requirements for carrying
concealed weapons within their borders. And although Federal law
prohibits individuals with Federal convictions from possessing a
weapon, 38 of our States have chosen to deny concealed carry licenses
to individuals with convictions for certain misdemeanor offenses.
I would like to start our discussion off with the fact that there are
so many members of law enforcement, so many members of the government,
so many members of our editorials--please consider with me, my
colleagues in the House, that every major law enforcement organization
in the United States of America opposes the measure that is on the
floor today, H.R. 822. Every single organization. These organizations
include the International Association of Chiefs of Police; the Major
Cities Chiefs Association, which includes the 56 largest cities in the
United States of America; the Police Foundation; the National Latino
Peace Officers Association; and the National Organization of Black Law
Enforcement Executives.
{time} 1350
We have letters from 600 mayors of the cities in the United States.
The National Network to End Domestic Violence has sent us letters.
There have been editorials in the New York Times, the Washington Post,
and the St. Petersburg Times, and they have all submitted letters.
I conclude my opening remarks by observing that there is no
constitutional right to carry loaded, hidden guns in public. One of the
things I hope we will be able to persuade you on is that the Supreme
Court case of 2008, entitled, District of Columbia v. Heller is the
case that the majority of the Court ruled, and Justice Scalia wrote
this decision, that while the Second Amendment protects the right of
law-abiding citizens to use arms in defense of their home and bans on
carrying in public were presumptively lawful, it went on to say that
the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were
lawful under the Second Amendment, that the prohibitions were lawful;
and Justice Scalia's majority decision in that landmark case rendered 3
years ago stated the Second Amendment is not unlimited and not a right
to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever or for
whatever purpose. I cite the Supreme Court decision 128 2783 of 2008,
the District of Columbia v. Heller.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chairwoman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a senior member of the Judiciary
Committee.
Mr. CHABOT. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Madam Chairman, the Second Amendment to the United States
Constitution states: ``The right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed.''
In this modern age when it is very common for people to travel to
work or for pleasure, it has really become routine, and the National
Right-to-Carry Act is a commonsense solution to adapt to today's needs.
This legislation allows people with valid, State-issued permits or
licenses to carry a concealed firearm in any other State that has
essentially the same laws. To be clear, this legislation does not
create a national licensing scheme or agency. It does not supersede the
laws for firearms use in any other State.
The right of self-defense is a fundamental one and has been
recognized in law for centuries. The Second Amendment dictates that the
appropriate way to fight crime is to target criminals, not law-abiding
gun owners. Today we have an opportunity to clearly recognize the right
to bear arms for our citizens and to allow law-abiding citizens to
exercise freedom without restrictive barriers. Let's take that
opportunity today.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to recognize the former
chair of the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary
Committee, Jerry Nadler of New York, for as much time as he may
consume.
Mr. NADLER. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 822, what the Brady
Campaign correctly calls the ``Packing Heat on Your Street'' bill.
America is in dire economic straits. Millions of people are out of
work. Our growth rate is anemic. People are clamoring for Congress to
pass legislation to grow the economy and help create jobs. And so what
is the House of Representatives doing? This august body is considering
gun legislation. The disconnect between the Republican House majority
and the American people is beyond belief. It is no wonder that
Congress' approval rating is 13 percent, according to the latest Gallup
Poll.
Not only are we wasting our time on this issue, what the bill does
should scare every American. This bill, as amended by the Judiciary
Committee, would let a person with a concealed-carry permit issued by
one State take his or her weapon into any other State of which they are
not a resident, regardless of the laws of that other State. State laws
on both gun possession and concealed carry would be overridden. This
bill takes away the right of the citizens of each State to set their
own gun control policy. For a Republican House majority that supposedly
believes in States' rights, this bill is shocking. So, for example,
some States require firearms training or require people to be 21 years
old to have a concealed-carry permit. All such rules would be tossed
aside by this new Federal mandate.
I tried to protect States by filing an amendment with the Rules
Committee which would have created an exception to the bill to let
States enforce laws against persons convicted of sex offenses against
minors from possessing guns or having concealed weapons. That amendment
was not made in order. I guess it was more important to satisfy the gun
lobby than it is to make sure our kids are protected from violent
predators.
To the extent States want to allow their citizens to enter into other
States with concealed weapons, they can do so by entering into
reciprocity agreements, and many States have done so. But why would we
force those that have not, which have chosen to end reciprocity
agreements due to lax standards of another State, why would we force
them to accept the concealed-carry permit of every other State?
Because any permit would suffice, this bill will create a race to the
bottom, with whatever State has the most
[[Page H7663]]
permissive concealed-carry rules setting national policy. In some
States you don't even have to be a resident to get a concealed-carry
permit. This lowest common denominator approach will only lead to more
people carrying more hidden weapons--packing heat on your street.
Knowing there are more concealed handguns all around does not make me
feel safer.
Lastly, I want to address the constitutional argument. In Heller, the
Supreme Court held there is a Second Amendment right for persons to
bear arm. Nowhere did the Court say, however, that there is an
unlimited national right to carry a concealed handgun. In fact, Justice
Scalia recognized the legality of reasonable limits on the Second
Amendment. I can't imagine a more reasonable restriction for States to
impose than those which govern who can carry a concealed firearm in
their own States.
I ask that Members reject this deeply flawed and dangerous bill.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chairwoman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), the chairman of the Constitution
Subcommittee.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I thank the chairman.
Madam Chair, H.R. 822, initially introduced by Mr. Stearns of Florida
and Mr. Shuler of North Carolina and supported by more than half of my
colleagues in the House of Representatives, would allow people with a
valid permit or license to carry a concealed handgun in any other State
that permits concealed carry. This is a policy akin to allowing
licensed drivers from one State to drive their car in another State so
long as they obey the local laws.
Madam Chair, clearly the constitutional right to defend oneself and
one's family should not be limited to only when you are at home.
Criminals have always preferred unarmed victims. Conversely, law-
abiding citizens capable of defending themselves and their fellow
citizens demonstrably save innocent lives.
To give one of countless examples, in 2007, a man in Colorado named
Matthew Murray wrote online: ``All I want to do is kill and injure as
many Christians as I can.'' Murray then went on a shooting rampage,
first killing two young students at a missionary training center
outside Denver; and then at a gathering of over 7,000 people in and
around the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, with a rifle
and a backpack full of ammunition, Murray entered the church and opened
fire, killing two sisters. Murray was ultimately stopped and killed by
Jeanne Assam, a church member and volunteer security guard who once
worked in law enforcement and who had a concealed-carry permit. Apart
from this armed hero's actions, many more innocent citizens would have
died that day.
H.R. 822 includes a number of provisions intended to retain the
States' ability to regulate firearm use in their own States and
increase public safety. Nothing in the bill affects a State's ability
to set the eligibility requirements for its own residents, nor does it
affect any State laws or regulations regarding how, when, or where
concealed firearms can be carried. It also requires people who want to
take advantage of the Federal grant of reciprocity to be properly
permitted or licensed by a State to carry a concealed weapon and to be
able to produce both the permit or license and a government-issued
identification document.
{time} 1400
To reiterate Chairman Smith's comments, studies have shown that
concealed-carry laws are very good public policy for our country. Madam
Chair, the NRA has estimated, based on FBI crime report data, that
right-to-carry States, which widely allow concealed-carry, have 22
percent lower violent crime rates, 30 percent lower murder rates, and
46 percent lower robbery rates than States that prohibit or greatly
restrict concealed-carry. H.R. 822 will help further extend this trend.
With that, Madam Chair, I urge my colleague to support this bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).
Mr. DEUTCH. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, for all of the talk of States' rights in this Chamber,
H.R. 822 obliterates the rights of State governments to pass their own
gun rules and protect their own citizens from illegal gun violence. In
my own State of Florida, we have a right-to-carry law, but we require
those who seek such concealed permits to prove basic competency.
To protect our families, we deny concealed-carry permits to those
convicted of felonies, to those committed to mental institutions, or
those with a history of illegal drug use. H.R. 822 denies Floridians
the right to protect their own families and set their own standards. If
Floridians wanted gun laws as lax as those in Utah, they would adopt
their own.
I'm disappointed the Rules Committee blocked my own amendment to
amend this bill to ensure that individuals with concealed weapons could
only cross lines into States that maintain a national law enforcement
database. Without a database system accessible 24 hours a day with
criminal background information on individuals holding concealed
weapons permits from other States, Florida's law enforcement will be
unable to adequately protect the public under this bill. It is the
safety of our communities and our families that are at risk as a
result.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the writer, author, and creator of this
legislation.
Mr. STEARNS. I would say to my colleague, I'm from Florida, and I'm
supporting this bill. In fact, I'm the proud sponsor of this bill,
ladies and gentlemen. I have sponsored this legislation since the 105th
Congress--that's almost 14 years ago--because I believe it's long
overdue that we take action to enhance the fundamental right of self-
defense for all law-abiding citizens of this country.
I want to thank Mr. Trent Franks from Arizona for his assiduous and
hard work in pushing this through the full committee and subcommittee,
and I also thank Chairman Lamar Smith for his efforts, too.
My colleagues, the right--the simple right--to defend yourself and
your loved ones from a criminal is fundamental. And it's not
extinguished when you simply cross a State border. This bill recognizes
this important fact by establishing the interstate recognition of
concealed-carry permits in much the same way driver's licenses are
recognized.
Now under this legislation, lawfully issued carry permits will be
recognized in all States that also issue carry permits. There are now
49 States that issue these permits. Most of these States also recognize
permits issued from at least some other States, while some States
recognize all valid permits issued by any State. But herein, simply,
lies the problem. The nonuniformity of the laws regarding reciprocity
makes it difficult for law-abiding permit holders to know for sure if
they are obeying the law as they travel from State to State. While
preserving the power of the States to set the rules on where concealed
firearms can be carried, this legislation will establish interstate
carry permit recognition in the 49 permit issuing States. So this
legislation will simply make it easier for law-abiding permit holders
to know that they are simply in compliance with the law when they carry
a firearm as they travel this wonderful country of ours.
Now consider the outcome if States administered driver's licenses as
they currently do carry permits. Drivers would have to stop at the
State line to determine whether their license was valid before
proceeding. Each State would recognize some licenses but, of course,
not all of them. Some States would insist that others have precisely
the same requirements for issuance of a license before offering
reciprocity. And the status of such reciprocity would be constantly
changing, literally day to day.
So that is the reality of the current State reciprocity agreements
for carry permits today. And only the Congress can remedy this
interstate muddle. Our Union is a strong one, and we are proud to be
citizens of a Nation who need not present papers to cross internal
boundaries. But the holders of carry permits must indeed today worry
whether their permits are valid before they can safely venture out of
their home State while exercising a fundamental right. Our system of
federalism beckons this body
[[Page H7664]]
to remedy this disparity in due process and equal treatment under the
law.
Mr. Chairman, over the past 20 years, 17 States have passed right-to-
carry laws. In each of these States, opponents of firearms ownership
have made dire predictions of mayhem in the streets if we simply dared
to allow law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm for their own self-
defense. But in each case, these predictions were proven to be
completely false. In fact, during that period, violent crime has
dropped 51 percent to a 46-year low--1991 to 2011--and these are
according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. Statistics don't lie in
this case. They are actually showing violent crime has dropped, and
this is one of the reasons.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation will not strip States of the ability
to prohibit dangerous persons from carrying a firearm. Federal law
already prohibits a convicted felon or someone shown to be a danger
from the mere possession of a gun, and the carry regulations set up in
each State will apply to all permit holders, both residents and
nonresidents. This bill does not set up a Federal carry permit system
or establish any Federal regulations of concealed-carry permits. That
power remains with the States. Additionally, this legislation does not
include any new Federal gun laws, nor does it call for additional
Federal regulation of gun ownership. In fact, it does not allow for new
Federal regulation, for it amends the part of the Gun Control Act that
allows only such regulation as is necessary, and in this case none.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Simpson). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman 1 additional
minute.
Mr. STEARNS. My colleagues, this legislation simply guarantees
citizens' constitutional rights as affirmed by two Supreme Court cases,
D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, which simply ruled the Second
Amendment is an individual right.
This bill will allow law-abiding citizens who already have valid
carry permits to carry firearms when they travel to protect themselves
and to protect their families. These are people who have proven
themselves to be among the most responsible and safe members of our
communities, and we should not deprive them of this fundamental right
when they simply cross a State border.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. It's a
long time in coming, I'm pleased it's on the floor, and I look forward
to its passage.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I want to just say to my dear friend from Florida, Cliff Stearns, you
cannot compare licensing concealed-carry permits to driver's licenses,
and that's why this idea of yours, with all due respect, has never been
passed by the Congress before. The reason is that no States have the
same way to automatically check a driver's license for concealed-carry.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
{time} 1410
Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself 15 additional seconds.
You cannot compare a carrying concealed weapons check with a driver's
license because they are checkable. A concealed-carry weapon, there are
States that don't even permit the information to be revealed from their
database. So you're making a huge error that I hope can be corrected.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlelady from California (Ms. Chu), a member of the Judiciary
Committee.
Ms. CHU. This bill is a blatant attempt to override and weaken
States' laws on an issue that could endanger people's lives. It hurts
my home State of California, which developed laws to protect residents
by developing criteria on those who could carry concealed-carry
weapons. With this bill, that all goes away.
This bill is so bad that it even allows drug dealers convicted of
selling drugs to minors to carry a concealed weapon. California would
not allow it because such permits can only go to those of good moral
character. But under this law, we would have to accept the concealed
weapon permit for every other State that allows weapons to these drug
dealers. I offered an amendment in the Judiciary Committee to stop
this, but those on the other side of the aisle voted it down.
With this bill, a person who endangers the lives of our children will
be allowed to carry a concealed loaded gun nationwide, and you would be
powerless to stop it. It is the individual States that are in the best
position to determine how to best protect its citizens.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this dangerous bill.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to yield 15
seconds to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chair, I just would suggest to my friend,
the gentleman from Michigan, that he is correct, one cannot compare
this strictly with people and driver's licenses. The fact is, first of
all, driving a car is not a fundamental right to defense as enshrined
in our Constitution. Secondly, cars kill many more people than guns.
And, third, we don't usually defend ourselves with cars.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Austria).
Mr. AUSTRIA. As a former chairman of the Ohio Senate judiciary
committee, I helped lead the fight to pass the first concealed-carry
law in the State of Ohio. And I can tell you, even with this law and
this right, as one of the thousands of Ohioans with a concealed-carry
permit, I understand the need to reinforce our Second Amendment rights
by resolving the confusion and the problems that exist when traveling
between States.
The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act does just that; it allows
Ohioans and others with valid CCW permits issued by their home State to
concealed-carry while visiting any of the 49 States where it's not
expressly prohibited.
H.R. 822 is not a Federal takeover. The bill preserves States' rights
by requiring residents to comply with their home State's rules for
getting a permit. The bill also maintains reciprocity agreements the
States have already entered into with other States.
The bill simply strengthens and protects our constituents' Second
Amendment rights, and that's why I've cosponsored this legislation and
look forward to its passage.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I just want, when we decide how we're going to cast our vote on this
bill, to realize you cannot compare a concealed-carry weapon permit
with a driver's license. The States do not have the ability, they do
not have the automated machinery to do that. Many will not even release
this information; it's considered a private matter. Concealed-carry
permit information cannot be revealed in many States.
I now yield 3 minutes to the former chairman of the Subcommittee on
Crime, a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 822 will harm public safety. That's why law
enforcement organizations such as the International Association of
Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs Associations, and many other
law enforcement organizations oppose this bill.
This bill would allow people to use their concealed weapons permit in
any State in the Union without regard to the standards and requirements
of those other States. This bill even allows people who are ineligible
to get a concealed weapons permit in their home State to go out of
State and get a permit and use that permit anywhere in the country
except their home State.
