[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19354-19362]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1230
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 38, CONCEALED CARRY RECIPROCITY ACT 
                                OF 2017

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 645 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 645

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 38) to amend 
     title 18, United States Code, to provide a means by which 
     nonresidents of a State whose residents may carry concealed 
     firearms may also do so in the State. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu of the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 115-45 shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion 
     to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on House Resolution 645, currently under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?

[[Page 19355]]

  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring forward 
this rule on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides for 
consideration of H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the 
chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. The rule also 
provides for a motion to recommit.
  Yesterday, the Rules Committee had the opportunity to hear from my 
fellow Judiciary Committee members, Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member 
Nadler, as well as Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee and others. 
Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee happens to be the ranking member of 
the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and 
Investigations.
  Last month, the Judiciary Committee rigorously debated H.R. 38 and 
considered 22 amendments to this legislation. The committee also marked 
up and discussed H.R. 4477, the Fix NICS Act, which is incorporated 
into the Rules Committee print.
  I thank my friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson), 
for introducing this legislation, which takes a commonsense approach 
and reflects our constitutional right to bear arms.
  Mr. Speaker, all of us in this body took an oath to uphold and defend 
the Constitution, and, as we all understand, the Constitution enshrines 
our right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment.
  Over the years, this right has been challenged in the courts and, in 
some cases, by public opinion. However, lest there be any question 
about the constitutionality of our right to keep and bear arms, let me 
remind my colleagues that the Supreme Court, the highest court in the 
land, recognized, in a 2008 opinion, that ``the Second Amendment 
conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.''
  As the son of a Georgia State trooper, I learned to respect firearms 
at an early age, and I have shared that respect with my boys and 
daughter. As a Member of Congress, I believe I have a duty to uphold 
American liberties for current and future generations. I am a cosponsor 
of the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act because I believe constitutional 
rights extend past State lines.
  Mr. Speaker, the Bill of Rights isn't a philosophical exercise; it is 
a document that protects the practical expression of liberties that our 
forefathers recognized as essential elements of our democracy. I, 
myself, have a concealed carry permit; and, as a husband and father, I 
have prioritized being able to defend my family and my home should the 
unthinkable happen.
  I am also a sportsman, a hunter, and an ardent defender of the Second 
Amendment; but, like many others, the primary purpose of owning and 
keeping a concealed carry permit is self-defense. I don't think that 
right should be undermined simply because I travel to another State. 
This bill upholds and recognizes State laws, while ensuring that 
driving across State lines to run an errand, go to work, or visit a 
relative doesn't blot out an individual's rights.
  Mr. Speaker, I will tell you a very recent story about how firearms 
can play a critical role in self-defense and promote public safety. 
Just yesterday, in Dawson County, in a part of my district in northeast 
Georgia, a woman witnessed an individual attacking a sheriff's deputy 
at a local gas station. The woman was in possession of a firearm and 
fired at the suspect. While details are still unfolding at this point, 
it highlights the benefits of a citizenry that is reasonably and 
responsibly armed.
  Contrary to the claims of Second Amendment detractors, the Concealed 
Carry Reciprocity Act is not about expanding access to firearms or 
putting guns in the hands of criminals. On the contrary, the bill 
includes protections to uphold laws surrounding firearm possession and 
safeguards individuals' ability to protect themselves and their 
neighbors.
  The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act supports the Second Amendment 
rights of law-abiding Americans, and, importantly, it offers a solution 
to the current patchwork of State laws affecting concealed carry 
permits.
  Currently, all 50 States issue concealed carry permits in some 
capacity, but these laws leave citizens traveling across State lines to 
decipher a variety of State laws or risk inadvertently breaking the 
law.
  It is also worth noting that, of the States that have adopted right-
to-carry legislation, no State has repealed it. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, 
we simply have no evidence to indicate that concealed carry permit 
holders pose a risk to public safety.
  The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act upholds States' rights to 
establish their own permitting requirements, but it takes the 
commonsense step of allowing individuals who meet the criteria for 
concealed carry in their home States to bear arms in other States as 
long as they follow the local concealed carry laws of the State they 
are in at any given time.
  This bill doesn't allow individuals who currently would be 
prohibited, under Federal law, from possessing firearms to obtain those 
weapons, and it doesn't tell States how to regulate the use of 
firearms. It does, however, ensure that law-abiding citizens can 
protect themselves and exercise their Second Amendment rights when 
crossing State lines.
  Thirty States, including Georgia, already have ``shall issue'' 
permits, which require States to issue permits to individuals who meet 
the legal requirements for a concealed carry permit; eight States have 
``may issue'' laws, which allow for discretionary permit laws; and 12 
States allow for the carrying of a concealed weapon without any permit 
or license at all.
  Many States have some type of reciprocity whereby they mutually 
recognize permits from other States or may honor permits or licenses 
issued by other jurisdictions. However, there are some States that 
neither recognize out-of-State concealed carry permits nor issue 
permits to nonresidents, resulting in a complete ban on the concealed 
carry rights of nonresidents who find themselves in those States.
  The legal landscape of these State laws and their terms for 
recognizing concealed carry permits is complex. Yet, Mr. Speaker, we 
must recognize and remember that, at a practical level, our Union 
functions by acknowledging the necessary reciprocity of certain State 
functions, this being one of them and should be. But the current 
patchwork of State laws means that these law-abiding individuals have 
to stop and think about their rights, where they are located at the 
time and whether they recognize their Second Amendment rights, or they 
risk breaking the law.
  Also, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 38 includes the text of the Fix NICS Act. The 
Fix NICS Act ensures individuals who are prohibited from receiving 
firearms are properly documented in the NICS system, and it would 
require Federal agencies to report relevant records in accordance with 
the law.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us upholds a constitutional right 
to keep and bear arms and recognizes the fact that the Bill of Rights 
isn't limited to certain jurisdictions. Our Founding Fathers carved 
certain foundational rights into our democracy, and today's bill simply 
upholds the spirit and letter of the Second Amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Georgia for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes for debate.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the 54th closed rule brought by the Republican 
majority to the floor. Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, I pointed 
that out, as well as the fact that there were 25 Members of this body 
who offered amendments that were not made in order. Significant numbers 
of them were germane, and they were bipartisan. We cannot continue to 
ignore the importance of allowing full membership to participate on 
behalf of their constituents.
  Today's bill combines two bills: one, a bipartisan supported approach 
to strengthening background checks; the