Some States have minimum standards for those who may be eligible to
carry a concealed weapon. For example, some States require firearms
training and others deny permits to those who are under 21 or those
with certain convictions for assaulting police officers, selling drugs
to kids, sex offenses against children, or domestic violence. Standards
such as these would be overridden by this bill because permits from
States without these standards would have to be recognized.
Now, many States already recognize concealed weapons permits from
other States. My home State of Virginia recognizes many States'
concealed weapons permits, but it requires a 24-hour
[[Page H7665]]
verification. And for this reason, many States do not enjoy reciprocity
with Virginia because 24-hour verification is not available. In fact,
one State, Colorado, doesn't even maintain a statewide database, so
there can be no out-of-state verification. As has been indicated, a
driver's license, any time of day, you can verify the validity of a
driver's license. But the concealed weapons permit, many States do not
have 24-hour verification.
In overriding the ability of States to control the carrying of
concealed weapons by nonresidents, this bill would create a situation
where the weakest State laws essentially become the national law. We
would be creating a race to the bottom with our public safety laws.
Consideration of this legislation has been a challenge because
apparently many people in this body believe that if more people carried
guns, the crime rate would go down. Reliable studies, however, point
out that the possession of a firearm is much more likely to result in
the death of a family member or a neighbor than being used to thwart a
crime.
This bill will undermine public safety. We should let the States
decide whether or not or under what conditions to allow people who are
in their State to carry concealed handguns. I urge my colleagues,
therefore, to vote against this legislation.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).
Mr. STUTZMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, rights do not come from the government. We are, in the
words of the Declaration of Independence, ``endowed by our Creator with
certain unalienable rights.''
Mr. Chairman, the right to self-defense goes deep and cannot be taken
away. The right to self-defense is the cornerstone for the Second
Amendment. It is also the foundation for concealed-carry laws across
this country.
I am proud that my home State of Indiana has established a
responsible process for obtaining a lifetime permit. Today, 49 States
have some sort of right-to-carry law.
Mr. Chairman, this bill ensures that permit holders in Indiana like
myself can exercise our right to self-defense when our families travel
across our great country. If you follow the law, your permit from one
State will be honored by another.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Ladies and gentlemen, forgive my passion on the discussion of this
subject, but almost 300 young people of African American decent are
injured or killed by gunfire from age 15 to 24 every week.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Quigley), a distinguished member of Judiciary.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this measure.
I too offered an amendment which failed in committee. My amendment
would have prevented individuals convicted of assaulting a police
officer or impersonating a police officer from carrying concealed
loaded guns. Several States that allow permits also deny them to those
who have assaulted or impersonated cops. The law enforcement officials
of these States have decided that that is what's best for their
communities. This bill will wipe those protections away and then will
go further.
May I remind my friends here who are citing the Constitution as their
nexus for this law that the right to keep and bear arms in the interest
of self-defense of a person at home is not unlimited.
{time} 1420
As the Justices wrote in District of Columbia v. Heller, the right is
not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner
whatsoever for whatever purpose. And, frankly, that's what the National
Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act purports.
So if we're interpreting the 14th Amendment, deeming the Bill of
Rights applicable to the States in this manner as to the right to bear
arms, then doesn't that argument also dictate that each State interpret
other States' decisions on other laws and statutes in the same manner?
Does this mean that States should acknowledge abortion rights from
one State to the next?
Does this mean that States should acknowledge alcohol laws from one
State to the next?
Does this mean that States should acknowledge marrying licenses from
one State to the next, particularly when it comes to same-sex marriage?
I have a feeling that many of my friends here today would answer
those questions with a simple ``no.'' You see my trouble with today's
premise, then.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers).
Mrs. ELLMERS. I rise today in favor of H.R. 822. The right to bear
arms is a staple of our Constitution as a basic American right, and we
should continue to protect it while making sure our laws remain
efficient.
I am one of 268,000 permit holders in North Carolina. This is not
only a rights issue; more importantly, it is a safety issue. As
millions of American families know, there is no greater threat to our
families than the ability to protect. We must protect our families, and
it cannot stop at States' borders.
H.R. 822 also does not impact State laws governing how concealed
firearms are possessed or carried. Again, it does not jeopardize the
States' rights.
I call on my colleagues to support this important piece of
legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
There are, my colleagues, over 65 million handguns in the United
States; and nearly 100,000 people in America every year are shot or
killed with a firearm.
I now yield 2 minutes to our distinguished Judiciary colleague, a
former magistrate from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to
this dangerous bill, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act. The
10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution
provides as follows: ``The powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people.''
Mr. Chairman, this bill would override the laws of almost every State
by forcing them to accept concealed-carry gun permits from every other
State, even if the permit holder would not be allowed to carry a
handgun in the State where he or she is traveling. This is ridiculous.
Each State should decide who may carry a concealed, loaded gun within
their borders; and the Federal Government should respect the States'
rights to do so.
The irony here is that my friends on the Tea Party Republican side of
the aisle claim to respect States' rights, but then they rush this
legislation to the House floor, which tramples over States' rights.
These Tea Party Republicans claim they want to create jobs for the
millions of unemployed Americans in our Nation, but they are not
focusing on creating jobs. Instead, they're bowing down to the National
Rifle Association by moving this piece of special interest legislation
forward.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous bill.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), the chairman of the Education and Workforce
Committee.
Mr. KLINE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong, strong support of H.R. 822, the
National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act. This bill provides important
protections for gun owners, and its time is past due.
As a retired marine and avid outdoorsman, I'm an experienced firearms
owner and user. I hold a concealed-carry permit in the State of
Minnesota, and I believe individuals have the right to keep and bear
arms for the protection of their home, property, family and person.
They have that right.
Unfortunately, there have been a lot of mischaracterizations
surrounding this legislation. I've heard a lot of it here today. To be
clear, this bill does not create a Federal licensing or registration
system. It does not create Federal standards, or infringe on the
ability of States to make laws for a carry permit, and it does not
negatively affect States that have permit-less carry systems.
[[Page H7666]]
Mr. Chairman, this bill will protect law-abiding gun owners from
current confusion caused by the wide array of State laws and preempt
the threat of frivolous lawsuits they could face simply by traveling
outside of their home State. National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity
provides critical recognition that the Second Amendment rights of our
constituents do not end when they cross State lines, and this will
enhance public safety.
I urge my colleagues to stand for the Second Amendment and to stand
for the rights of responsible gun owners who engage in gun safety, and
I urge them to support H.R. 822.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our dear friend,
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, the first reason this bill should be
defeated is that it usurps State authority and replaces it with a
lowest-common-denominator Federal directive.
This is a radical piece of legislation. In fact, today 43 States are
not in compliance with this law; 38 States today prevent people from
carrying concealed weapons if they have certain dangerous misdemeanor
criminal convictions; 35 States require the completion of a short gun
safety program.
The Commonwealth of Virginia has weakened its gun laws over the past
2 years, allowing concealed guns in bars and renewal of permits by
mail. I disagree with these actions, but I would never question the
general assembly's authority to make these decisions.
But this bill makes our State legislature's judgment irrelevant. This
is a Federal power grab coming from a majority that claims to be a
defender of States' rights.
The second reason that this bill should be defeated is that our law
enforcement professionals oppose it. The International Association of
Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Police Chiefs Association, the
Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police all oppose this bill. Why?
Because they know that it will be nearly impossible for police to
verify the validity of 49 different carry permits, placing officers in
potentially life-threatening situations.
Some States don't even keep verifiable databases of those who have
been issued concealed-carry permits. Law enforcement is trying to curb
illegal gun smuggling, but this bill allows traffickers with concealed-
carry permits to transport firearms into destination States and present
an unverifiable permit if stopped by police.
This is a blatant legislative overreach, presumably because it was
next on the NRA's legislative wish list.
We should defeat this bill, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Arkansas (Mr. Ross).
Mr. ROSS of Arkansas. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 822.
If you get a driver's license in Arkansas, it's recognized in every
State in the country. And if you have a concealed-carry permit, the
same rules should apply. Our Second Amendment rights to own and bear
arms are universal, and our laws should reflect that as best they can.
The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act would allow every
American citizen with a valid concealed-carry permit to carry a
concealed firearm in all States that allow them for lawful purposes.
Let me be clear: If your State bans concealed firearms, then this law
will not affect that ban. This bill does not change any State laws
about when and where you can carry a concealed firearm. This bill does
not create a new Federal licensing system. It simply reinforces our
Second Amendment rights and makes the laws more fair for law-abiding
gun owners.
As a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, I believe we must pass
the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act now, and I urge my
colleagues to join me in voting for the bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
{time} 1430
Mr. PASCRELL. I had to make a choice on this bill, whether I would
support a disputable constitutional issue about whether you can by law
carry a concealed weapon or move towards the other side to those who
oppose this.
Now, who opposes this legislation besides me? Mayors Against Illegal
Guns, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major
Cities Chiefs Association, and the Police Foundation oppose this bill.
Doesn't this mean anything to you at all? Doesn't it? Or does it?
I prefer community policing than try to put more guns into the hands
of those people who we don't even know are going to be trained to even
use them. That's my preference, Mr. Chairman.
This means my home State of New Jersey--this is not Idaho, this is
not Montana--in fact, we have the most densely populated State in the
Union. There is a different culture. When Clinton argued on behalf of
gun possession when he was the President of the United States, he
always made this point about the cultural differences in different
parts of the country. And we respect that.
I'm not against the Second Amendment. I support the Second Amendment.
But I don't want those folks in the street who out-arm and out-gun our
police officers.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Simpson). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
Mr. PASCRELL. Twelve thousand fewer police officers we have in this
country; 12,000 fewer police officers in our streets. We should be
worried about that as a priority rather than this as a priority.
So I made the decision. The evidence is like this against doing this.
We haven't had any legislation which took away one gun in the past 20
years from anybody in this country--not one. So we have made the
perception being that we want to take guns away from people.
How dare you even say it.
Protect our police. Don't vote for this.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).
Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. The right to keep and bear arms is a real
simple phrase. Some people have only negative thoughts. When the words
``gun'' or ``firearm'' are heard, thoughts immediately turn to
criminals; but that's the problem because the debate we're having today
isn't about criminals. It's about the rights of law-abiding citizens to
bear arms for self-defense.
Look, Illinois is the only State without concealed-carry, but I'd
argue we already have concealed-carry. There are people that are killed
in Chicago very often by guns that are already concealed but not
concealed by law-abiding citizens. Illinois is the only State that
doesn't allow any form of it legally.
I want H.R. 822 to be a clear sign to the Governor of Illinois that
now is the time to join the rest of the country in allowing citizens
the right to conceal a firearm on their person. We hear so much about
if we allow people to carry guns, more people are going to be killed.
But that flies in the face of statistics.
After 2008, there was a record number of guns purchased, but we saw
crime drop almost everywhere, bar none.
My point is that law-abiding citizens in this country are not the
problem. Illinois needs to join the rest of the country in supporting
conceal-carry for its citizens. And I believe that this is a sign that
it's time to do so now.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), a former
member of the Judiciary Committee.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I rise in opposition to H.R. 822, the National
Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act.
This ill-conceived bill is yet another distraction from what should
be the most pressing concern of this Congress, putting Americans back
to work.
What's more disturbing is that this bill jeopardizes public safety by
mandating that States honor even the most lax concealed-weapon laws of
other States. The gentleman from Illinois is incorrect: this is about
criminals.
For my constituents in south Florida, gun control is a serious issue.
Miami-Dade County has one of the highest rates of gun violence in the
country. In the entire State of Florida, there are almost 800,000
permits for concealed firearms. Florida's process
[[Page H7667]]
for issuing concealed-carry licenses is problematic enough, and I would
certainly not suggest foisting it on any other State that has stronger
safeguards that protect its citizens. But this bill will do exactly
that.
For States that require age minimums or safety training before
getting a concealed-weapons permit or that prohibits certain violent
offenders from getting a permit in the first place, that all goes out
the window if this bill is passed into law. What we get in return is
the worst of the worst, a lowest-common-denominator of all of the State
laws.
For example, in just one 6-month period in 2006, Florida gave
concealed-carry licenses to more than 1,400 individuals who had pleaded
guilty or no contest to felonies, 216 of them had outstanding warrants,
128 of them had active domestic violence injunctions. And under this
bill, other States will be mandated to honor these permits. They will
be mandated to allow Florida's self-admitted felons to carry concealed
weapons in their States.
This is why the Nation's leading law enforcement organizations
strongly oppose this bill. It's also opposed by more than 600 members
of the bipartisan Mayors Against Illegal Guns, including many of my
local mayors of both parties in south Florida.
Why would this bill be a higher priority than creating jobs? This is
the 11th straight month of this Congress, and the House majority still
has no jobs agenda.
Regardless of how Americans feel about guns, the overwhelming
majority would agree that gun policy is not a higher priority than job
creation is right now.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, and I urge my
friends across the aisle to stop putting American lives at risk and
start putting them back to work.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the chairman of the Courts
Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 822.
Conceal-and-carry permits may be one of the most scrutinized permits
for gun owners to receive. Unfortunately, the manner in which these
permits are recognized by various States is confusing and inconsistent.
H.R. 822 will help resolve this dilemma, Mr. Chairman.
For example, in my home State of North Carolina, conceal-and-carry
permits from South Carolina and Georgia are recognized, but not permits
from New Mexico.
Meanwhile, New Mexico readily recognizes conceal-and-carry permits
from North Carolina. If enacted, there would be no discrepancy over
which permits are valid. Another reason for supporting H.R. 822 is that
it protects State sovereignty. States are not required to issue
conceal-and-carry permits, and State laws regarding the use and
ownership of firearms are explicitly preserved.
I firmly believe that the Second Amendment confirms a constitutional
right for individuals to own a firearm, Mr. Chairman. I also believe
that ownership and use of a firearm carries a special level of personal
responsibility.
This bill promotes both of these ideals; and if enacted, it will help
make America safer, which probably explains why this bill has 245
cosponsors.
I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, this is another great example of legislation
in search of a problem. Driven by ideological fervor of its sponsors
rather than by any practical approach to safety, H.R. 822 would amend
existing Federal law to establish a national standard for carrying
concealed firearms.
As the sponsors well know, these matters have long been the province
of the States. It's fascinating how quickly the majority ignores the
10th Amendment when the gun lobby comes calling. Why needlessly create
a conflict, or should I say a shootout, between the Second and the 10th
Amendments?
Passage of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, which I
voted for, and which permits qualified law enforcement officers to
carry concealed firearms across States, makes this essentially
redundant and unnecessary.
The bill before us would have the effect of overriding New Jersey's
own laws in this area, which police officers and hunters and other
citizens tell me work well and keep our citizens safe.
{time} 1440
Ask our law enforcement officers. They'll tell you New Jerseyans live
well within our gun safety laws. We don't need more lax laws.
Now, others have said today--but maybe it's worth repeating--that
this body should be focusing on creating jobs, not passing
ideologically driven, special interest legislation that would endanger
public safety, subvert the constitutional order, and go against the
interests and the declared recommendations of law enforcement officers
all across the U.S.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair would inform the managers that the
gentleman from Texas has 9\1/4\ minutes remaining and that the
gentleman from Michigan has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lungren).
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I strongly support the Second
Amendment. For that reason, I signed on to the amicus briefs in the
Heller case and in the McDonald v. City of Chicago case, upholding the
right to bear arms as an individual and constitutional right. I believe
that. At the same time, as the former attorney general of California, I
continue to have a deep and abiding commitment to preserving States'
rights in the manner that the Founders envisioned the notion of
federalism.
Under the 10th Amendment, it is obvious that the Constitution
allocates what are known generally as police powers to the States to
protect public safety and health. That's why I object to some of our
legislation to expand the Federal role in tort law and in marriage law,
because it's not just those things you necessarily agree with, but it's
tougher when it's those things you may disagree with that are left to
the States. Some people have talked about licenses here. You don't have
a right to take your license to practice medicine or law to the next
State. We have not required that. We allow States to do that.
Here is the other thing.
My State is one of the most liberal. We have too liberal a law with
respect to concealed weapons, but the only way the liberal State
legislature in California will respond to this is by following
Illinois, because it's the only way they can get a limit, as they see
it, on these sorts of things.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. My suggestion is, those who are
concerned about it in my State might have to worry about this because
our legislature will now be tempted to get rid of all concealed-weapons
permits because, unfortunately, under this legislation, that's the only
thing they can do to police the eligibility of those who get concealed-
weapons permits.
So this does cut both ways, and at least I think we ought to
understand that States' rights is a legitimate argument here on this
floor.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Matheson).
Mr. MATHESON. I would like to thank my colleague from Florida (Mr.
Stearns) for introducing the bill before us today.
Mr. Chairman, I support this bipartisan legislation for two reasons.
One, I believe that our gun laws should ensure that a responsible, law-
abiding individual is able to exercise his Second Amendment right to
carry firearms. Two, this bill simplifies what is now a piecemeal
system of existing reciprocal agreements among the States.
There are millions of concealed-carry permit holders in this country,
including thousands in my State. They comply with State law to gain a
State permit so that they can legally carry weapons for self-defense.
By passing this bill, we will ensure that, when they travel to other
States, they will be able to exercise their right to self-defense while
away from home. This bill does not create a federal licensing or
registration system. It does not allow a concealed-weapon permit holder
to carry a concealed weapon in
[[Page H7668]]
States like Illinois, which do not allow concealed carry.
I think that addresses the criticism of this legislation that it
would override a State's ability to determine who can carry concealed
weapons within that State's borders. Permit holders who want to take
their weapons with them to another State are required to be aware of
and abide by that State's rules.
As a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights, I support this
legislation, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Gibson).
Mr. GIBSON. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 822, the
National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act.
This bill is about freedom. It's about the Constitution and our Bill
of Rights. This bill is about the Second Amendment right. As with all
of the amendments contained in the Bill of Rights, these were born out
of our experiences with King George and out of a desire to prevent such
abuses of power in our Republic. Indeed, at the outset of hostilities
during the Revolution, the British Army marched to Concord to
confiscate our guns and extinguish our freedoms.
The Founders put the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights to assure
our right to keep and bear arms and safeguard our liberty. At least in
my district, this is a nonpartisan bill. Republicans, Democrats and
independents alike support the Second Amendment and hold dear our Bill
of Rights.
The premise of H.R. 822 is very simple. If a citizen is permitted to
carry a concealed weapon in one State, other States that have a
concealed-carry law will honor and recognize it, supporting and
strengthening the Second Amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the chairman for yielding and for his
leadership on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 822, the
National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011.
This bipartisan bill has 245 cosponsors, and it enhances Americans'
right to self-defense by enabling millions of permit holders to
exercise their right to self-defense while traveling outside their home
States.
The Second Amendment is in the United States Constitution, and we are
all taking an oath in this body to uphold the United States
Constitution, including rights under the Second Amendment. The 10th
Amendment is certainly an important right as well, but it does not
trump the right or the responsibility of this body to protect rights
under the Second Amendment.
Forty-nine States have laws that permit their citizens to carry a
concealed firearm in some fashion or another. Unlike driver's licenses,
however, concealed-carry permit holders in one State are not always
authorized to carry their firearms when traveling outside their home
States.
H.R. 822 remedies this problem by granting concealed-carry permit
holders reciprocity between States. The firearm owner must abide by all
applicable State laws when carrying in a foreign jurisdiction. This
bill affirms that the Second Amendment protects the fundamental
individual right to keep and bear arms and that the States cannot
unreasonably infringe upon that right.
In McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court concluded that the due
process clause of the 14th Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment
right recognized by the Supreme Court in the District of Columbia v.
Heller.
This bill does not create any kind of Federal bureaucracy that may
concern some people. It simply extends to them their Second Amendment
rights when they travel in other States. H.R. 822 recognizes that
right, and I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 4\1/4\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Michigan has 2\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
Mr. WOODALL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I love the Second Amendment. I got my first gun from Santa Claus when
I was 6 years old. The first handgun I ever fired wasn't my dad's or my
uncle's or my grandfather's--it was my mother's. I got my first
concealed-carry application filled out as a freshman in law school. I
lived in a bad neighborhood and needed it for self protection. I've had
it for the last 20 years. I love the Second Amendment.
But if the Second Amendment protects my rights to carry my concealed
weapon from State to State to State, I don't need another Federal law
that says, yeah, I really mean it. It's already protected. If the
Second Amendment doesn't protect my right to carry a concealed weapon
from State to State to State, then the Ninth and 10th Amendments leave
that responsibility to individuals and the States to regulate on their
own.
I came to Congress to protect freedom. I don't believe the Second
Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights to allow me to shoot targets. I
don't believe the Second Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights to
allow me to hunt for deer and turkey. I think the Second Amendment was
put in the Bill of Rights so that I could defend my freedom against an
overbearing Federal Government.
I don't want the Federal Government in any issue of the law where the
Constitution does not require it.
And it does not require it here.
Don't tell me it's an Interstate Commerce Clause issue; we dismiss
that on my side of the aisle regularly. Don't tell me it's necessary
and proper; we dismiss that on our side of the aisle regularly. And
don't tell me it's full faith and credit because we dismiss that on our
side of the aisle regularly.
{time} 1450
The temptation to legislate is great. The temptation is great. I
absolutely believe in the intent of this legislation. I want the right
to carry from coast to coast. Georgia has already orchestrated
reciprocity agreements with 25 States. We've got 24 more to go. The
Second Amendment exists so that we can keep and bear arms to defend
ourselves against government, no matter how well-intended. Rather than
arms, I ask my colleagues to use their voting cards today to defend us
against the overreach of the Federal Government, no matter how well-
intended.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Alaska (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I have listened to this debate. This is a reciprocity vote that
allows me to carry my weapon, as I have carried it for the last 50
years, from one State to another as long as I have a permit and they do
also.
But more than that, I am a little bit resentful when I hear on the
floor that this is ``the will of the NRA.'' Now, I am proud to have
been a lifetime member of the NRA--since I could vote. I am a member
today. I participate in their board meetings, and I am proud of that
organization. It is probably one of the leading organizations. But to
cast that in the form of ``they are not the people of America'' is
wrong. The greatest strength the NRA has is its members. There is talk
about how strong they are as a lobbying group. The lobbying group is
the citizen, the citizen that wants to carry his arm, as permitted,
across State lines, as they do with a driver's license.
This is a good piece of legislation. I'm glad we are having this
discussion. There can be differences of opinion. But don't take it away
from myself to go from Alaska with my permit and go into the other 48
States, I believe it is, that have permits and I can't use my permit.
That's wrong. Let's vote for this legislation.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Mrs. Adams), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mrs. ADAMS. I rise in support of H.R. 822.
As a former law enforcement officer and a State representative, I
have dealt with issues relating to our Second Amendment right.
It's interesting when I hear some of the blurring between gun
purchasing and a concealed-carry permit. I have done both. And as a law
enforcement
[[Page H7669]]
officer, I would like to know, if someone would tell me, ``Hey, I have
a concealed-carry permit and I have a weapon,'' rather than finding it
either by accident or having it pointed at me. So I stand in great
support of this piece of legislation. I do believe that it is good
legislation. It will not harm the people, as I have heard here on the
floor.
And I have heard that we aren't working on jobs. Well, I beg to
differ that issue because we have passed over 20 bills sitting in the
Senate that have not been heard that would relate to jobs. So, yes, we
are working on jobs and the economy, and we also are working on other
issues that are brought to us from our constituents.
I stand in great support of H.R. 8122.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
H.R. 822 is important legislation that recognizes that Americans'
ability to exercise their fundamental constitutional rights should not
disappear at their State's border. The parade of horribles that have
been alleged by some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
are simply not true. Federal law already prohibits felons, domestic
abusers, and illegal drug users from possessing a firearm. This
legislation does not change that. If a person is prohibited from
possessing a firearm under Federal law, they cannot carry a concealed
weapon under this bill.
The arguments we have heard so often today against this legislation
are against guns in the hands of violent criminals generally, not
against legally permitted concealed weapons. Concealed-carry laws have
shown that concealed weapons actually lower violent crime rates in a
jurisdiction. H.R. 822 simply permits law-abiding Americans to take
their Second Amendment rights with them when they travel.
I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan piece of legislation,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011.
By forcing each state to recognize every other state's concealed
carry permits, this legislation would create serious safety challenges
for communities and law enforcement officials across the country.
Further, it seriously infringes upon individual states' rights to set
minimum standards based on local needs and concerns.
This legislation has been called the ``lowest common denominator
approach'' to public safety. Currently, states use widely varying
criteria to determine who is allowed to carry a concealed firearm. At
least 38 states prohibit individuals convicted of certain dangerous
misdemeanor crimes from obtaining concealed carry permits; 35 states
require completion of a gun safety program or other proof of competency
in order to receive a permit; at least 36 states have age restrictions;
and 29 states will not award concealed carry permits to alcohol
abusers.
Forcing national reciprocity would allow individuals who would be
denied a permit in their home state to apply for a permit in a less
restrictive state. It jeopardizes the safety of police officers making
routine stops, who may not have the resources to verify the validity of
an unfamiliar, out-of-state concealed carry permit.
Mr. Chair, right now states can determine their own concealed carry
regulations. They can choose to enter into reciprocity agreements with
other states, and they can choose to end those agreements. They can
choose to only allow residents of the state to obtain concealed-carry
permits, or they can opt to issue licenses to both residents and non-
residents. They can chose, as Illinois has so sensibly done, not to
allow concealed carry at all.
Different states have different crime fighting concerns and
priorities, and this legislation is a dangerous attempt to override
state laws. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R.
822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011.
This important, bipartisan, legislation reinforces fundamental rights
enshrined in the U.S. Constitution by allowing any person with a valid,
state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed firearm in
any state that issues concealed firearm permits.
As an avid hunter and outdoorsman, and as a lifetime member of the
National Rifle Association, I can share with personal experience the
frustration of my fellow hunters and outdoorsmen the absurdity of
having to know which states recognize visiting permit holders from
other states and which states that do not.
Our country should not force its law-abiding citizens to check in
their fundamental right to self-defense at the state line.
The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act would clarify this matter
by requiring states that allow concealed carry to recognize each
other's permits, similar to how states recognize each other's driver's
licenses.
Right-to-carry laws also help deter crime. Presently, 40 states have
right-to-carry laws. Based on crime data from the FBI, right-to-carry
states have 22 percent lower total violent crime rates in comparison to
the rest of the country.
In my home state of Texas, violent crime has dropped 20 percent and
the murder rate has dropped 31 percent, since the enactment of its
right-to-carry law in 1996.
This legislation is also in-line with recent rulings found by the
U.S. Supreme Court. In 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller and again
in 2010 in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the high court found the right
to possess a firearm for self-defense cannot be infringed.
I am a proud co-sponsor of the bill and have co-sponsored similar
legislation in previous Congresses.
I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up in
support of the U.S. Constitution and the millions of hunters and
outdoorsmen in our country and vote in favor of this bill.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 822, the
National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act.
I share the view of many Californians that states have a
responsibility to enact commonsense measures to keep deadly weapons out
of the hands of children, criminals and individuals with a history of
serious mental illness. I am appalled that this bill would supersede
reasonable state standards and subject California to weaker and
oftentimes dangerous gun laws of other states.
As the leading Democrats on the Judiciary Committee stated in their
dissenting views to this bill:
H.R. 822, the `National Right-to-Carry Re-
ciprocity Act of 2011,' is a dangerous bill that would
override the laws of almost every state by obliging each to
accept concealed handgun carry permits from every other
state, even if the permit holder would not be allowed to
carry or even possess a handgun in the state where he or she
is traveling. The law tramples federalism and endangers
public safety.
For example, in California, we believe--and it is the law--that if
you're a convicted sex offender, you should lose your right to own a
gun. But under this bill, an individual in California convicted of
misdemeanor sexual battery could carry a firearm.
In California, it is the law that gun owners should have some basic
training to ensure guns are stored safely and away from children. But
under this bill, individuals with no knowledge of how to handle a
firearm could keep and carry a gun in California.
In California, we believe--and it is the law--that gun owners should
have a clean criminal record. But under this bill, a man convicted of
multiple counts of domestic violence could walk the streets of
California with a concealed handgun.
This is not a trivial issue. In January 2008, a Florida man, Michael
Leopold Phillips, killed his wife and then turned the gun on himself,
committing suicide. Mr. Phillips had a long history of spousal abuse;
he had been arrested on three occasions for domestic violence, and an
ex-wife had issued a restraining order against him years earlier. But
Florida has some of the most relaxed gun laws in the country, and Mr.
Phillips was granted a concealed carry permit by the state even though
he had documented history of abusing women.
I believe that California should have every right, with the full
force of our laws behind them, to keep guns out of the hands of people
like Mr. Phillips.
The Republican leadership likes to preach its fidelity to the
overarching principle of states' rights--but this bill shows their
fidelity to states' rights is subject to a test of political
convenience. When it comes to a state's right to decide how to protect
its citizens from gun violence, the Republican leadership has ceded its
principles to the gun lobby.
This bill is an affront to federalism and an assault on public
safety. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this dangerous legislation.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the National
Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, which preempts the laws of almost every
state by obliging each to accept concealed handgun carry permits from
every other state, even if the permit holder would not otherwise be
allowed to carry or even possess a handgun in the state where he or she
is traveling. Presently America's economy is struggling. Many of our
citizens are devastated by unemployment and crime rates are an issue of
national concern. Therefore, extending handgun laws simply does not
seem logical.
I am greatly perturbed by the negative ramifications that this bill
will have on individual state's abilities to protect their citizens
from
[[Page H7670]]
gun violence. For example, states such as Arizona, California,
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, New Jersey, Nevada, Oklahoma, Rhode
Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming require gun
safety training as a requirement to obtain a concealed carry permit.
North Dakota requires certain permit applicants only to pass an open
book exam to satisfy its requirement. My state, New York prohibits
carrying by individuals younger than 21 years of age. H.R. 822
eliminates the authority of states to select who may be eligible to
carry a concealed loaded gun in public. Who can decide the best
protective policies for each state besides the officials elected to
represent it?
Additionally, H.R. 822 can potentially endanger the lives of our
valued law enforcement officers who strive to protect our citizens. Out
of state carrying permits are extremely difficult to verify since a
national permit database does not exist and officers tend to have
difficulties establishing the validity of these particular permits.
Such an impediment can lead to an escalating situation during traffic
stops or other high risk situations that could end fatally. Law
enforcement officers work diligently to ensure that streets are safe
for our citizens but H.R. 822 makes this task more difficult in
numerous ways for these esteemed officers. It is our responsibility to
protect these law enforcement officials who put their lives at risk on
a daily basis to ensure the safety of our citizens.
Supporting this bill will indubitably reverse the efforts by
officials in New York to reduce already challenging crime rates.
Supporting this bill will jeopardize the safety of my constituents, New
York residents and citizens nationwide. Our constituents depend on us
to maintain a safe country for them and the generations after them.
Voting in support of this bill will put all of our lives at risk. I
urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on this
Bill.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chair, my home slate of Michigan is one
of 49 in the nation that currently has a law that allows individuals to
receive a license to carry a concealed weapon.
Some warned that right-to-carry laws would lead to an increase in
crime, but the facts bear out that just the opposite is true. Violent
crime has gone down substantially across the nation as more and more
states instituted right-to-carry laws.
When criminals know that law abiding citizens have the ability to
defend themselves they have to think twice before victimizing people.