[[Page 19356]]

other, a disgraceful handout to the powerful gun lobby and gun 
manufacturers.
  I also pointed out last night that the NRA, in many respects, is two 
bodies: those at the top and the rank-and-file members. Many of the 
rank-and-file members, for example, support universal background checks 
that we could be talking about in this measure if an amendment seeking 
to have that made in order had been made in order.
  A month ago yesterday, this country grieved with our brothers and 
sisters in Sutherland Springs, Texas, as they reeled from one of the 
worst mass shootings this country has ever suffered. A man walked into 
a house of worship as churchgoers prayed and sprayed bullets throughout 
the building. He killed an 18-month-old baby; he killed eight members 
of one family; he killed the pastor's 14-year-old daughter--a total of 
26 people--and he was able to do so in a matter of minutes.
  We learned later that this man had served in the Air Force and, while 
there, had been court-martialed for committing acts of domestic 
violence against his wife and infant child. As part of his sentence, he 
was prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms. Tragically, this 
information was never put into the National Instant Criminal Background 
Check System, and we call that NICS. He was able to pass a background 
check and come into possession of several guns he would use to murder 
26 innocent people in Sutherland Springs, Texas, on November 5, 2017.
  This tragic event is instructive to the bill brought by us today. 
Clearly, our background check system must be strengthened.
  The problems with our background check system are more grave than we 
previously could even imagine, as recent reports indicate that the FBI 
has sought to retrieve guns from thousands of people that the 
background check system should have blocked from buying a weapon but 
who ultimately were allowed to do so.
  I think we can all agree that, if we have a system through which 
people like the murderer in Sutherland Springs can buy a gun or one in 
which thousands of people who should have never been allowed to buy a 
gun in the first place are able to do so, then we really have no system 
at all.
  Today's bill, in part, would have been a good first step in 
addressing those weaknesses. But, Mr. Speaker, my Republican 
colleagues, in a fashion so common for their majority of this Congress, 
have decided to sabotage a commonsense, bipartisan bill by combining it 
with a reckless piece of legislation that will allow guns to be carried 
all over this country.
  Let us remember that the gunman in Texas was a known domestic abuser. 
He abused his wife and he abused his child. Under today's concealed 
carry bill, all we would have to do is change ``wife'' to 
``girlfriend,'' and in some States he would be able to obtain a 
concealed carry permit for a handgun. Should today's bill become law, 
he would then be allowed to bring that concealed handgun into your 
State, even if your State does not allow convicted domestic abusers to 
have concealed weapons.
  For example, Mr. Speaker, the State that I am privileged and proud to 
represent, Florida, stops abusive dating partners from carrying loaded, 
hidden handguns in public. However, my friend from Georgia's State, 
right over the border, does not have that same restriction. Under this 
legislation, Florida would be mandated to allow abusive dating partners 
with concealed permits from Georgia to carry their weapons in Florida.

                              {time}  1245

  Under H.R. 38, violent offenders and people with no firearms safety 
training would be able to carry hidden loaded guns even if they could 
not otherwise legally purchase a gun in the State.
  Footnote right there: like my friend from Georgia, I, too, have a 
concealed carry permit in the State of Florida, and I am a firm 
believer in the Second Amendment and a person's right to own a weapon, 
but I also think we should be discussing today matters such as the bump 
stock, and there were amendments that dealt with that that were not 
made in order. I think we should be discussing assault weapons in the 
hands of the public. I, for the life of me, do not understand how 
anybody, other than people in law enforcement and the military, need an 
AK-47 or a multiple-firing gun.
  Mr. Speaker, this idea that we are presented with here is so 
terrible, so anathema to common sense and decency, that one has to 
wonder aloud, where did such an idea come from.
  Well, we have an answer, and it is probably not too surprising. 
Today's concealed carry bill is brought to you by the Republican Party 
via their very influential friends in the powerful gun lobby.
  Footnote right there: the gun lobby does the bidding of gun 
manufacturers, who benefit immensely. Why don't we just pass a mandate 
that every woman, man, and child in America must buy a gun, and maybe 
that would satisfy or satiate gun manufacturers with reference to how 
they continuously cause us to do things that are not commonsense 
matters as it pertains to guns.
  In fact, this bill, which will allow domestic abusers to carry 
concealed weapons across State lines, is the top priority for the gun 
lobby. Well, happy holidays, fellows, but we here on this side of the 
aisle are going to do everything that we can to make sure you don't get 
it.
  When this matter gets to the other body, I can assure my friend from 
Georgia, and all of the speakers on either side today, that it is going 
nowhere.
  So what are we doing by bringing this measure in the first place? Is 
it a distraction? Is it an absolute necessity that we do this?
  Mr. Speaker, just so we are crystal clear, what is happening right 
now in the people's House, let me reiterate, just over 2 months after a 
gunman killed 58 people and wounded nearly 550 people in Las Vegas, and 
just over a month after another gunman killed 26 people in their church 
as they prayed, this Republican majority, in response to those 
atrocities, saw fit to bring to the floor a bill that would allow 
violent offenders to carry concealed weapons all across the country. 
Let that sink in.
  This isn't the only time that we have done something along these 
lines. After Sandy Hook, after children were killed and their teachers 
were killed, we did nothing. After Virginia Tech; where people were 
killed in significant numbers at a military base; in Colorado in a 
theater; in Orlando, Florida, in a nightclub, repeatedly we have seen 
these multiple shootings, or mass shootings as they are referred to, 
where three or more people are killed, 330 times this year alone we 
have had mass shootings, yet we come here with a bill talking about 
carrying concealed weapons.
  Every day in America, 93 people on average are killed with a gun, 
seven of them children, but in the midst of this gun violence epidemic, 
and that is what it is, what do my Republican colleagues do? Did they 
bring to the floor legislation to close the gun show loophole, or did 
they close loopholes to prevent domestic abusers from purchasing guns, 
or are they considering a ban on so-called bump stocks that do turn 
semiautomatic weapons into illegal automatic guns, most recently used 
to rain carnage down on innocent concertgoers in Las Vegas?
  One country music singer pointed out that his band had legal guns, 
but they were afraid to bring them out in Las Vegas because the 
authorities couldn't ferret out who was doing the shooting. We had that 
in a Wal-Mart that all of us saw posted, the shooting where people with 
guns caused confusion among the police.
  A footnote there: this bill proposes to study the issue of bump 
stocks. Mr. Speaker, we don't need a study. As my colleague, 
Congresswoman Dina Titus, who represents the city of Las Vegas, said 
last night at the Rules Committee, the only study we need is to go look 
at the 58 crosses in her district. That is what bump stocks do. That is 
your study.

[[Page 19357]]

  Did my Republican colleagues bring to the floor a bill that would 
have addressed any of these commonsense proposals? Of course not, 
because even though those proposals have the support of an overwhelming 
majority of American people when it comes to guns, that is not what 
motivates my Republican friends. What they care about is the gun lobby 
and gun manufacturers and their wish list. That is why we are here 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle like to 
compare a concealed carry permit to a driver's license, but let me set 
the record straight, because that comparison is nothing but a gross 
exercise in false equivalency. A driver's license must meet stringent, 
uniform Federal criteria established under the REAL ID Act. This 
includes a photo of the license holder and data including their date of 
birth and their State of residence.
  There are absolutely no such uniform standards when it comes to 
concealed carry permits. In some States, they could look like a paper 
library card. In others, they may have photo identification.
  There is no national database, no hotline that contains permit 
information from all 50 States, so law enforcement would be in a 
position of having to find each individual issuing agency to verify 
that a concealed carry permit is valid, and that is impossible.
  My Republican colleagues often tout their support for our first 
responders. Well, I urge them to heed the warnings of those brave men 
and women. Major law enforcement groups understand how dangerous this 
bill would be, and that is why so many of them oppose what the majority 
is trying to do here today. Organizations like the Major Cities Chiefs 