This legislation simply allows those who have gotten the training to
receive a permit to carry in their home state to use that permit in
other states.
The bill also requires that concealed weapons permit holders abide by
the local laws in the state where they choose to exercise this right
and thus is not a federalization of gun laws.
Just as another state cannot deny drivers license holders from
Michigan the ability to drive in that state, they should not deny
concealed carry permit holders from Michigan the right to carry.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation that
strengthens the Constitutional rights of all Americans.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chair, I am strongly opposed to the National Right to
Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011. This misguided bill is unworkable in
practice and will compromise officer safety and public security.
Furthermore, this bill flagrantly treads on the rights of states to
legislate and enforce public security within their own states.
It is very troubling that at the very time where we all have the
responsibility to be more aware of our public security, my colleagues
have introduced a bill that values Wild West ``shoot 'em up'' swagger
over reasonable measures to protect public safety.
This bill will make it easier for criminal gun traffickers to travel
to gun markets across the country with loaded weapons, without concern
for any police scrutiny. Gun traffickers who have concealed carry
permits would be able to bring cars or backpacks full of loaded guns
into destination states and simply present their permit if stopped. As
a practical matter, to arrest the traffickers, law enforcement would
have to observe them in the act of selling guns. Far too many U.S.-
purchased weapons make it into the hands of criminals in Latin America,
and H.R. 822 would only exacerbate this problem.
Mr. Chair, while I support gun rights for law abiding citizens for
sport and collection, I simply cannot support this bill.
I hope my colleagues will join with me and the California Police
Chiefs Association, along with other national law enforcement
organizations, to defeat this misguided and destructive legislation.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise to oppose the severely flawed H.R.
822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act.
This bill would make it difficult for states and local governments to
enforce their firearms laws and puts the safety of the public and law
enforcement at risk. State and local regulations of firearms vary
dramatically. Some states have no standards for carrying a firearm
beyond the minimum federal requirements. In Maryland, alcoholics and
drug addicts, those convicted of certain crimes, or those with a
propensity for violence or mental instability, among other things, may
not obtain a permit to carry a firearm. This bill would require
Maryland to accept concealed carry gun permits from other states even
when the permit is not in compliance with Maryland law.
Since there is no national database for concealed carry licenses, it
is difficult for states to authenticate conceal carry licenses from out
of state. This is one of the reasons Maryland currently does not
recognize any out-of-state permits. The inability to quickly and
accurately verify the validity of out of state concealed carry permits
creates additional risk for law enforcement officers. William McMahon,
the President of the Maryland Chiefs of Police Association, recently
called this legislation ``dangerous and unacceptable.''
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this misguided bill.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of
H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, which
was introduced by my good friend, Representative Cliff Stearns from
Florida. H.R. 822 is a sorely needed, commonsense reform to the
enforcement of the concealed firearms permitting process. For too long,
law-abiding citizens have been forced to struggle with conflicting and
often confusing state laws. When traveling, many gun owners are
sometimes forced to choose between safety and obeying the incompatible
laws of another state, even if they have a valid permit in their home
state.
In practice, the current system makes the permitted carrying of a
concealed weapon legal on one side of an arbitrary line on a map and
illegal on the other. Mr. Chairman, it makes no more sense for a state
to deny the concealed-carry permit of another state than it would to
deny a drivers license in the same scenario. This is simply another
example in a long line of bureaucratic infringements on individuals'
abilities to exercise their constitutionally protected Second Amendment
rights.
Mr. Chair, I commend Mr. Stearns for his leadership on this issue.
The Founding Fathers envisioned a country in which the government
existed in order to ensure the rights to ``Life, Liberty, and the
Pursuit of Happiness,'' not to create a litany of rules and regulations
that ultimately hinders the pursuit of any of them.
Mr. Chair, the American people are demanding a country in which they
can freely exercise the rights guaranteed to them in the United States
Constitution, and I believe H.R. 822 is a terrific step in the right
direction. I urge my colleagues to support the Second Amendment's
rights of law abiding citizens everywhere and vote in favor of H.R.
822.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered
read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 822
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``National Right-to-Carry
Reciprocity Act of 2011''.
SEC. 2. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED
FIREARMS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the
following:
``Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain
concealed firearms
``(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State
or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in
subsection (b)), a person who is not prohibited by Federal
law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a
firearm, and who is carrying a valid identification document
containing a photograph of the person, and a valid license or
permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and
which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may
possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun
or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported
in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than
the State of residence of the person, that--
``(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to
obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or
``(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms
by residents of the State for lawful purposes.
``(b) The possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in
a State under this section shall be subject to the same
conditions and limitations, except as to eligibility to
possess or carry, imposed by or under Federal or State law or
the law of a political subdivision of a State, that
[[Page H7671]]
apply to the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun by
residents of the State or political subdivision who are
licensed by the State or political subdivision to do so, or
not prohibited by the State from doing so.
``(c) In subsection (a), the term `identification document'
means a document made or issued by or under the authority of
the United States Government, a State, or a political
subdivision of a State which, when completed with information
concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or
commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of
individuals.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such
chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 926C the following:
``926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
SEC. 3. GAO AUDIT OF THE STATES' CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT OR
LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-RESIDENTS.
(a) The Comptroller General of the United States shall
conduct an audit of--
(1) the laws and regulations of each State that authorize
the issuance of a valid permit or license to permit a person,
other than a resident of such State, to possess or carry a
concealed firearm, including a description of the permitting
or licensing requirements of each State that issues concealed
carry permits or licenses to persons other than a resident of
such State;
(2) the number of such valid permits or licenses issued or
denied (and the basis for such denials) by each State to
persons other than a resident of such State; and
(3) the effectiveness of such State laws and regulations in
protecting the public safety.
(b) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a
report on the findings of the study conducted under
subsection (a).
The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in House
Report 112-283. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the
report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Woodall
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in House Report 112-283.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 5, line 25, strike ``that--'' and insert ``that does
not have in effect an agreement with the State that issued
the license or permit providing for reciprocal treatment of
such licenses or permits issued by the 2 States, and that--
''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 463, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The amendment I have introduced today, because I have such
appreciation for the goal of H.R. 822, says: Understanding what we are
trying to get is reciprocity across the Nation for all of those States
and for all of those citizens that have already labored in the
vineyards to achieve reciprocity, let's leave those State agreements in
place. If we must take more Federal responsibility, let's not take it
from those areas where the States are working, where the process is
working. If you live in my next-door neighbor State, in Alabama, you
already recognize 22 other States' permits; in Georgia, we recognize
23; in Florida, to our south, 33. The system is working today.
Legislatures are working out these agreements today. If we must expand
the size and scope of the Federal reach in the gun law legislation,
let's not trample on those agreements that already exist to achieve
this goal that so many share.
I absolutely support the goal of H.R. 822, which is to ensure that
all Americans have concealed-carry reciprocity across the Nation. That
is already happening today, Mr. Chairman, through State legislatures,
through State attorneys general, through State Governors negotiating
these agreements. My amendment would leave those agreements in place
and preserve the rights of States to continue to legislate and regulate
in this area.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
This amendment undercuts the uniform eligibility standard that forms
the foundation of this legislation. The underlying bill allows
individuals with valid State-issued permits to carry a concealed
firearm in all other States that also authorize concealed carry. This
Second Amendment right to bear arms is, therefore, limited by this
amendment.
Forty-nine States authorize concealed carry, and 40 of those States
have reciprocity agreements with all or some of the other concealed-
carry States. But these agreements vary from State to State, creating a
patchwork of laws that limits reciprocity, creates confusion for gun
owners, and undermines the Second Amendment. The amendment offered by
the gentleman from Georgia keeps this patchwork in place by exempting
States with reciprocity agreements from the bill. The amendment
prevents individuals from taking advantage of nationwide concealed-
carry reciprocity unless the State they reside in has a separate
agreement with the State they wish to travel to.
While I appreciate my colleague's dedication to the concept of
States' rights, I think it is misapplied to this legislation. H.R. 822
upholds States' rights in several important ways:
First, it does not apply to those jurisdictions that prohibit
concealed carry, such as Illinois and the District of Columbia;
Second, the bill does not affect a State's right to set eligibility
requirements for its own residents;
Third, H.R. 822 does not impact State laws governing how concealed
firearms are possessed or carried within the various States. All State,
Federal, and local laws that prohibit, for example, carrying a
concealed handgun in a public building or a place of worship apply
equally to any nonresident concealed-carry holder; and
Fourth, this legislation does not create any authority for the
Federal Government to regulate concealed-carry permits. No Federal
agency has any role in the implementation or oversight of this bill
which is left, rightfully, up to the States. But, most importantly,
this bill respects and protects an individual's right to bear arms
while they are traveling.
In two recent decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the
Second Amendment endows individuals with the right to keep and bear
arms, and this right is based in large part on the right to defend
one's self. Americans don't need to simply defend themselves in their
homes. They must also be able to defend themselves outside their homes
and while traveling to other States.
{time} 1500
Eighty percent of violent crime occurs outside the home, according to
the Justice Department. Americans cannot fully be empowered to defend
themselves if they are prevented from exercising all their Second
Amendment rights. H.R. 822 advances the Second Amendment right to bear
arms, and I regret, I believe this amendment infringes upon that right.
For these reasons, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I thank the chairman of the
committee for his work on these issues. I agree with so much of what he
had to say, that it is absolutely true that the merit of this
legislation is that it eliminates the patchwork of reciprocity
agreements that go on across this country. And the price we pay for
eliminating that patchwork is trampling upon the work of the States.
Now, I'm a freshman in this House, Mr. Chairman, and I think small
government conservatives in previous Congresses have lost their way,
particularly during the Bush administration. They went along with a
huge expansion of government regulation, with the very best of
intentions. They went along with the huge expansion of the size of
government, with the very best of intentions. They increased the
regulatory burden of the Federal Government, with the very best of
intentions.
[[Page H7672]]
And this bill today is brought with the very best of intentions. But
when previous Congresses have gone along with the very best of
intentions, personal freedom and liberty have been eroded, even with
the very best of intentions.
Mr. Chairman, the only thing that happens if the Woodall amendment
passes today is that agreements that already exist for reciprocity, and
any future agreements made for reciprocity, will be held supreme over a
unified Federal standard. I ask my colleagues, my Republican colleagues
and my Democratic colleagues, isn't it worth it? Isn't sacrificing a
uniform framework worth it to protect the rights of State legislatures
and the work of citizens across this country that they have put in to
protect, preserve, and promote Second Amendment rights across this
Nation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Congressman Woodall's amendment. I
would point out that currently States have the ability to enter into
reciprocity agreements with other States. This legislation, should it
pass, would take that ability away. It would mandate that there be this
reciprocity agreement, and that's usurpation of States' rights.
I have no problem with the Second Amendment, by the way, and the NRA
is a lobbying organization which is quite powerful here in Washington,
DC.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
The whole point of this bill is to allow those who have concealed-
carry permits to freely carry their weapons into other States that also
have and recognize concealed-carry permits.
If we were to accept this amendment, in my judgment, we would be
infringing upon the Second Amendment. I feel that the Second Amendment
should be enforced. We ought to interpret it broadly. We ought to allow
individuals to take advantage of their Second Amendment rights, travel
freely from one State to another without restrictions except for the
restrictions that are required locally by their State and local
governments.
I mentioned awhile ago that one recognition of State prerogatives
that we have in the bill is that, for example, if one State does not
allow individuals who have concealed-carry permits to go into a public
building or a sports event or some other type of location, they are not
going to be allowed to do so even if they have a concealed-carry permit
from out of State.
So, once again, we need to respect the right that is given to us by
the Second Amendment in a complete, full way. We need to allow
individuals with concealed-carry permits to travel freely from State to
State. This underlying bill does that, with one exception: the State of
Illinois does not recognize concealed-carry permits. You would not be
able to carry a weapon into that State. But except for that one State,
we need to embrace the Second Amendment in every way that we can
practically, recognize the Supreme Court has done the same thing, and
allow individuals to travel with those concealed-carry permits.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mrs. McCarthy of New York
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in House Report 112-283.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 5, line 25, strike ``that--'' and insert ``that has in
effect a law providing that the provisions of this section
shall apply with respect to the State, and--''
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 463, the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
I would like to thank my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for
working with me on this issue. I rise totally in opposition to H.R.
822.
It saddens me, but it does not surprise me, that we're here having
this debate today. H.R. 822 is an unnecessary and seriously flawed
piece of legislation. This bill overrides the decisions of States and
forces them to recognize concealed-carry gun permits from every other
State.
Almost every State currently allows carry permits, but States differ
substantially in regards to their permitting requirements. They have
different minimum age requirements. Some States require safety training
before receiving a permit, and some States bar people convicted of
certain crimes. These different requirements have been put in place by
the elected legislatures of the States who did so with an understanding
of the specific needs of their communities. H.R. 822 erases all of that
and creates an unworkable system.
Under this bill, States with strong gun safety laws, such as New
York, California, and Massachusetts, would allow out-of-State visitors,
potentially as young as 18, to walk down our streets armed and
dangerous. There are States in our Nation that don't require a
background check before issuing a concealed-carry permit. There are
States in our Nation that don't require any firearm training before
letting people walk around with a concealed weapon. These are decisions
that those States made for themselves. I don't want those decisions
imposed upon the communities I represent, and neither should anybody
else.
Also, police officers would be faced with the task of attempting to
determine the authority of permits from 48 other States on the fly and
in potentially tense situations. Simply put, this bill is
anticommunity, antisafety, and antipolice.
And, finally, the bill attempts to solve a problem that simply does
not exist. Many States have chosen to enter into these agreements with
other States to honor each other's concealed-carry permits. Nothing is
stopping a State from recognizing a permit from any other State. The
fact that States have not done so represents a deliberate choice to
only enter into agreements with States that they feel have the proper
approach to issuing concealed-carry permits.
The Federal Government should not be second-guessing the decision of
the States in this matter. It saddens me but does not surprise me. We
are here today discussing not how to make Americans safer and reduce
gun violence, but, instead, we're talking about how to weaken our gun
laws and considering a bill that takes local decisions out of the hands
of local officials.
The gun manufacturing lobby will try to say otherwise, but I fully
support the Constitution, as my colleague mentioned before. I believe
in the rights afforded in the Second Amendment, and I support law-
abiding gun owners. In the absence of a perfect, nonviolent society,
however, we must make laws to protect the public. I know this
firsthand. After all, it was a man with a concealed handgun that took
the life of my husband and gravely wounded my son on the Long Island
Railroad back in 1993.
Now, you may hear arguments today about interstate commerce as a
justification for this bill, but this bill has nothing to do with
interstate commerce. This bill is simply about the Federal Government
overriding the States' laws about who can carry a concealed weapon.
You may also hear comparisons to State-issued driver's licenses,
which are recognized nationwide. But if we want to compare guns to
cars, as the gun lobby often likes to do, let's have
[[Page H7673]]
this conversation. Cars and their use are among the most heavily
regulated consumer products and activities in the United States due to
the safety risk they pose.
One thing that does surprise me, though, is why so many supporters of
this bill who have been so vocal about defending States' rights in the
past are now choosing, in this instance, to trample on States' rights.
{time} 1510
Federalism dictates that some things should remain with the States
and some things should be addressed at the national level.
Going back to the matter of interstate commerce, I'm sure all
Americans would love to see the House address interstate commerce in a
more direct way, which is getting Americans back to work and growing
the economy. We should be talking about how to create jobs and prepare
the next generation to succeed in the global economy. Instead, we're
talking about how to trample on States' rights, weaken gun laws, and
make America less safe, all to please our country's powerful gun lobby.
So, as I said, it saddens me, but it does not surprise me that we're
having this debate today.
I have an amendment under which States would be required to
proactively opt-in to the agreements called for by H.R. 822. The intent
of this amendment is to require that States affirmatively pass
legislation enacting the provisions of H.R. 822 before the bill can go
into effect in that State. This would restore States' rights, something
I believe in.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and oppose H.R. 822.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
This amendment frustrates the basic purpose of H.R. 822. It requires
that States pass legislation to implement the bill's provisions.
The Supreme Court, in two recent cases, has recognized a fundamental
individual right to bear arms that is largely based on the right to
defend oneself and one's family. Over 80 percent of violent crime
occurs outside of one's home, according to the Department of Justice.
This means that for the right to bear arms in self-defense to have any
meaning, law-abiding citizens with permits should be able to carry
firearms outside of their homes and sometimes across State boundaries.
Under current law 40 States have established a patchwork of
reciprocal agreements that can be confusing for concealed-carry permit
holders to navigate. H.R. 822 provides uniformity to our concealed-
carry laws by creating nationwide reciprocity for concealed-carry
permit holders. By contrast, this amendment allows States to opt out of
H.R. 822's Federal grant of reciprocity. And it provides that only
States that choose to pass laws implementing the legislation must
recognize out-of-state concealed-carry permits. This amendment would,
in effect, just continue the status quo and so would be of no help to
individuals with concealed-carry permits.
Since 2004 police officers have enjoyed the right to use a concealed-
carry permit to take a firearm across State lines. And, in 2010,
President Obama signed legislation to include other law enforcement
personnel who could take advantage of this ability. It is ironic that
some of these groups now want to deny this same right to law-abiding
citizens with concealed-carry permits.
According to a 2009 Zogby poll, 83 percent of those polled said they
supported concealed-carry laws--83 percent. Over 4 million Americans
across the country have qualified for a concealed-carry permit. They,
most likely, endorse this legislation.
I appreciate the gentlewoman from New York's mentioning States'
prerogatives, and I hope she will express the same sentiments about
other pieces of legislation. H.R. 822 retains the States' ability to
regulate firearms in their own States by making clear that all State
regulations regarding how a firearm is carried continue to apply to
both residents and nonresidents, and by keeping in place the State's
own permitting process.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in House Report 112-283.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 6, line 1, insert ``(A)'' after ``(1)''.
Page 6, line 4, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(B)''.
Page 6, line 5, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 6, after line 5, insert the following:
``(2) provides for the issuance of such a license or
permit, and requires the applicant for such a license or
permit to complete and submit the application to the State in
person.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 463, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
My amendment would exempt States from right-to-carry reciprocity when
the State does not require individuals to apply for and complete a
carry permit application at their local law enforcement station.
The United States Congress should never be in the business of
stripping States of the right to make their own decisions about whether
to recognize other States' permits. States have put forward a
considerable amount of time trying to determine just what is best for
their citizenry in reference to safety. By overriding State-based
concealed-carry laws and forcing States to recognize concealed-carry
permits from every other State, we're putting our State and local law
enforcement in grave danger.
Two nights ago the sheriff in my county and I discussed this matter.
I might add he is a Republican sheriff who is a friend of mine. We
discussed this matter, and we concluded that it's going to be very
difficult to get people to want to become police officers. Not only are
they being attacked in reference to their organizing efforts, but now
we are going to make it difficult for them to do their jobs.
This amendment closes a loophole that would otherwise be created by
H.R. 822.
Almost every State allows concealed-carry in some form, but States
differ in how they implement their concealed-carry policies, including
having, as has been mentioned, different age requirements, training
requirements, and excluding individuals guilty of certain crimes. One
of these major discrepancies is addressed in this amendment and would
force a State wishing to enforce H.R. 822's State reciprocity
requirement to make certain carry permit applications are completed at
an individual's local law enforcement station.
In my home State of Florida, concealed-carry permits may be granted
to nonresidents, and all applicants are allowed to apply by mail. It is
so easy that a staffer in one of our offices was able to complete the
form in less than 30 minutes. If H.R. 822 passes, residents and
nonresidents of Florida would be able to apply by mail from almost
anywhere in the country and use their concealed-carry permits
throughout the country.
Mr. Chairman, gun violence continues to grow at astounding levels in
the United States. When the Surgeon General was Mr. Satcher, he called
it an epidemic and even said that it was a health crisis so many people
were killing each other with weapons.
[[Page H7674]]
Mr. CONYERS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for his amendment. I rise in
support of it and observe that last year, over 70 percent of Utah's
concealed-carry permits were issued to nonresidents. I commend the
gentleman.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. Chairman, the last thing we need is to tell sovereign States that
they are no longer free to make the decision to require an in-person
interview when making a gun permit determination. At least 10 States
grant law enforcement broad discretion to deny permits to carry
concealed, loaded guns based on an applicant's record or other factors.
Fourteen other States grant law enforcement more limited discretion. In
addition, at least 14 States require applicants to show good moral
character. Many of these States require applicants to present
themselves in person for interviews. For example, applicants in New
York must complete an in-person interview to receive their carry
permit.
By contrast, Utah applicants, as has been pointed out by the ranking
member, can submit their application by mail and can complete the
fingerprinting and firearm safety training requirements outside of the
State. In comparison, Utah's driver's license application specifically
requires, and rightly so, that applicants submit the application in
person, that it be notarized, and that the employee initial the
application upon submission. Utah also grants permits to nonresidents,
potentially allowing individuals nationwide to apply for a permit by
mail.
{time} 1520
Supporters of H.R. 822 claim that concealed-carry permits should be
treated like driver's licenses. My amendment, however, points out that
this is yet another instance of my friends' hypocrisy. First-time
drivers applying for licenses in Utah and Florida must appear in person
and pass a written and road test.
While Utah and Florida are free to make the decision that they will
not require in-person appearances for concealed carry permit
applicants, it should not be the job of Congress to impose this
decision on other states.
Mr. Chair, H.R. 822 is a dangerous bill, and quite frankly will do
nothing to create a single job across the nation.
Americans are hurting, they want jobs, and to be able to provide for
their families.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which will help to
close a dangerous loophole created by H.R. 822.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment would effectively gut the bill, though the intent is
actually somewhat unclear.
As written, the amendment allows a visitor to carry a handgun under
the provisions of the bill only in States that require applications to
be completed and submitted in person; however, few States have such a
requirement for nonresidents.
This amendment would create unnecessary confusion. For example,
Florida accepts applications by mail, but the State of Washington does
not. If this amendment were adopted, a Virginia resident who held a
valid permit could carry a handgun in Washington, which requires
everyone to apply in person, but not in Florida, which has no concerns
about issuing permits by mail.
It is possible that the amendment was intended to allow interstate
carry under the bill's provisions only for holders of permits that were
issued in person. The problem is that isn't how the amendment is
drafted. If it were, it would still effectively gut the bill because so
few States require in-person application.
The fact is that any application or fingerprinting requirements for a
resident or a nonresident to obtain a concealed-carry permit are in
addition to all the other requirements, including a national instant-
background check that the applicant must go through first to legally
purchase the gun.
Despite what some opponents of H.R. 822 would have you believe, not
everyone who owns a gun is a criminal. And, in fact, there is
overwhelming evidence to show that concealed-carry laws have resulted
in lower crime rates in most States. Typically, most criminals don't
bother with legally purchasing a gun and then making sure they have a
valid permit before they carry it concealed; they just do it. That's
why we call them criminals.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in House Report 112-283.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr.
Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 6, line 1, insert ``(A)'' after ``(1)''.
Page 6, line 4, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(B)''.
Page 6, line 5, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
``(2) maintains a complete database of all permits and
licenses issued by the State for the carrying of a concealed
handgun, and makes that database available to law enforcement
officers from all States 24 hours a day.''.
Page 6, after line 5, insert the following:
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 463, the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I am hoping that there will be no Member that will oppose a
commonsense amendment that allows our law enforcement officers to be
more protected.
One might think, as I point to this picture of a nurse giving a young
man an immunization shot and the young man squinting, that I would be
more in tune with this legislation to have a law enforcement officer or
a policeman dressed in their uniform.
I put a child here because I wanted to emphasize the fact that, can
we have any disagreement that if we put our law enforcement officers in
jeopardy, many of them leave behind families. Or I might use as an
example this young child is squinting in pain from immunization. That
won't harm them, but a person recklessly having stolen maybe someone's
gun that comes with the national concealed law, the right-to-carry law,
may not have a squinting child but, rather, a dead child.
Let me give you an example of the legislation or the amendment that I
have in real time. A North Harris police officer in 2008 had a traffic
stop. Before he went to this individual that he was stopping, he
dutifully went to a dispatcher, a database to find out who this might
be. Tragically, it was not soon enough because a gun was taken and he
was shot dead. He leaves behind a wife and two children, albeit the
fact that I have a child here, because I'm simply trying to create a
simple amendment to this bill that will protect our law enforcement.
What does my amendment do? It ensures that a comprehensive database
is created to provide a listing of individuals from each State who
possess permits and licenses to carry concealed weapons. This amendment
would also require that the concealed-weapons database be available to
law enforcement officers in all States 24 hours a day. Thank goodness,
because of Federal funding, many of our law enforcement officers have
their laptops, many of them even their iPads, and so this database is a
simple process.
It is interesting or it should be known that 36 States are especially
adversely impacted by this bill because 36 States do not grant any
reciprocity. Twenty-seven States recognize concealed-carry permits from
only select States. So a 24-hour database, I believe,
[[Page H7675]]
would do what Republicans and Democrats say they want to do: protect
law enforcement officers.
Failing to implement a national system that would allow law
enforcement officials to check the status of individuals who are
legally allowed to carry a concealed gun will result in a routine
situation, such as a traffic stop, becoming a life-threatening
situation. If an officer discovered a gun during a routine traffic
stop, the officer might quickly and accurately determine this guy is
legal as to whether the driver or lady possesses a valid out-of-state
permit.
Oh, yes, we can offer reciprocity, but does the officer on the street
walk around and look at the car that's coming across the border of
their State and a sign says, We have reciprocity, I am from such and
such, I'm okay. It is nearly an impossible task for the officer to
verify the validity of 48 different carry permits--are we going to have
a national carry permit--in the middle of what could be a tense
situation.
Even if that person is legally carrying it based upon the permit from
another State, according to the majority's report on this bill, only 18
States maintain an electronic database of concealed-carry permits that
are immediately accessible to other law enforcement agencies. Seven
States cannot provide any real-time access to this basic information to
out-of-state agencies, and two States do not even maintain a database
for their own purposes. This amendment gives our local law enforcement
a plausible chance to verify whether out-of-state concealed-carry
permits are legitimate.
Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 1 minute remaining.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I yield to my ranking member on this
amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. And I am in full
support of the logical and rational approach that she is taking in
supporting a database.
I plead with my colleagues to join us in a bipartisan sense to
support an amendment that would create a comprehensive mechanism so
that all permits and licenses for carrying concealed weapons would be
available on a 24-hour-a-day basis. I congratulate the gentlelady on
her amendment.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman for his kindness.
Who can oppose such a simple amendment, particularly when it is noted
that some States do not have this electronic database?
The officer who went to his dispatcher, who was doing the right
thing, he lost his life. He left behind children. Do we want squinting
children getting an immunization shot or getting shot?
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my amendment #4 to H.R. 822,
the ``National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011.'' My amendment
ensures that a comprehensive database is created to provide a listing
of individuals from each State who possess permits and licenses to
carry concealed weapons. This amendment would also require that the
concealed weapons database be available to law enforcement officers in
all States 24-hours a day.
Failing to implement a national system that would allow law
enforcement officials to check the status of individuals who are
legally allowed to carry a concealed gun could result in a routine
situation, such as a like traffic stops, becoming life-threatening
situation.
If an officer discovered a gun during a routine traffic stop, the
officer must quickly and accurately determine whether the driver
possesses a valid out-of-state permit. It is a nearly impossible task
for the officer to verify the validity of 48 different carry permits,
in the middle what could be a tense or dangerous situation.
According to the Majority's report on this bill, only 12 states
maintain an electronic database of concealed carry permits that are
immediately accessible to other law enforcement agencies. 7 states
cannot provide any real time access to this basic information to out-
of-state agencies, and 2 states do not even maintain a database for
their own purposes.
This amendment gives state and local law enforcement a plausible
chance to verify whether out-of-state concealed carry permits are
legitimate
Consider for a moment, a police officer in Houston, Texas has just
pulled someone over for speeding. The driver, who is a resident of
Missouri, gives the officer a concealed carry permit from Utah, which
is a state that grants concealed carry permits to nonresidents. Under
our current system it is impossible for the officer in Houston to
instantly confirm whether or not the driver from Missouri has a valid
right to carry a concealed weapon.
State and local law enforcement should always be aware of who is
carrying loaded, hidden guns in their communities. A local sheriff or
police chief would benefit from knowing how many people carrying a
concealed weapon have entered their jurisdiction from out-of-state, and
who those people are.
My amendment would give the officer the ability to garner this
information from a comprehensive database; this would allow the officer
to have an advantage when approaching a vehicle with a potentially
armed driver.
As it stands officers would have to distinguish between real and fake
carry permits issued not only by their own state, but by every state.
And in many cases, officers would have to determine whether a person is
entitled to carry a gun, which would depend on their state of residence
and is nearly impossible to verify quickly.
The comprehensive database provides the officer with an information
safety net, although my amendment will not address the significant
flaws in this legislation; this is an attempt to ensure that law
enforcement officers have an additional tool at their disposal.
In addition, state authorities would also have information on whether
or not the individuals applying for licenses in their state have ever
had a license revoke in a different state.
Under this bill, local law enforcement will have a difficult time
verifying out-of-state permits in real time. Pass this amendment to
give our local law enforcement officials a fighting chance.
A comprehensive database would save lives, as state officials could
use this database to determine whether they would be issuing a permit
to an individual, who may have had their permit revoked in another
state.
THE STORY OF MARQUS
In 2005, a man named Marqus had his concealed carry permit revoked by
Philadelphia Police after he had been charged with attempted murder.
During the revocation hearing, he attacked an officer.
After this incident Marqus was able to attain a new permit from
Florida despite his record of violence. He then used his Florida permit
to carry a loaded gun in Philadelphia.
Marqus who under Philadelphia law regained his right to carry a
concealed weapon in Philadelphia only because of a reciprocity
agreement with the state of Florida, would eventually, use this right
to carrying a concealed weapon to shoot a teenager in the chest
thirteen times killing him in the streets of Philadelphia. Philadelphia
did its job, they revoked a license of a violent individual.
Florida if they had access to the type of database I am proposing
today may have reconsidered issuing a license to Marqus. However, if
Florida continued to issue licenses to individuals that a state, such
as Texas, did not agree believe have licenses. Under the current law
the State of Texas would be able to revoke their reciprocity agreement.
H.R. 822 takes away the States ability to determine how to best protect
their citizens from those who they have determined should not be
allowed to carry concealed weapons.
Currently, each state has its own eligibility standards. Those
criteria include determining the following: At least 38 states,
including Texas, prevent people from carrying concealed weapons if they
have certain dangerous misdemeanor criminal convictions beyond domestic
violence misdemeanors, which prohibit gun possession under federal law.
Over 50 percent of states, including Texas, require those seeking
permits to complete a safety training program, many of these programs
include live fire training, or other proof of competency prior to the
issuance of a carry permit. As well as, and age restriction such as
prohibiting anyone
Although it is often argued that guns do not kill people, people kill
people. Well, it can also be said we should not make it any easier to
put a powerful and lethal weapon in the hands of those who have
histories of violence and abuse.
Every sheriff and police officer in the country would have to honor
concealed carry permits from all 50 states but first they would need to
be able to verify the validity of each state's different type of
permit. Knowing local laws and recognizing when someone is breaking
them already keeps our law enforcement busy. But H.R. 822, as written,
would not give police a way to ensure out-of-state permits were valid
or up to date.