Association, Police Foundation, and Police Executive Research Forum all 
stand in strong opposition to today's bill.
  To make matters worse, this piece of legislation even exposes members 
of the law enforcement community to personal litigation if they 
mistakenly question someone's ability to carry a concealed weapon.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not just some small issue limiting a law 
enforcement officer's ability to carry out their job; this limit on 
challenging concealed carry permits will cost lives. In fact, a recent 
study conducted by Stanford University found that when States weaken 
law enforcement's authority to deny a permit to those who pose a danger 
to the community, violent crime goes up by 13 to 15 percent. This 
research is clear, convincing, and not at all difficult to fathom. When 
you lift limits on who can carry a concealed weapon, gun-related crime 
goes up. It is that simple.
  Mr. Speaker, among the many important issues this body must address, 
the following stand out: as of this moment, we are roughly 72 hours 
away from a government shutdown; we have 800,000 persons whom we refer 
to as DREAMers who continue to wait for us to do the right thing and 
bring them fully into the only country that they know as home; and we 
have 9 million children and their parents facing an unconscionable 
lapse in lifesaving funding for the incredibly important Children's 
Health Insurance Program.
  Given all that, what does the Republican-controlled Congress do? They 
bring a bill to the floor that will make it easier for domestic abusers 
to cross State lines with concealed weapons. This is shameful and no 
way to run a government.
  Last night, I thought actively too long trying to go to sleep about 
the acronym GOP, Grand Old Party, the conservatives, the States' rights 
conservatives, the fiscal conservatives who are about to dump serious 
debt on our children should be called now by their acronym, rather than 
GOP, in light of the choice that they make with reference to guns, 
perhaps GOP should stand for ``Guns Over People.''
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler). She has some language in 
this bill. I also would like to thank her for her support for this 
legislation.
  Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 38, the 
Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.
  This bill, which reaffirms the Second Amendment rights of all law-
abiding citizens to keep and bear arms in every State, includes a 
provision I introduced earlier this year as the Police Officers 
Protecting Children Act.
  My provision would help protect our children from school shootings 
and empower local law enforcement to respond rapidly in the case of an 
emergency. As many of you who represent rural areas know, in these 
sparsely populated regions, our local law enforcement is stretched 
thin.
  My bill would amend the Gun-Free School Zones Act to allow school 
boards to permit off-duty and retired police officers to carry their 
firearms on school campuses so they can respond quickly in the event of 
a crisis. The legislation would expand the reach of local police 
officers, decrease emergency response time, and put more choice back in 
the hands of our local school districts. It is a win-win-win.
  As we have learned over and over, localities are much better equipped 
to know what works for their district rather than the Federal 
Government. In fact, the idea of my bill came from a constituent who is 
a retired police officer and served his community for 30 years. This 
gentleman came to me because he wasn't allowed to use his weapon to 
protect his grandchildren at school even though he had decades of 
experience and continued to pass an annual recertification test.
  Additionally, the sheriff of Laclede County in my district said: Not 
allowing current law enforcement officers, or qualified retired law 
enforcement officers, to carry weapons at schools simply puts 
children's lives at risk.
  I agree.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the Judiciary Committee for including my 
legislation in this important bill, and I urge my colleagues to support 
the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Engel), a very good friend of mine.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 38, the 
Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.
  This dangerous bill is an attack on commonsense gun laws across the 
country. It will force States like mine in New York, with carefully 
crafted gun laws, to recognize the concealed carry permits from all 
other States.
  This bill doesn't create a national standard. Instead, it lets the 
States with the weakest laws dictate the safety of everyone else. 
Thirty-one States require safety training, 35 States prohibit domestic 
abusers from carrying concealed weapons, 27 States prohibit people 
convicted of violent misdemeanors from carrying concealed weapons. All 
of these States' laws will be overridden if H.R. 38 passes.
  It is unconscionable, in the wake of two of the worse mass shootings 
in modern American history, Republicans are still trying to dismantle 
gun laws. It is like ``Alice in Wonderland.'' We must fight on behalf 
of the safety of all Americans and pass comprehensive gun safety laws, 
not this dangerous bill.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a fellow member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
underlying bill, H.R. 38; or maybe that is the lead bill and there is 
an underlying bill that has been attached to it. I want to speak a 
little bit here about this process.
  First of all, though, we have a concealed carry bill before us that 
is a good and an excellent bill, that has been hard-worked and well-
vetted, and I want to thank Mr. Hudson for his diligent work on this 
for a number of years.
  A year and a half or more ago we had this bill about ready to go 
before the Judiciary Committee. I raised an issue. My concern was that 
it didn't allow for the proper respect for the States--7 then, 12 now--
who have legitimate constitutional carry, which is: Since you

[[Page 19358]]

have a Second Amendment right, you have a right to carry a weapon.
  Under this bill now, having incorporated an amendment that I had 
prepared a year and a half or so ago that allows then for the residents 
of the States who have constitutional carry to then travel into other 
States; if they are legal in their home State, they are legal in 
another State, under this bill, without having to require the States 
that respect full constitutional carry to produce permits for their 
citizens and their residents to travel into neighboring States or 
anywhere in the country. I think that is a significant improvement, and 
I thank Mr. Hudson for his cooperation and work on that. Like I say, 
this is a good and solid bill.
  I am, however, concerned about this process. When I hear the 
gentleman, Mr. Hastings, speak about this is the 54th closed rule that 
we have seen, I am for a lot of open rules. I am for open debate. I 
want to fight it out in committee and I want to fight it out here on 
the floor.
  Our Founding Fathers understood that. They set this system up this 
way. They said to all of us: Go to your district, pull the best ideas 
you have there, generate your own good ideas, bring them here, and let 
them compete in this marketplace of ideas.
  But if we don't have the window to compete with ideas, if we don't 
have that opportunity to have the debates, if we don't have the 
opportunity to force votes on amendments, then the best that America 
has to offer eventually doesn't show up in the law or to the 
President's desk.
  This is one of those circumstances where we learned a bill that 
didn't have a number the morning that we marked this up in committee is 
now the Fix NICS bill. It got a number sometime that same day. There 
was not a full opportunity to vet the Fix NICS bill. I am very 
apprehensive about what it might do to this country.
  I would like to have had hearings and learn what kind of American 
citizens, law-abiding citizens, will be disadvantaged by the Fix NICS 
bill. Whose names get on that and why? How do you get those names off 
when you need to be cleaning up the list?
  I want to have everybody on the list who belongs on the list, but I 
don't want anybody on the list who doesn't belong on the list. I want 
to protect American people and I want to protect constitutional rights.
  We didn't get an opportunity to look into this, and anybody who 
brought an amendment to the Rules Committee, it came to the floor under 
a closed rule. So I am concerned and I am apprehensive about this.
  In fact, as I look through these provisions, I strongly support 
section 103, Vicky Hartzler's section in the bill. Section 104----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I yield an additional 15 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I support also the section of the judges, but 
offered an amendment in committee--too many Members weren't there; at 
least 10 Republicans were gone--to protect congressional Members of 
Congress in the same way as the judges. We didn't have that opportunity 
to actually have a hearing on it in the committee--a legitimate one--
and we didn't have an opportunity to bring that amendment to the floor, 
so I have this apprehension.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge that we get back to regular order.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Iowa, Mr. King, had two 
amendments that were rejected last night in the Rules Committee. I join 
him in saying that we need to get back to regular order.
  Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to inform me and my friend from 
Georgia how much time we have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 11\3/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Georgia has 18 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a distinguished member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 38, the 
Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.
  Our country is still reeling, Mr. Speaker, from two of the worst mass 
shootings in modern American history.
  From the 58 people murdered in Las Vegas to the 25 killed in a Texas 
church, how can we face the families of these people and say that this 
bill is the best we could do?
  Studies show that States with laws permitting concealed carry 
experience an estimated 13 to 15 percent increase in violent crime than 
there would have been without the right to carry laws.
  But we don't need academic studies, Mr. Speaker, to know that this 
bill is wrong. We just need to look at real people.
  One of my constituent's sisters was shot in Las Vegas and survived. 
She is one of the lucky ones. They won't have any empty spots at the 
holiday table this year because they lost someone to gun violence. Over 
14,000 Americans, including parents of nearly 700 children, are not as 
fortunate, and my heart goes out to them, especially as we enter the 
holiday season.
  Today, we have a critical opportunity to say enough is enough, and I 
strongly urge my colleagues to stop this heinous bill from moving 
forward.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell), a fine member whose strong 
support of this bill is appreciated.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 38, the 
Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, and the underlying rule. The Second 
Amendment right to bear arms must stand resolute, as should all our 
constitutional rights. This legislation simply affirms the right of 
law-abiding citizens to effectively exercise their right in other 
States as they do at home.
  Forty-two States broadly recognize the right of law-abiding citizens 
to carry concealed handguns, and most States allow some form of 
concealed carry. State recognition of concealed carry licenses from 
other States is not uniform or consistent. Those who wish to carry a 
concealed weapon across State lines are subject to a confusing 
patchwork of State laws that make it difficult for law-abiding citizens 
to travel with a firearm without fear of prosecution.
  Mr. Speaker, contrary to what critics would have you believe, this 
legislation does not upend State laws or expand access to firearms. 
States will still have the right and the ability to set specific 
conditions for residents to conceal carry, and individuals from other 
States must abide by those laws and rules when they carry in other 
States.
  This legislation does not lessen limitations on gun purchases. If you 
are prohibited from purchasing a firearm now, they will continue to be 
prohibited from purchasing a firearm if this bill is passed.
  If you can't legally own or carry a firearm today, this legislation 
will not allow you to do so after it is passed.
  This legislation is about respecting our Constitution. Our other 
constitutional rights, like free speech, do not expire when you cross 
State lines. They are not restricted by State lines. So why should we 
also allow the Second Amendment to be limited by State lines?
  Indeed, the core of the Second Amendment is self-defense, and the 
ability to carry a firearm outside your home is a critical component of 
that constitutional right. That is why 24 State attorney generals, 
including Michigan's attorney general, Bill Schuette, submitted letters 
supporting this legislation. They know, like I do, that this 
legislation is common sense. It prioritizes the rights of law-abiding 
citizens to conceal carry and the ability to travel freely from State 
to State without worrying about conflicting State laws and prosecution.
  Mr. Speaker, each of us are required to take an oath of office here. 
In that oath, we swear to uphold and defend our Constitution--the 
Constitution of the United States. That is what this legislation 
exactly does. It makes sure our exercise of constitutional rights 
applies throughout the United States.
  My colleague on the other side of the aisle questions proceeding with 
this legislation while funding for the Federal Government hangs in the 
balance in the next 72 hours. I agree. We must

[[Page 19359]]