Some state permits look as simple as a library card, and would be
just as easy to forge. A national database would result in a uniform
approach on who has a valid permit to carry a concealed weapon. The
fact that each state has its own requirements is indicative of how
complex this issue really is and with one measure Congress would
eliminate the right of States to set their own public safety laws. If
[[Page H7676]]
this measure passes every state will be compelled to honor every other
State's permit to carry concealed and loaded guns, regardless of how
different each state's standards or criteria to secure a permit may be.
States should have the right to know whether the individuals carrying
concealed weapons have valid permits or licenses to carry or possess
concealed weapons. This measure would require that one central database
be created, which encompasses the information of each person from each
state who has a current, valid permit or license to carry or possess a
concealed handgun--and requires that this comprehensive database be
accessible to law enforcement in any state 24 hours a day.
I believe that an amendment creating a comprehensive listing of
licensed individuals from each State, in one main location that is
accessible at any time of day is a necessary tool that will protect the
public and the safety of law enforcement officers.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment seeks to require States to maintain a database of all
concealed-carry permits that would be accessible to law enforcement
officers 24 hours a day. This amendment, aside from being a version of
NCIC for law-abiding citizens, is unnecessary for a number of reasons.
The State-issuing authority already maintains a database of
concealed-carry permits, and a number of States make these databases
accessible to law enforcement through the Nlets System, which law
enforcement in all 50 States can use to determine whether someone
visiting from another State is carrying a valid concealed permit. This
system is available to law enforcement officers 24 hours a day, 7 days
a week.
Law enforcement officers can also contact other States to determine
whether a person has a criminal background, a warrant out for their
arrest, or other information that will help determine whether someone
poses a safety threat to themselves or the general public.
{time} 1530
But the fundamental flaw of this amendment is that it continues to
place conditions and restraints on law-abiding citizens all the while
ignoring the obvious, which is that people intent on doing harm do not
register their firearms nor call ahead to report their travel schedule.
No database has yet been created which can determine whether a person
with a firearm intends to use it in a criminal matter, whether the
firearm is carried illegally or not, so officers are trained to be
careful in every situation and have the authority to take necessary
precautions to ensure the safety of those on the scene of an
investigative stop.
This amendment, as is true with many other amendments that we have
and will consider today, is premised on the flawed view that concealed-
carry permit holders pose a threat to public safety. People intent on
committing illegal acts will not go to the trouble of obtaining a
concealed-carry permit, and statistics back that up.
I oppose the amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will
be postponed.
The Chair understands that amendment No. 5 will not be offered.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in House Report 112-283.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 6, line 14, after the period insert the following:
``Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the possession or
carrying of a concealed handgun in a State shall be subject
to any law of the State that limits the eligibility to
possess or carry a concealed handgun to persons who have
received firearm safety training that includes a live-fire
exercise.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 463, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I rise in support of my amendment to this dangerous bill, the
National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act.
My amendment is about protecting a State's right to decide who may
carry a concealed, loaded handgun within its borders. It would require
the possession of or carrying of a concealed handgun in a State be
subject to that State's law regarding firearm safety training,
including live-fire exercise.
Currently, at least 34 States require applicants to complete a
firearm safety training course or present proof of equivalent
experience in order to obtain a concealed-carry permit; 19 States
require live-fire instruction to obtain a carry permit. However, some
States only require minimal training such as an Internet-only
instruction. Even worse, however, are the States that do not require
any firearm training to obtain a concealed-carry permit.
This bill would override State laws and require States to allow out-
of-State residents to carry loaded, concealed weapons in public, even
if they have not met basic licensing or training requirements mandated
for carrying in that State. This does not make any sense.
By federally mandating recognition of all out-of-State concealed
handgun permits, H.R. 822 would allow individuals who do not meet a
State's live-fire firearm training standards to carry concealed weapons
within their borders and prohibit States from ever restricting carrying
by those individuals.
According to the Violence Policy Center, since May 2007, at least 385
people, including law enforcement officers, have been killed by
individuals with concealed-carry permits. None of these incidents
involved self-defense. Some of these incidents included mass
shootings--the most recent occurring in July at a child's birthday
party at a Texas roller rink--claiming the lives of 89 innocent
victims. This illustrates why States should have the right to determine
who is eligible to carry firearms within their borders. They know what
is best for their communities.
This bill is all about the National Rifle Association and its needs,
not about the American people and putting them back to work. Congress
should not put its stamp of approval on this dangerous and misguided
legislation.
States that require a person to demonstrate that they know how to use
a firearm or meet minimum training standards before obtaining a
concealed-carry permit should not be forced to allow out-of-State
visitors to carry concealed weapons if they do not meet that State's
concealed licensing requirements, especially if a State requires that
individuals undergo live-fire training to ensure they know how to
properly operate a firearm. This is common sense.
This is a commonsense amendment, and it will keep Americans safe. It
simply would require the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun
in a State be subject to that State's law regarding firearm safety
training, including live-fire exercises.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and oppose the
underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
This amendment allows States to prohibit nonresidents from carrying a
concealed firearm if they did not take part in a firearm safety class
that included a live-fire exercise as part of the permitting process.
This amendment would, for the first time ever, insert the Federal
Government into the State's concealed-carry permitting process. H.R.
822, by contrast, protects
[[Page H7677]]
each State's ability to set its own eligibility requirements for
concealed-carry permits.
Thirty-seven States require some degree of firearms training. The
gentleman from Georgia's home State, interestingly, does not require
any training and, thus, under this amendment, its citizens would not be
able to enjoy the Federal grant of reciprocity provided by H.R. 822.
The States carry out their training requirements in a number of ways.
Some States allow applicants to certify their proficiency through
classroom training, while other States recognize prior military or
police service to meet these requirements. Virginia, for example,
provides eight different ways to meet the training requirements.
This amendment is silent on a number of important issues. Is prior
military or law enforcement service sufficient to meet the live-fire
requirement? Does an applicant need to go through this training each
time they renew their permit or is it sufficient to have completed a
course the first time they applied? These ambiguities give us more
reason to oppose this amendment.
We know that concealed-carry laws do reduce crime. A study by John
Lott and David Mustard found that when concealed-carry laws went into
effect, murders fell by over 7 percent and rapes and aggravated
assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent, respectively. These findings have
been confirmed by 18 other studies, but none have found that concealed
carry increases crime.
The benefit of concealed-carry laws should not be measured only by
the instances of self-defense, but also by the number of crimes that
are prevented from occurring in the first place.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague from Texas, Chairman Smith.
This legislation does, in fact, insert the Federal Government into
State licensing of firearms, and it does it in a big way. It actually
eviscerates the States' ability to regulate how or the qualifications
for applicants to be able to receive a concealed-carry permit.
As I stated earlier, 34 States require applicants to complete a
firearms safety training course; unfortunately, Georgia does not. But
that does not mean that that is right or proper. I believe that other
States can certainly have a more conscientious approach to gun
licensing, and certainly States have had a right to do that, and I want
to preserve that right.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the gentleman from
Georgia agrees with me that this amendment does insert the Federal
Government into the States' concealed-carry permitting process. I would
simply say that that admission and the fact that that is the case is
enough reason to oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.
{time} 1540
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Cohen
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in House Report 112-283.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 6, line 14, after the period insert the following:
``Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the possession or
carrying of a concealed handgun in a State under this section
shall be subject to any State law limiting the eligibility to
possess or carry a concealed handgun to individuals who have
attained 21 years of age.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 463, the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Before I came to Congress, I was a member of the Tennessee Senate for
probably an inordinate amount of years before I graduated to this
august body. It took me 24 years to matriculate. But during those 24
years, I worked on much important legislation to help the people of
Tennessee.
One of the things I helped the people in Tennessee with is I wrote
the Right to Carry bill in Tennessee. The fact is this was a difficult
bill to pass; it was a difficult bill to craft. There were people with
different opinions of what should be in the bill, and we debated it. We
went back and forth on what should be in it. We took votes and certain
things passed and certain failed, and we came up with a bill we thought
was a good bill.
I always felt that people who could take a gun and have enough vision
and calmness of hand and hit a target at some pace, not have a criminal
record, and pass a written test of limited challenge, should have a
right to carry a gun. In fact in Tennessee, very few people with the
right to carry a gun have committed crimes and used their guns
improperly.
But the fact is we worked on this law and we had certain
restrictions, and one of the restrictions is you had to be 21 years of
age, the same age that you have to be to buy a beer or to drink. And 36
other States came to that same decision that you should be 21 before
you can get a permit to carry a gun.
Eight States have differed: Alabama, Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, Maine,
Montana, New Hampshire, and South Dakota. So you've got a southern
State in there, you've got an eastern State, a couple of Big Tens, a
couple out in the Big Sky world, and some in the east. And they decided
you only had to be 18, those eight States.
This bill, if passed, would tell the citizens in those 37 States and
the legislators in those 37 States that argued and determined that 21
was the right age that it would be the right age in your State for the
people who are residents of your State, but if somebody from one of
those other eight States came into your State and was less than 21,
they could carry a gun when your citizens couldn't. Because their State
decided 18 was sufficient, your laws made no difference; and you'd have
teenagers carrying guns in States that had determined that it was not
the appropriate age.
Twenty-one is the right age to drink, and I'm not submitting that it
should be less at this time, but the fact is the brain doesn't really
develop to a certain extent until you're out of your teens; and that is
why much of the crime and the violent crime is committed by people 18
to 20. They are only 5 percent of the population, but 20 percent of the
homicides in violent crime are committed by people from 18 to 20. And
if you pass this bill, you'll have people 18 to 20 going into States
and having a right to carry a gun when the citizens of that State won't
have it. That makes no sense.
In 2007, the most recent year in which we have data, there were
13,000 people who lost their lives in this country to accidents
involving alcohol; but there were 31,000 people, over twice as many,
who lost their lives because of gunfire.
It doesn't make sense that we would not only trample on the laws of
the different States but also the work of the legislators such as me
who worked hard within the legislative bodies, within the give-and-take
of Senate and House and conference committees to come up with what we
thought was the policy of our State to have that overridden by the
folks here in this United States House of Representatives, the Senate
would be concurring, to pass a bill to say your laws make no
difference, and 18- and 19- and 20-year-olds from Alabama and South
Dakota and Maine and New Hampshire are going to be able to come in your
State and carry a gun when your citizens won't be able.
[[Page H7678]]
It should be up to each of the States to decide that, and what we're
getting to is the lowest common denominator, which isn't right.
So the fact is these laws should be left up to the States. The States
right now can have reciprocity agreements. Tennessee didn't have one
when we passed our bill in 1996, but in 2003 they got one. But the
State of Tennessee decided on its reciprocity, not the United States
Congress. And States have reciprocity agreements, and they're all going
to be overridden. Some are more liberal than others--Tennessee is the
most liberal--but other States have got restrictions. They're all going
to be set aside because of this.
I would hope that the Members who come from the 37 States that
require your citizens to be 21 would not allow people under 21 to come
into your State and have teenagers who are most likely to commit crimes
with guns to come into your State with a concealed-carry permit.
Mr. CONYERS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COHEN. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Your experience in your State legislature and your legal experience
really have impressed me that your amendment, and we haven't talked
about this today on H.R. 822, is extremely important. I hope my
colleagues will join with you.
Mr. COHEN. I thank the gentleman.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment prohibits persons who are legally permitted to carry a
concealed weapon between the age of 18 and 21 from taking advantage of
H.R. 822's grant of reciprocity. We continue to believe, Mr. Chairman,
that adults who reach the age of 18--which is the age of majority for
well nigh everything in this country, save alcohol--are capable of
being responsible just as 19-year-olds and 20-year-olds are. They can
vote. More importantly, they can serve in the military where they are
highly trained to handle firearms in very critical situations.
Fewer than 10 States allow people under 21 to receive a concealed-
carry permit. One State allows this if a weapon is necessary for the
person's job, such as law enforcement, and another if a person gets
permission from law enforcement.
This amendment eliminates the current practice of many States,
including the amendment sponsor's home State of Tennessee, recognizing
concealed-carry permits of nonresidents between the ages of 18 and 21,
even though their own residents must be 21 to conceal carry.
In fact, 14 States recognize all valid permits issued by any States,
including those States that permit persons between the ages of 18 and
21. As many as 10 additional States recognize 18-year-old permit
holders from other States with which they have reciprocity.
Mr. Chairman, America trusts our brave men and women under the age of
21 to volunteer for duty and to defend our country. What this amendment
says, however, is you can carry a gun and defend this country overseas,
but you can't carry a gun and defend yourself once you get back. This
is not consistent with the Second Amendment, nor is it reflective of
our views with respect to what 18-year-olds can and should be permitted
to do. What is good enough to defend the foundations of this Republic
and us, I hasten to add, should be sufficient to defend oneself.
Mr. COHEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOWDY. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. COHEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Based on your argument, you would think that the state that the laws
of the 37 States have that limit gun permits to people that are 21
should be abolished. Why does your legislation not go further and
trample on the States' rights and say that you can only have a
limitation of age 18 and say that you cannot have a limitation of age
21?
Mr. GOWDY. The only thing that this debate today has given me cause
for celebration for is I now know my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle are familiar with the concept of States' rights because I
have not heard them talk about it for the first 11 months.
Do you suppose Tennessee should have a different version of the First
Amendment or the Fourth Amendment or the Fifth Amendment or the Eighth
Amendment? So why are we treating the Second Amendment like it is in
the constitutional trash heap?
Mr. COHEN. No. What I'm saying to you, sir, is your belief is
obviously that the Second Amendment is an individual right so that the
States that have laws that say you have to be 21, those laws should be
abolished and we should limit it to 18.
For the record, I have talked about States' rights on medical tort
liability, and I've talked about States' rights on medical marijuana.
Mr. GOWDY. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman from Tennessee is right.
He has from time to time mentioned States' rights, which puts him in a
very lonely position on his side of the aisle.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1550
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in House Report 112-283.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 6, line 21, strike the close quotation marks and the
following period.
Page 6, after line 21, insert the following:
``(d) A person may not, under this section, carry or
possess a concealed handgun in a State, unless the person
provided at least 24 hours notice to the designated law
enforcement agency of the State of the intention of the
person to carry or possess a concealed handgun in the
State.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 463, the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I thank you for your courtesies, and I am delighted to have seen my
good friend engage in a dialogue and a colloquy with my friend from
Tennessee. Maybe I might even get the same courtesies because this is a
very important issue that also deals with constitutional questions.
I am back with my young man who is getting his immunization shot,
with a nurse looking over him, because I want people to know that this
is about family, that it's about the fact as to whether or not we make
a statement on behalf of protecting law enforcement, of protecting our
families, and not fall upon the spear of the Second Amendment and the
National Rifle Association.
To my ranking member and dear friend, even the supercommittee is not
without ghosts riding through. I understand they had a deal, and then
Mr. Norquist comes riding through. Whenever we want to talk about
getting together on guns and the Second Amendment, the NRA comes riding
through. So we've got the NRA, and we've got Mr. Norquist, and we can't
ever get any bipartisanship because the ghosts keep riding through.
My amendment is a very simple one, and it speaks, again, to
protecting the lives of our officers, and what it says is having the
State have a designated entity, a designated agency, that requires an
individual coming into another State with a concealed-carry permit to
provide at least 24 hours advance notice to law enforcement agencies of
[[Page H7679]]
their intention to carry or possess a concealed handgun in another
State. States must retain their ability to know which individuals are
allowed under this newly proposed bill to possess and carry a concealed
weapon.
Now, my friend did not engage with me in a dialogue, the gentleman, I
believe, from South Carolina.