keep the lights on. We are all responsible for keeping the lights on. 
It isn't as if it is one side of the aisle or the other, and in the 
past, it has been a bipartisan agreement to do so.
  Suddenly, the other side of the aisle says: If we don't get exactly 
what we want on terms we have, including on DACA, we will take it to 
the precipice.
  A solution on DACA is there if my colleagues wish to take it. At this 
point, so far, they haven't.
  But there are some things that aren't malleable. There is right and 
there is wrong in this. I suggest we solve it in the next 72 hours and 
we keep the lights on because we are all equally responsible for that.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), my good friend, who is a member 
of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, why should the United States of America 
be the only rich country in the world that cannot protect our families 
from gun violence?
  It doesn't have to be this way. In fact, there are a number of States 
that have enacted gun safety protections. And in those States that have 
done so, there are fewer gun deaths and there are fewer gun injuries.
  My State of Oregon is one of those that has enacted them, in part, 
because of votes of the people, not politicians. This proposal would 
strip away protections of Oregonians because there are 12 States that, 
basically, if you are 21 and have a pulse, you can carry a firearm. 
Others have much less-restrictive proposals.
  This eliminates the ability of States to protect its own citizens. It 
is shameful. It is wrong.
  Someday, Congress will come to its senses and enact reasonable gun 
safety legislation for the country. But until we do, for heaven's sake, 
don't punish States that have accepted their responsibility to protect 
their families.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Ferguson).
  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 38, the 
Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.
  As a lifelong gun owner and staunch advocate for protecting our 
Second Amendment rights, I am proud to cosponsor this legislation.
  H.R. 38 would protect law-abiding gun owners with concealed carry 
permits, like the single mother, Shaneen Allen, from Pennsylvania. Many 
of you have heard this story. I know the author of this bill, Mr. 
Hudson, has told this story many times, where Miss Allen was arrested 
in New Jersey during a routine traffic stop because her valid 
Pennsylvania concealed carry license had no legal standing in New 
Jersey.
  Our constitutionally protected Second Amendment rights should not 
stop at a State line. This commonsense bill would ensure that concealed 
carry permit holders' rights to carry firearms across all State lines 
will exist.
  The legislation would allow Georgia's 600,000-plus concealed carry 
permit holders to remain protected while traveling. The bill would also 
incentivize States to report individuals prohibited from owning guns to 
the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System, better 
knows as NICS, and it gives States the resources they need to follow 
this law.
  This would not put an additional burden on law-abiding gun owners or 
make it more difficult for them to purchase or carry a firearm. It 
simply ensures that agencies and bureaucrats are following the existing 
laws.
  I appreciate Mr. Hudson's hard work to advance this commonsense 
legislation to protect Americans' constitutional rights, and I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and the bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), my good friend.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us creates 
a dangerous race to the bottom, forcing States to accept concealed 
carry permits from all other States, regardless of their training 
standards, their background check system, or their safety requirements.
  Make no mistake, this bill would make it easier to cross State lines 
with hidden, loaded weapons, threatening local communities by making it 
harder for law enforcement to determine who is lawfully caring a 
firearm. No wonder sheriffs, police chiefs, and other law enforcement 
agencies oppose this bill.
  What a shame it is that, after the terrible mass shootings in Las 
Vegas and Texas, the first gun-related bill this House considers would 
actually make it easier for dangerous people to carry concealed weapons 
in more places.
  Mr. Speaker, these tragedies aren't inevitable. They are the result 
of policy choices. We could be working together to enact commonsense 
measures to respond to the gun violence epidemic facing our country. 
But as long as Republicans are beholden to NRA extremism, these 
proposals, I am afraid, will fall on deaf ears.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this shameful proposal and to work, 
instead, to address the root causes of gun violence in this country.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 38, 
the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.
  Since I was elected to Congress in 2014, I have been devoted to 
preserving the constitutional rights of Americans, including the 
inalienable right to bear arms.
  Despite our Second Amendment protections, many States have laws 
restricting the ability of citizens to carry concealed weapons, 
principally out-of-State residents. This is particularly confusing and 
burdensome for law-abiding citizens who choose to conceal carry and 
live near a State line.
  For example, the district I represent borders South Carolina along 
the Savannah River. For many of my constituents, the closest grocery 
store, bank, and even their work may be in South Carolina. Thankfully 
for my constituents, Georgia and South Carolina already have firearm 
permit reciprocity.
  But this is not the case everywhere. As the law currently stands, 
Americans in other States are losing their right to bear arms on a 
daily basis simply because they live near a State line. Just as your 
First Amendment right to free speech does not change from one State to 
another, neither should your right to protect yourself and your family.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will see this and will join me in 
voting for this commonsense legislation to solve this problem.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise as the co-chair of the Law 
Enforcement Caucus in the Congress of the United States. This bill is 
terrible. The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act should not be voted on.
  As a may-issue State, New Jersey allows local law enforcement the 
discretion on issuing concealed carry permits. In order to receive a 
permit, applicants must demonstrate an urgent need to carry a concealed 
weapon and pass a safety course on par with firearms training required 
of police officers.
  H.R. 38 would undermine the good regulations New Jersey has in place 
by forcing New Jersey and other States to recognize the concealed carry 
standards from every other State, even if their regulations are weak or 
nonexistent.
  Allowing States with the weakest concealed carry requirements to set 
the national standard creates a race to the bottom. Aside from the 
outrageous fact that House Republicans are pushing a bill to weaken 
States' rights, this bill makes it harder for local law enforcement to 
do their jobs.
  This bill does not establish a process for officers to easily verify 
that someone is carrying lawfully, because officers would be 
essentially required to

[[Page 19360]]