But just imagine a trooper with a traffic stop on, say, for example,
I-45 in the State of Texas--it could be I-95 in Maryland--at 3 a.m. The
car has a Colorado license plate, and the driver supplies a Colorado
driver's license. The State trooper goes back to his car, and he can
instantly validate this person is from Colorado with respect to the
license plate and the license. Upon returning to the car, the trooper
notices that the driver has a concealed weapon on his hip. The driver
hands over his Colorado concealed-carry permit. The trooper has no
ability to determine the validity of that permit. Therefore, if that
person had been required to notify a State agency in Texas or in
Maryland, that information might be readily accessible.
I heard a comment about the NLET process. You can go to the NLET.
Only 12 States have allowed electronic access to their concealed-carry
databases known as NLET. It does not respond, in essence, to the other
38 States.
My friends, we are recklessly passing a bill that we think is sorely
needed. It does not in any way have anything to do with jobs. It
doesn't have anything to do with protecting innocent children. It has
nothing to do with making sure our law enforcement is safe. I am simply
adding an amendment that would make it better. When you're coming into
our State, let's let our law enforcement know, and let's provide safety
to the American people.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment is based on the premise that any person who possesses
a gun, including an American who legally purchases a gun and obtains a
concealed-carry permit, is a criminal and must seek permission to
exercise his or her constitutional rights. It would be nice, indeed, if
we could get those who harbor criminal intentions to call ahead of time
and inform local law enforcement of their plans. It would, in fact, be
ideal if they would let us know which store they were going to rob,
which home they were going to invade, which car they intended to steal.
That typically doesn't happen, Mr. Chairman, and to require law-
abiding citizens to call ahead is mind-boggling.
Do we have to call ahead when we plan to assert our First Amendment
rights? Do we have to call ahead and inform States we're traveling
through of our intention to rely upon our Fourth Amendment rights? What
about Miranda? Do we call ahead and reserve our Miranda reservations?
Do we need to tell them which road we'll be traveling on, Mr.
Chairman--and who do they call and what do they tell them when they
call? Do they describe the gun? Do they tell them what caliber?
What is law enforcement supposed to do with this information? Does
anyone really think criminals ever call ahead and announce their
intentions? What happens if a person fails to provide notice, Mr.
Chairman? What is the designated law enforcement agency expected to do
with this information--maintain a database of all entering nonresidents
and track the person's movements inside the State?
Should a nonresident with a concealed-carry permit engage in criminal
activity within the State, is the State then liable for not preventing
it?
Would a person who lives in Maryland but works in Virginia be
required to call every day, Mr. Chairman?
What if it's an emergency trip--the birth of a grandchild? A sickness
in the family? Do we just postpone our trip so we can meet the
requirements of this amendment or do we sacrifice our right to travel
in self-defense because we didn't call quickly enough?
This is a practical nightmare. It's a constitutional abomination. I
urge my colleagues to oppose it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I'm so glad my dear friend rose to speak to
the new phenomenon of apples and oranges.
My friends, I am not coddling criminals. We know this is a
distinctive bill that is not addressing the question of criminals who
come to do us harm. What we are suggesting is that guns kill, and we
are suggesting that people use guns to kill.
On that lonely, dark road at 3 a.m., when that trooper identifies
your driver's license but can't identify whether or not you have a
legitimate concealed-weapon permit to carry, then we are asking for you
to have help. We're asking for there to be 24-hour notification. I am
sure there will be the possibility of waivers, but don't tell me that a
law enforcement entity, once known that they can go to the
documentation that has the notification that someone is coming in from
another State with a concealed weapon, will not find it useful. In
fact, it will help this law enforcement officer tell this individual
carrying legally, On your way, sir; On your way, ma'am. Thank you. Or,
in essence, we might catch someone who has a concealed weapon and a
permit from another State, but that person is rushing across the State
to get away from a wife or a husband and has been in a violent domestic
abuse or a domestic violence altercation.
So let me just say, for all of the laughers, guns kill, and it is a
shame that we allow the ghost of the NRA to ride into this place and
just smack down common sense. Save the lives of children because guns
kill. Save the lives of law enforcement officers who leave behind
children, because guns kill. Don't fool around with the NLET process,
which doesn't even work. Let's notify. I ask for the support of my
amendment.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment No. 8 to H.R. 822,
the ``National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011.'' My amendment
ensures that any person seeking to possess a concealed weapon in a
state other than the state that issued the concealed carry permit must
provide at least 24 hours advance notice to law enforcement agencies of
their intention to carry or possess a concealed handgun in another
State.
States must retain their ability to know which individuals are
allowed, under this newly proposed bill, to possess and carry concealed
weapons within their borders. This measure would require an individual
to notify out of state law enforcement, 24 hours in advance, of their
intention to possess or carry a concealed weapon into the borders of a
State in which those individuals are not licensed.
In its current form, the bill will have a difficult time verifying
out of state permits in real time, endangering their lives, and the
lives of the public. State and local law enforcement must always be
aware of who is carrying loaded, hidden guns. This information will
give law enforcement a fighting chance as they protect their
communities.
I believe that an amendment requiring prompt and adequate
notification to law enforcement officials regarding an out of state
individual's intention to carry a concealed weapon is necessary to
protect the safety of the public and to protect the safety of the men
and women who protect the public.
According to the Majority's report on this bill, only 12 states
maintain electronic databases of concealed carry permits that are
immediately accessible to other law enforcement agencies. 7 states
cannot provide any real time access to this basic information, and 2
states do not even maintain databases.
Currently, there are several states that have implemented time
requirements to ensure the safety of their citizens when dealing with a
variety of weapons. This amendment will create a standard that is sure
to provide law enforcement with the information desperately needed to
keep the public safe from unknown harms.
This is a fundamental states rights issue. The measure before us
today takes away a state's right to set their own criteria for
determining who should be allowed to carry a fire arm within their
borders.
Texas has robust handgun concealed carry laws and these laws would
only undermine the criteria established by my home state. This measure
would bolster the protections that Texas and many other states seek to
implement to protect their citizens from gun violence. Texas standard
to attain a permit is currently higher than current federal law and the
requirements of a number of other states.
As it stands Texas already honors the permits of 39 other states;
which only emphasizes that this can be address at the state level. One
of my main concerns is that the lives and safety of men and women
working in the line of duty will be compromised if we fail
[[Page H7680]]
to effectuate this amendment requiring a 24-hour advance notice of out
of state individuals carrying concealed weapons.
Law enforcement officers put their lives on the line for us every
day. Since 2009 least 122 law enforcement officers have been shot and
killed, with an average of one officer killed by gunfire each week.
Since the beginning of 2011, guns have killed at least 30 law
enforcement officers. It is important that the very men and women who
put their lives on the line are the very men and women who have instant
access to information on whether on not the individual they are
approaching during a routine traffic stop is armed.
In 2009, Houston Police Officer Timothy Abernathy was shot and killed
during a routine traffic stop. An 11 year Veteran of the Houston Police
Department, Officer Abernathy stopped a vehicle for a minor traffic
violation. This should have been routine, but the suspect shot Officer
Abernathy in the head, killing him. Officer Abernathy was 43 years old.
Gun violence is dangerous to all Americans. In 2010, approximately
8,775 people were killed by firearms. 6,000 of those deaths were caused
by handguns. In 2010, 152 of those killed by guns were law enforcement
officers. Each year, there are approximately 16,000 assaults on police
officers, and many of those attacks utilize firearms.
The facts are quite simple. If we are going to ask state and local
law enforcement officials to put their lives on the line every day for
the safety of our communities, we owe it to them to know who is
carrying a loaded and concealed weapon. Establishing a database of
individuals with concealed carry permits could save a life.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to H.R. 822 in order to
ensure that we act fervently to protect the lives of those who risk
their lives for the general public on a daily basis. Again, this
amendment will strengthen a State's ability to continue its efforts to
protect the safety of its citizens and law enforcement officials.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Cicilline
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in House Report 112-283.
Mr. CICILLINE. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 6, line 21, strike the close quotation marks and the
following period.
Page 6, after line 21, insert the following:
``(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to the
possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a State on
the basis of a license or permit issued in another State,
unless the Attorney General of the State, the head of the
State police, and the Secretary of State of the State have
jointly issued a certification that the laws of both States
which provide for the issuance of such a license or permit
are substantially similar.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 463, the gentleman
from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
As a founding member of the bipartisan Mayors Against Illegal Guns,
cochaired by Mayor Menino of Boston and Mayor Bloomberg of New York, I
rise today in strong opposition to the National Right-to-Carry
Reciprocity Act.
This dangerous legislation threatens public safety by undermining the
ability of States and localities to reduce gun violence by limiting the
carrying of loaded concealed weapons within their borders.
This bill has nothing to do with honoring the Second Amendment. It,
instead, completely dishonors the rights of local communities and State
governments to make decisions to protect the well-being and safety of
their citizens. This bill prevents States from responding to the unique
needs of their communities as they determine the eligibility criteria
for carrying a loaded concealed weapon. It instead forces them to
accept standards set in other States.
{time} 1600
As a result, this bill strips away reasonable limitations properly
enacted by States and imposes upon every State, except Illinois, the
least restrictive standard in the country for carrying a concealed
loaded gun. The implications of this bill are drastic and a radical
departure from well-settled practice and law that assigns primary
responsibility for public safety to States and localities.
In Rhode Island and in many States like it, this bill would decimate
the strong concealed-carry framework developed by duly elected
officials within the State. These officials enacted requirements that
they believe most effectively prevent dangerous individuals from
carrying a concealed firearm within their borders.
Rhode Island does not have any reciprocity agreements recognizing any
other State permits; and our heightened standards require applicants to
be at least 21 years old, of good character, not an abuser of alcohol,
to complete a firearm safety training course that includes a live-fire
examination, and to show good cause for needing a concealed-carry
permit. To further provide for our unique public safety needs, Rhode
Island also grants broad discretion to local law enforcement officials
in the process of approving or denying a concealed-carry permit. As a
result, Rhode Island ranks among the States with the lowest gun death
rates, less than half the national average.
Under this bill, Rhode Island would be forced to recognize concealed-
carry permits from all States, regardless of how lax the other States'
standards. This would leave my fellow Rhode Islanders subject to the
whims of the other States' concealed-carry permits and actually
prioritize the rights of out-of-State concealed-carry permit holders
over the rights of Rhode Islanders within our own borders. For example,
while Rhode Island requires safety training that includes a live-fire
exam in order to acquire a concealed-carry permit, there are 10 States
that have no training requirements whatsoever. While Rhode Island
prevents alcohol abusers from obtaining these permits, only 28 States
have such a standard in place.
The commonsense provisions of Rhode Island State law and the laws of
similarly situated States prevent dangerous individuals from carrying
loaded concealed weapons. Such protections would be completely
undermined by this law. This bill is a clear and undeniable threat to
public safety and will facilitate a new path that allows more and
potentially dangerous individuals to carry concealed loaded guns within
our borders and against our will. This must not be allowed.
Because this bill presents such an indisputable threat to public
safety in many States, I have introduced this amendment which would
require that, at the very least, prior to granting reciprocity in a
State, the attorney general, the head of a State police, and the
secretary of State jointly certify that the laws of a nonresident
permit holder State are substantially similar to its own. This would
provide States an opportunity to preserve adherence to their core
requirements that restrict concealed-carry weapons but not allow them
to deny permits from States that match their standards. It would, at a
minimum, ensure that we respect the decisions and judgments made by
local and State governments on this key public safety issue.
The certification process will not be burdensome to States. In fact,
some States, including South Dakota and Nebraska, already incorporate
this type of process in determining eligibility for engaging in
reciprocity agreements with other States.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and protect the citizens
of this country from the imposition of dangerously lax standards for
the carrying of concealed weapons in direct contradiction to the
decision of local and State governments charged with protecting the
lives and safety of their citizens.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
[[Page H7681]]
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
This is one of three amendments under consideration today that would
allow the States to opt out of the nationwide concealed-carry system
that H.R. 822 seeks to establish. This undermines the bill's goal of
creating national uniformity in our concealed-carry laws.
This amendment provides that every State attorney general, head of
police, and secretary of State must certify that the concealed-carry
eligibility laws of every other State are substantially similar to
their own before the State can participate in this legislation's grant
of reciprocity. This is obviously intended to be overly burdensome both
to those with concealed-carry permits and to the States themselves. It
is also simply a way for State officials who do not support the Second
Amendment right to bear arms to decide that their State will not
recognize out-of-State concealed-carry permits.
The amendment also incorrectly assumes that there are critical
differences between the States' eligibility requirements, which is
simply not the case. Each State has a vested interest in making sure
that those with a propensity towards violence are not granted a
concealed-carry permit. Every State conducts a thorough background
check so that unqualified individuals will not be able to carry a
concealed firearm. The eligibility standards used by the States are
more similar than not. The fact that there may be small differences
among the States' eligibility laws should not allow a State to prohibit
the exercise of Second Amendment rights within its boundaries.
Also, Federal and State laws governing the purchase of a firearm must
be complied with before a person can even apply for a concealed-carry
permit. In order to purchase a firearm or take advantage of the
reciprocity extended by H.R. 822, a person convicted of a felony or a
domestic violence misdemeanor cannot legally purchase a firearm under
Federal law. A person must also be cleared through the Federal Bureau
of Investigation's National Instant Criminal Background Check System,
or NICS, before they can purchase a firearm.
Data from the FBI's annual Uniform Crime Report show that right-to-
carry States, those that widely allow concealed-carry permits, have 22
percent lower total violent crime rates, 30 percent lower murder rates,
46 percent lower robbery rates, and 12 percent lower aggravated assault
rates as compared to the rest of the country. This amendment allows the
current patchwork of concealed-carry laws to continue and ignores the
right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
For those reasons, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Rhode Island has 30 seconds
remaining.
Mr. CICILLINE. Just very quickly, the purpose is not, of course, to
overly burden State governments but, instead, to respect the judgments
and decisions they've made in weighing the equities and making
determinations as to what is the right criteria, to give respect to the
duly elected officials in States who have made those judgments. It
happens in South Dakota. It happens in Nebraska. It's not unduly
burdensome. It's really about respecting the people in State government
and in local governments who have the responsibility to protect the
public health, safety, and well-being of residents of States.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if you respect and support the full
right of individuals to enjoy the rights under the Second Amendment to
the Constitution to bear arms, you will oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Reichert
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10
printed in House Report 112-283.
Mr. REICHERT. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. __. GAO STUDY OF THE ABILITY OF STATE AND LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT TO VERIFY THE VALIDITY OF OUT-OF-
STATE CONCEALED FIREARMS PERMITS.
(a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct a study of the ability of State and
local law enforcement authorities to verify the validity of
licenses or permits, issued by other States, to carry a
concealed firearm.
(b) Report to the Congress.--Within 1 year after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall
submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the
Senate a written report which contains the results of the
study required by subsection (a).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 463, the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Reichert) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Today we are considering a national reciprocity law for firearms
licenses and permits. I have always supported Second Amendment rights
for people to carry and keep firearms.
I come at this from a little bit of a different perspective. I was a
police officer for 33 years. I worked the streets for 6 years in a
patrol car, SWAT commander, hostage negotiator. I have had guns pointed
at me. I have looked down the barrel of a shotgun. I have looked down
the barrel of a rifle. I have heard the shots fly by. I have been at
the other end of the gun, too. Fortunately, I have not had to fire at
anyone, but in protection of the people in my community, I have
experienced being at both ends of a firearm.
So I understand and I get the concerns of cops, my brothers and
sisters in law enforcement. What we want to make sure today is that
those law enforcement officers across this country that protect us--and
they're protecting us while we're in the Capitol today--are equipped
and prepared to enforce this law.
I have a concern, so my amendment would require that the GAO look
into whether or not law enforcement officers are able and have the
ability to verify the validity of out-of-State concealed firearms
permits and licenses. Within 1 year of enactment, the results of this
study will be reported to the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate
Judiciary Committee.
Our State and local law enforcement across this country every day put
their lives on the line. They put the badge on. They put their uniforms
on. They walk out into the street. They go out in their patrol cars and
are putting their lives on the line. It's a risk and responsibility
that they will gladly accept. They want to come home safely, of course,
to their families, but they know the risks when they leave their home.
They know the risks when they put on the badge. We owe it to them to
ensure the underlying bill does not create any unintended consequences
or additional safety concerns.
{time} 1610
Right now it is unclear whether every cop in every jurisdiction
across this Nation can efficiently determine the validity of concealed-
firearms permits. Each State decides how best to store that information
and have access to its own concealed-carry permit information, but
maybe not that of other States.
Only 12 States right now are participating in a program that allows
electronic access to a joint concealed-carry database. In the remaining
38 States, law enforcement officers are required to contact appropriate
local officials over the phone or by email. This method is not timely
enough and not effective. We must understand how long it takes for law
enforcement officers to determine whether or not a State concealed-
carry permit is legitimate or fraudulent. This is critical to both the
[[Page H7682]]
safety of the cops patrolling our neighborhoods and protecting the
rights of law-abiding citizens.
This GAO study will help us better understand the impact of national
reciprocity for concealed firearms on our Nation's law enforcement and
their ability to effectively enforce the law. We must pass this
amendment to ensure that our cops have the adequate tools to enforce
this law.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CONYERS. I merely wanted to ask our distinguished colleague from
Washington if I understood correctly that the GAO would conduct a study
about the ability of the State and local law enforcement to verify the
validity of out-of-state concealment after this bill is passed?
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. REICHERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The question is whether or not this study is tied to the passage of
the bill. No, the study is not tied to the passage of the bill. The
study will begin upon passage of the bill, and the report must be filed
before 1 year is up.
Mr. CONYERS. I see. Could I ask the gentleman why we wouldn't conduct
the study in front of the bill rather than after the bill?
Mr. REICHERT. The way that this amendment is presented, it's
presented allowing the study to go on as law enforcement encounters
this new law and will then know what challenges they face as they look
to enforce the law. We won't know all of those things until the law is
in place.
Mr. CONYERS. Well, may I suggest that perhaps our responsibility as
Federal legislators might be to determine the impact of this proposal
on public safety before we pass it, not years later after we pass it.
Would the gentleman concede that that might be the more appropriate
path that we normally take?
Mr. REICHERT. Yes, sir. That is what my amendment is intended to do,
to gather that information so we can appropriately revise the current
policies that may exist in police departments across the country and
sheriff's offices across the country.
Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the distinguished chairman of the
Judiciary Committee.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
Washington, a former sheriff himself, for yielding me time; and I
appreciate his offering this amendment, which requests a study by the
Government Accountability Office on the ability of State and local law
enforcement agencies to verify the validity of nonresident concealed-
carry permits.
The study requested by the gentleman's amendment will provide
additional assurance that nonresident permit information can be
verified by law enforcement officers across the country.
I urge my colleagues to support his amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).
The amendment was agreed to.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 112-283 on
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Woodall of Georgia.
Amendment No. 2 by Mrs. McCarthy of New York.
Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Hastings of Florida.
Amendment No. 4 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
Amendment No. 6 by Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
Amendment No. 7 by Mr. Cohen of Tennessee.
Amendment No. 8 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
Amendment No. 9 by Mr. Cicilline of Rhode Island.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Woodall
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Woodall) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 140,
noes 283, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 843]
AYES--140
Ackerman
Akin
Amash
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Butterfield
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Deutch
Dicks
Doggett
Dold
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Hahn
Hanabusa
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kucinich
Langevin
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meehan
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rothman (NJ)
Ruppersberger
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Stutzman
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (IL)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woodall
Yarmuth
NOES--283
Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hochul
Holden
Honda
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
Kind
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
[[Page H7683]]
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schilling
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Stivers
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walz (MN)
Waters
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woolsey
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--10
Bachmann
Bishop (UT)
Burgess
Gardner
Giffords
Kaptur
Meeks
Paul
Schmidt
Shimkus
{time} 1644
Mr. ROSKAM, Ms. MATSUI, Ms. LEE of California, Ms. BROWN of Florida,
Messrs. CANTOR, HONDA, and WESTMORELAND changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
Messrs. JACKSON of Illinois, CLYBURN, BRADY of Pennsylvania, CARNEY,
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Messrs. TIERNEY, VAN HOLLEN, OLVER, KING of New
York, SHERMAN, BLUMENAUER, FARR, DAVID SCOTT of Georgia, GEORGE MILLER
of California, WAXMAN, PERLMUTTER, KEATING, ISRAEL, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ
of California, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, and Ms. TSONGAS
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mrs. McCarthy of New York
The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Capito). The unfinished business is the demand
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. McCarthy) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 147,
noes 274, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 844]
AYES--147
Ackerman
Amash
Andrews
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Doggett
Dold
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kildee
King (NY)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woodall
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--274
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hinchey
Hochul
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--12
Bachmann
Bishop (UT)
Ellison
Gardner
Giffords
Kaptur
Kind
Lynch
McCollum
Paul
Schmidt
Shimkus
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1648
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Hastings) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 148,
noes 277, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 845]
AYES--148
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berman
[[Page H7684]]
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Doggett
Dold
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kildee
Kucinich
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--277
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hinchey
Hochul
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Webster
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--8
Bachmann
Gardner
Giffords
Kaptur
Paul
Poe (TX)
Schmidt
Shimkus
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1654
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 139,
noes 284, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 846]
AYES--139
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Doggett
Dold
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Keating
Kildee
Kucinich
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meeks
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--284
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hinchey
Hochul
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
[[Page H7685]]
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Webster
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--10
Bachmann
Bilbray
Gardner
Giffords
Kaptur
Paul
Schmidt
Shimkus
Waters
Woodall
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1657
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Johnson) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 144,
noes 281, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 847]
AYES--144
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kildee
Kucinich
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meeks
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--281
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hochul
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--8
Bachmann
Gardner
Giffords
Gohmert
Kaptur
Paul
Schmidt
Shimkus
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1701
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Cohen
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee
(Mr. Cohen) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 150,
noes 276, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 848]
AYES--150
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Doggett
Dold
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
[[Page H7686]]
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kildee
Kucinich
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--276
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hochul
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Webster
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--7
Bachmann
Gardner
Giffords
Kaptur
Paul
Schmidt
Shimkus
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 30 seconds remaining.
{time} 1705
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 123,
noes 299, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 849]
AYES--123
Ackerman
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Green, Al
Grijalva
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Keating
Kildee
Kucinich
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meeks
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--299
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hochul
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
[[Page H7687]]
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Watt
Webster
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--11
Andrews
Bachmann
Barton (TX)
Gardner
Giffords
Gutierrez
Kaptur
McMorris Rodgers
Paul
Schmidt
Shimkus
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1708
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Cicilline
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode
Island (Mr. Cicilline) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 146,
noes 277, not voting 10, as follows:
Roll No. 850
AYES--146
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Doggett
Dold
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Himes
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kildee
Kucinich
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--277
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hinchey
Hochul
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--10
Bachmann
Gardner
Giffords
Hinojosa
Kaptur
Paul
Schmidt
Shimkus
Smith (WA)
Wilson (SC)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Westmoreland) (during the vote). There is 1
minute remaining.
{time} 1712
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs.
Capito) having assumed the chair, Mr. Westmoreland, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 822) to
amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in
accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed
firearms in the State, and, pursuant to House Resolution 463, reported
the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted in the Committee
of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the amendment
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the
desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. CICILLINE. I am opposed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
[[Page H7688]]
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Cicilline moves to recommit the bill H.R. 822 to the
Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
Page 5, after line 3, insert the following:
SEC. __. LIMITATIONS ON RECIPROCITY FOR CHILD SEX OFFENDERS,
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OFFENDERS, AND KNOWN OR
SUSPECTED TERRORISTS.
(a) In General.--Section 2 of this Act shall not apply to a
person--
(1) who has been convicted in any court of a sex offense
against a minor;
(2) who has been subject within the past 10 years to a
court order which restrained the person from harassing,
stalking, or threatening a spouse, family member, an intimate
partner, or a child of an intimate partner; or
(3) whom the Attorney General determines is known or
reasonably suspected to be or have been engaged in conduct
constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to
terrorism.
(b) Definitions.--In subsection (a):
(1) Intimate partner.--The term ``intimate partner'' has
the meaning given that term in section 921(a)(32) of title
18, United States Code.
(2) Terrorism.--The term ``terrorism'' means international
terrorism (as defined in section 2331(1) of title 18, United
States Code) and domestic terrorism (as defined in section
2331(5) of such title).
Mr. GOWDY (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to dispense with the reading.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from South Carolina?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Rhode Island is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, with nearly 14 million unemployed
Americans and our Nation's economy continuing to struggle, it is
disheartening that we stand here today divided, engaging in heated
debate about expanding the ability of people to carry concealed weapons
and ignoring the most important issue confronting our country, the jobs
crisis. We're debating an effort to undermine the ability of States to
protect residents from the scourge of gun violence, and we have before
us a bill that will effectively preclude States from limiting who can
carry a concealed weapon within its borders and for what purpose.
While many of my colleagues and I are seriously opposed to the
passage of the underlying bill, there still remains an opportunity for
us to find common ground. There's a chance for us to unite around a
reasonable and commonsense amendment which would prevent the privileges
in this bill from being extended to some of the most dangerous
individuals into in our society, individuals who have or intend to
inflict great harm upon our communities and our Nation.
Let me be clear, this is the final amendment, and passage of this
amendment will not kill the bill. It will be incorporated into the
final language and be immediately voted upon.
While many of us may disagree with the underlying intent of this
bill, it's hard to imagine anyone would disagree that there are certain
individuals that should not be afforded the right to carry concealed,
loaded weapons across State lines. It's hard to imagine that anyone
would advocate for preserving a path for terrorists, child sex
offenders, stalkers, and domestic abusers to transport a loaded gun
into another State. Yet these glaring loopholes are present in the
underlying bill. And if my amendment is not passed by this body, this
dangerous and appalling pathway for violence will remain.
For far too long, terrorism has inspired fear in our country and
threatened the happiness and safety of our citizens. While we continue
to live in a world that requires constant vigilance and full awareness
of the danger of future terrorist attacks, there is not a single
provision in H.R. 822 that would prevent suspected or known terrorists
who acquire concealed-carry permits in one State with lax regulations
from carrying that same concealed loaded weapon into another State with
more stringent regulations.
In addition, many current States' concealed-carry laws do not
sufficiently protect victims of domestic violence. A 2007 investigation
found that Florida's licensing system had granted concealed-carry
permits to more than 1,400 people who had pleaded guilty or no contest
to a felony, 128 people with active domestic violence injunctions, and
six registered sex offenders.
In fact, in 2010 Gerardo Regalado, a man who had a record of violent
behavior against women, was able to obtain a concealed-handgun permit
in Florida. He then went on to commit the worst mass killing in
Hialeah, Florida's history when he killed his estranged wife and three
other women at a local restaurant. H.R. 822 will force other States to
recognize Florida's concealed-carry permits, the same permit held by
Gerardo Regalado.
Finally, there are no protections in H.R. 822 to prevent individuals
convicted of a sex offense against a minor from carrying a concealed
loaded gun into a State whose requirements might have otherwise
prevented that individual from acquiring a concealed-carry permit.
Child sex offenders, individuals who create unimaginable lasting harm
in our communities, should not be allowed to continue to perpetuate
fear in the hearts of our children and families. H.R. 822 will force
other States to recognize permits issued to these individuals who pose
danger to our children. All too often, guns legally end up back in the
hands of criminals, and nothing in this underlying bill would impede
child sex offenders or domestic violence offenders from carrying their
loaded concealed guns across State lines.
In the simplest of terms, my amendment would preclude child sex
offenders, domestic violence offenders, and known or suspected
terrorists from enjoying the privilege of concealed-carry reciprocity
authorized in the underlying bill. We owe this commonsense amendment to
our brave law enforcement officials and first responders, who bear the
greatest responsibility in protecting us from terrorist attacks.
{time} 1720
We owe this to our Nation's children, whose innocence is threatened
by dangerous individuals who prey on them. We owe this to the victims
of abuse, who deserve some consolation that the law will not send their
abusers legally armed into another State to continue stalking,
threatening, and perpetuating abuse.
Now is the time for our Chamber to unite. Let's demonstrate to the
American people that we can use common sense and come together to do
what is right. While there is no question that the Second Amendment
embodies the right to bear arms, our citizens also enjoy the right to
be free from the terror of gun violence.
I urge all Members to support this motion.
Mr. GOWDY. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
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.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
Members are reminded to not traffic the well while another Member is
under recognition.
Mr. GOWDY. Madam Speaker, the Second Amendment to our Constitution
was drafted, debated, and ratified in precisely the same manner as the
First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth, the Sixth, and other
amendments our colleagues on the other side of the aisle hold
sacrosanct.
And consistent with this belief that liberty and the right to arm
one's self are inextricably linked, it is settled law that our
Constitution protects the right to travel. It protects the right to
self-defense. It protects the right to defend the lives of others. Not
once, Madam Speaker, but twice the Supreme Court has held the right to
keep and bear arms is a fundamental individual right. And those rights
do not know any geographic boundary. Our right to defend ourselves does
not ebb and flow with the vicissitudes of our travel or because we
transverse a State line.
Despite the fact that these rights are protected in the Constitution,
there are still those who seek to treat the Second Amendment as a
constitutional second-class citizen. Sometimes those efforts to
denigrate the constitutional status of the Second Amendment are overt
and sometimes they are obscure. And as much as we appreciate the
renewed--and I'm sure short-lived--infatuation with States' rights
embraced
[[Page H7689]]
by some of our colleagues on the other side, let me ask you simply
this:
What limits are you willing to accept with regard to the First
Amendment? Does your State want reporters to have to pass a test so
they can exercise their First Amendment? Do you want 50 different
versions of freedom of religion?
What about the Fourth Amendment? Is one State free to dispose of the
exclusionary rule because it doesn't agree with it? Do we have 50
different versions of what is a reasonable search and seizure?
What about the Fifth Amendment? Do we have 50 different versions of
Miranda?
What about the Eighth Amendment? Are there 50 different versions of
cruel and unusual punishment?
We are delighted, Madam Speaker, to have our colleagues rediscover
the beauty of the 10th Amendment and the concept of State rights.
Eventually, we hope the same for the Second Amendment.
This motion to recommit is offered to jettison the underlying bill
and further relegate the Second Amendment to a constitutional scrap
heap. All of these amendments were dealt with in committee, and the
matters of State law classifications are just that, State law. The fact
that certain State legislatures refuse to protect their citizens does
not mean this body will refuse or abdicate its responsibility to defend
the Second Amendment.
This bill, H.R. 822, has 245 cosponsors, more than half the Members
of this body, and it enjoys that wide and diverse support because it is
emblematic of our forefathers' genius. They gave us the fundamental
right to travel. They gave us the fundamental right to protect
ourselves. They gave us the fundamental right to protect others. And
they gave us the fundamental obligation to defend liberty.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by
5-minute votes on passage, if ordered, and the motion to suspend the
rules on H.R. 674.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 161,
noes 263, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 851]
AYES--161
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kildee
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--263
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hochul
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--9
Bachmann
Dreier
Gardner
Giffords
Kaptur
Paul
Schmidt
Shimkus
Shuster
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There is 1 minute
remaining.
{time} 1743
Ms. HOCHUL changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 272,
noes 154, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 852]
AYES--272
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
[[Page H7690]]
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hinchey
Hochul
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--154
Ackerman
Amash
Andrews
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Doggett
Dold
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Grimm
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kildee
King (NY)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woodall
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--7
Bachmann
Gardner
Giffords
Kaptur
Paul
Schmidt
Shimkus
{time} 1751
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York and Mr. CUMMINGS changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________