know the permitting standards of every State, a heavy and unnecessary 
burden, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney).
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for 
consideration of H.R. 38 and the underlying bill, the Concealed Carry 
Reciprocity Act.
  The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, Mr. Speaker, 
protects the individual rights of American citizens to keep and bear 
arms. This is a fundamental right to our great Republic.
  In Wyoming, Mr. Speaker, we know that this is a God-given right 
enshrined in our Constitution, which is why Wyoming is a constitutional 
carry State. Wyoming is not alone in this Constitution-based 
conviction.
  Across the country, Mr. Speaker, 42 States broadly recognize the 
right of law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns. Further, all 
50 States allow some form of concealed carry. Many States, but not all, 
Mr. Speaker, already recognize the gun laws of other States.
  However, Mr. Speaker, those traveling through or living on the border 
of a State that does not recognize their home State's laws could have 
their gun rights stripped when they cross State lines. That is wrong, 
Mr. Speaker.
  This puts otherwise law-abiding citizens in a situation where they 
may be criminally liable for simply carrying out their constitutional 
right to keep and bear arms.
  The constitutional rights of United States citizens should not change 
or end at State lines, Mr. Speaker. The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act 
ensures the rights of law-abiding citizens to travel across State lines 
without worrying about the conflicting patchwork of State concealed 
carry laws or regulations.
  This bill is crucial to protecting our constitutional rights. 
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and 
the underlying bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton).
  Mr. MOULTON. Mr. Speaker, 26: that is how many people were gunned 
down in a Texas church. Fifty-nine: that is how many were murdered at a 
concert in Las Vegas. And 489: that is how many law-abiding Americans 
were injured in that same attack.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been weeks after those shootings, and we haven't 
taken a single action in the United States Congress to stop the gun 
violence epidemic plaguing America.
  Instead, Republican leadership is pushing a bill with blood money 
from the NRA that will create a race to the bottom where States with 
the weakest concealed carry requirements will rewrite the laws for 
everyone else.
  Meanwhile, we all know there are bipartisan bills that will reduce 
gun deaths, including my bill to ban bump stocks. Those bills have been 
denied a vote.
  Mr. Speaker, we have lived through too many massacres. At this rate, 
I guarantee we will live through more. Let's stop this nonsense and 
work together on commonsense solutions the majority of Americans want.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), my good friend.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 38, 
which unconscionably combines a needed reform to improve background 
checks with a wholesale abandonment of sanity with respect to gun 
permitting.
  The Fix NICS Act would improve notifications about criminal activity 
for background checks, which I strongly support. A system, by the way, 
that tragically failed prior to the Sutherland Springs shooting.
  Unfortunately, this reform is tied to the Concealed Carry Reciprocity 
Act, which would endanger millions of Americans and undermine well-
established State laws with respect to concealed carry.
  My home State of Rhode Island has strong, sensible procedures for 
getting a concealed carry permit. In Rhode Island, you must be at least 
21 years old, trained in gun safety, and must have just cause to carry 
a concealed weapon. Domestic abusers are not eligible.
  H.R. 38 would override these commonsense laws, putting our residents 
at risk. It would allow anyone denied a permit in Rhode Island to 
permit shop in States with weaker laws, and it would allow residents of 
States with weaker requirements to carry freely in our neighborhoods.
  Mr. Speaker, gun violence is an epidemic in this country. We should 
not be taking steps to put more guns on our streets. I urge my 
colleagues to heed the warnings of law enforcement officers and reject 
this dangerous bill.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I can't think of a more breathtaking 
display of nerve or brass than what the Republican majority is doing 
with this bill.
  After the tragedies we have suffered in Las Vegas and in Orlando, in 
Aurora, Colorado, that I represent, to race to the bottom to have the 
easiest laws--and no offense to Georgia, but Georgia has no business 
and no right to tell Colorado what its laws concerning the health, 
safety, and welfare of Coloradans should be under the 10th Amendment.
  Instead of taking up real legislation on assault weapons or bump 
stocks that make those assault weapons machine guns that mowed down all 
those people in Las Vegas, we are saying: No. Whatever State has the 
weakest, most lax gun laws, then that State is going to control all the 
other States. That is wrong, that is unconstitutional, and this bill 
should be rejected right here and right now.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am 
going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the 
Dream Act.
  Mr. Speaker, a group of 34 of my Republican colleagues sent a letter 
this week to Speaker Ryan urging a vote before the year's end on 
legislation that would protect DACA recipients. I include in the Record 
that letter.

                                Congress of the United States,

                                 Washington, DC, December 5, 2017.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan: We write in support of passing of a 
     permanent legislative solution for Deferred Action for 
     Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients before the end of the 
     year. DACA recipients--young people brought to America 
     through no fault of their own--are contributing members of 
     our communities and our economy. For many, this is the only 
     country they have ever known. They are American in every way 
     except their immigration status.
       Since DACA's inception, the federal government has approved 
     approximately 795,000 initial DACA applications and 924,000 
     renewals. Since being approved for DACA status, an 
     overwhelming majority of these individuals have enrolled in 
     school, found employment, or have served in the military. 
     Studies have shown that passing legislation to permanently 
     protect these individuals would add hundreds of billions to 
     our country's gross domestic product (GDP). That is why the 
     business community, universities, and civic leaders alike 
     support a permanent legislative solution.
       We agree with President Trump that executive action was not 
     the appropriate process for solving this issue, as was done 
     under the previous administration, and we believe Congress 
     should act. We are compelled to act immediately because many 
     DACA recipients are about to lose or have already lost their 
     permits in the wake of the program's rescission. Not acting 
     is creating understandable uncertainty and anxiety amongst 
     immigrant communities.
       While we firmly believe Congress must work to address other 
     issues within our broken immigration system, it is imperative 
     that Republicans and Democrats come together to solve this 
     problem now and not wait until next year. We all agree that 
     our border must be enforced, our national security defended, 
     and our broken immigration system reformed, but in this 
     moment, we must address the urgent matter before us in a 
     balanced approach that does not harm valuable sectors of our 
     economy nor the lives of these hard-working young people. We 
     must pass legislation that protects DACA recipients from 
     deportation and gives them the opportunity to apply for a 
     more secured status

[[Page 19361]]

     in our country as soon as possible. Reaching across the aisle 
     to protect DACA recipients before the holidays is the right 
     thing to do.
           Sincerely,
         Scott Taylor; Dan Newhouse; Mia Love; Mark Amodei; David 
           G. Valadao; Dave Reichert; Brian Fitzpatrick; Mike 
           Coffman; Charlie Dent; Frank A. LoBiondo; Peter T. 
           King; Carlos Curbelo; Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; Ryan A. 
           Costello; Fred Upton; Jeff Denham; Rodney Davis; John 
           J. Faso; John Katko; Chris Stewart; Susan W. Brooks; 
           Adam Kinzinger; GT Thompson; Mike Simpson; Mimi 
           Walters; Leonard Lance; Pat Meehan; Elise Stefanik; Tom 
           MacArthur; Chris Smith; Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon; Joe 
           Barton; Will Hurd; Bruce Poliquin.

  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text 
of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, 
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) to discuss our proposal.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, each day that Congress delays action on the Dream Act, 
122 people lose their temporary protected status granted by DACA.
  Since the Trump September 5 announcement, 11,182 young people have 
lost their DACA status and face the daily threat of being detained and 
deported.
  Time and time again, House Democrats have pleaded to Republicans and 
their leadership the urgency of finding a legislative solution that 
would permanently protect DREAMers. We have pleaded and explained the 
economic benefit, $23 billion yearly contributed by DREAMers to the GDP 
of this Nation.
  We have pleaded with the Republican leadership to bring a Dream Act 
to the House floor that is just and fair without the trappings of 
xenophobia, division, or hate.
  We have pleaded that the DREAMers have not committed a crime. It was 
not an act of volition on their part as children.
  We must move beyond the political calculations about race, us-versus-
them divisions in this country, and scapegoating.
  The House has an opportunity and the authority to vote on a clean 
Dream Act and embrace the shared values and humanity of this Nation, 
while rejecting the politically manufactured hysteria.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that 
H.R. 3440, the Dream Act, can come to the House floor.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have watched this year as members of the Republican 
majority have worked diligently to repeal the Affordable Care Act, 
which would have been a failure for the American people but great for 
special interests.
  I have watched members of the Republican majority work relentlessly 
to push a tax scam bill through this body that will certainly be a 
failure for the American people but great for corporate America and the 
ultrawealthy.
  I have watched members of the Republican majority here today and 
yesterday in the Rules Committee champion a bill that will be a failure 
for the American people, especially survivors of domestic violence, but 
great for the powerful corporate gun lobby and gun manufacturers. I 
sense a theme for my friends across the aisle, and it is a shameful 
one.
  Mr. Speaker, our country faces a gun violence epidemic, and we here 
in Congress should be doing all that we can to put it to an end.
  The opportunity to pass a bipartisan measure to strengthen our 
background check system has presented itself, but apparently the 
majority, without hearings, would rather drown bipartisanship in the 
dirty waters of the corporate gun lobby and gun manufacturers.
  I have said it before, and I will say it again here today: Those who 
stand in the way of legislation that will address our country's gun 
violence epidemic are increasingly culpable for its needless 
continuation. That is why I dubbed and gave the acronym GOP, ``Guns 
Over People,'' but I guess I should have used the acronym ``Good Old 
Puppets'' of the gun lobby and gun manufacturers.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and underlying bill, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time. I do appreciate my friend from Florida. We have many lively 
debates on the floor and many lively debates in the Rules Committee. 
But if you really want to see things going in really a tone and tenor 
misspeak on this floor, let's at least get back to saying there are 
ideas that we agree with and disagree with.
  There are ideas of actually just taking a constitutional right and 
being able to apply that in the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, which 
is what we are talking about here, regardless of who might find that 
appealing, what groups or nongroups. That is a constitutional right 
that we are fighting for.
  But in this regard of saying that puppets--the moment that the group 
who enjoys killing babies says, ``You need to make sure that right is 
available,'' then my friends across the aisle are quick to jump to 
their strings to say, ``Yes, I want to do that.''
  When they wanted to have more government-controlled healthcare, they 
also said: Oh, but our insurance companies, we need to have a position 
for them in which they are taken care of.
  I guess that was another puppet string, Mr. Speaker.
  I think the bottom line is, let's quit, knowing that many of us on 
both sides have our positions, and we have people who like our 
positions on both sides, whether they be Democrat or Republican.
  But one of the reasons that the American people are very frustrated 
with this body is because the tone and tenor is not on policy, which we 
can disagree on. It is who controls the other.
  If we wanted to lay out a laundry list of supporters of the 
Democratic Party and maybe supporters of the Republican Party and say, 
that is all that matters, then fine, Mr. Speaker. If we have 
degenerated to that, then so be it. But shame on us.
  Whether you want reciprocity or not, good. Argue it. Whether you want 
to have another thing in our tax reform and you believe tax reform can 
be done in a different way, argue it. But when we separate out who is a 
puppet and who is not, then we are also racing to the bottom. We are 
racing to the bottom of the civil discourse that the American people 
are tired of. Look at the last election.
  So when I look at this today, Mr. Speaker, I look at a bill--and we 
have also heard interesting things that have been said, like: Officers 
will be in trouble and possibly can be sued. Look at the language that 
is put into the bill, a Terry stop, that they could ask, and that they 
are protected from suit.
  What they are not protected from is unlawful arrest. Then they will 
be held liable. Or maybe, it has also been said that we are going to 
turn all of these concealed carry permit owners, like myself and my 
friend from Florida, loose on the country and terrible things are going 
to happen.
  May I remind us here on the floor that Florida, which has issued 
nearly 2 million permits, has only revoked 168 due to gun crimes 
committed by permit holders. That is 0.008 percent. The fight that 
concealed carry permit holders are generally more law-abiding citizens 
than the general public, we can disagree, Mr. Speaker, and that is part 
of this body.
  We can come to different conclusions. That is the reason we have a 
debate floor. But when we start to try and bring in other things, and 
who is controlled by whom, then I just simply, Mr. Speaker, ask that 
the other side cut their strings first.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:

[[Page 19362]]



          An Amendment to H. Res. 645 Offered by Mr. Hastings

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     3440) to authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment 
     of status of certain individuals who are long-term United 
     States residents and who entered the United States as 
     children and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and 
     reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then 
     on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately 
     after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of 
     rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 3440.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________