National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009

Mr. President, amendment No. 1618 is a very simple amendment. It is tailored to allow individuals to protect themselves while at the same time protecting States rights.

My amendment would allow an individual to carry a concealed firearm across State lines if they either have a valid permit or if, under their State of residence, they are legally entitled to do so.

My amendment does not create a national concealed carry permit system or standard. My amendment does not allow individuals to conceal and carry within States that do not allow their own citizens to do so. My amendment does not allow citizens to circumvent their home State's concealed carry permit laws.

If an individual is currently prohibited from possessing a firearm under Federal law, my amendment would continue to prohibit them from doing so. When an individual with a valid conceal and carry permit from their home State travels to another State that also allows their citizens to conceal and carry, the visitor must comply with the restrictions of the State they are in.

This carefully tailored amendment will ensure that a State's border is not a limit to an individual's fundamental right and will allow law- abiding individuals to travel, without complication, throughout the 48 States that currently permit some form of conceal and carry.

Law-abiding individuals have the right to self-defense, especially because the Supreme Court has consistently found that police have no constitutional obligation to protect individuals from other individuals.

The Seventh Circuit explained this most simply in their 1982 Bowers v. DeVito decision where they said:

[T]here is no Constitutional right to be protected by the

state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.

Responsible gun ownership by law-abiding individuals, however, provides a constitutional means by which individuals may do so, and responsible conceal and carry holders have repeatedly proven they are effective in protecting themselves and those around them.

Reliable, empirical research shows that States with concealed carry laws enjoy significantly lower crime and violent crime rates than those States that do not.

For example, for every year a State has a concealed carry law, the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.

Additionally, research shows that ``minorities and women tend to be the ones with the most to gain from being allowed to protect themselves.''

The benefits of conceal and carry extend to more than just the individuals who actually carry the firearms. Since criminals are unable to tell who is and who is not carrying a firearm just by looking at a potential victim, they are less likely to commit a crime when they fear they may come in direct contact with an individual who is armed.

This deterrent is so strong that a Department of Justice study found that 40 percent of felons had not committed crimes because they feared the prospective victims were armed. Additionally, research shows that when unrestricted conceal and carry laws are passed, not only does it benefit those who are armed, but it also benefits others around them such as children. In addition to the empirical evidence, there are anecdotal stories as well.

A truckdriver from Onida, SD--a long-haul trucker--10 years ago, on a trip to Atlanta, stopped at a truck stop in Georgia. He shared this story recently. It is a more dated story. But a strange man suddenly jumped on the hood of his truck, showed a gun, and started demanding all the cash this truckdriver had. Working on instinct, he pulled out the firearm he always kept in his cab and showed the gun to the perpetrator, who jumped off the hood and ran away as soon as he saw it.

That story, while one that may not make it into the crime statistics or the newspapers, is the type of story that demonstrates how my amendment will help individuals--law-abiding individuals, who travel from State to State either for work or for pleasure.

So it is very straightforward. The amendment, as I said, simply allows those who have concealed carry permits in their State of residence to be able to carry firearms across State lines, respectful of the laws that pertain in each of the individual States.

So it is not, as some have suggested, a preemption of State laws. There are a couple States where their individuals are precluded from having concealed carry, and in those States this amendment would not apply. Obviously, we are, as I said before, very respectful of States rights and State laws that have been enacted with regard to this particular issue.

But I might say, too, in my State of South Dakota, we have a national reciprocity understanding, national reciprocity concealed carry understanding, with all the other States in the country. So of the other 47 States where concealed carry is allowed, any of the residents of those States who have concealed carry permits can carry in the State of South Dakota. There are 10 other States that also fit into that category.

I believe if we check the records and look at the data, it is pretty clear the States that have enacted national concealed carry reciprocity agreements have not seen, as has been suggested by opponents of this amendment, any increase in crime rates.

I believe this is something that is consistent with the constitutional right that citizens in this country have to keep and bear firearms. We have, as I said, 48 States currently today that have some form of concealed carry law that allows their individuals in their States, residents of their States, to carry. This simply extends that constitutional right across State lines, recognizing that the right to defend oneself and the right to exercise that basic second amendment constitutional right does not end at State borders or State lines.

So, Mr. President, I hope my colleagues in the Senate will adopt this amendment. I think it is a commonsense approach to allowing more people across this country to have the opportunity to protect themselves when they are threatened. As I said before, the statistics bear out the fact that when that is the case, when people have that opportunity--States that have enacted concealed carry laws have seen actually crime rates, particularly violent crime rates, go down.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, let me, if I might, point out some of the statistics, and I will also add in response to the comments of my colleague from Illinois that the amendment was not applied to the District of Columbia.

With respect to the issue of federalism, I think it is important to note that back in 2003, there were 70 cosponsors in the Senate for a piece of legislation that allowed retired law enforcement and current law enforcement officers to carry across State lines--obviously an infringement on this notion of federalism that the Senator from Illinois has raised.

I also would point out that we do know the impact. The Senator from Illinois said we don't know what the impact of this is going to be. Any suggestion about what impacts could occur are very hypothetical. What we do know is that there are a number of States that have already enacted national concealed carry reciprocity agreements. In those States, we also know what the impacts have been. The impacts have been that clearly there has been less crime rather than more.

Studies have shown that there is more defensive gun use by victims than there are crimes committed with firearms in this country. In fact, researchers have estimated that there are as many as 2.5 million defensive uses of firearms in the United States each year, though a lot of those go unreported because no shots are ever fired. There are lots of examples, and I have a list of them here I could go through anecdotally too. These are those that have been recorded by the press where actually the defensive use by a firearm, someone with a concealed carry permit, has actually helped prevent crimes. There are countless examples of those that have been documented and reported by the press, not to mention, as I said, the estimated 2.5 million defensive uses of firearms in the United States each year.

There are estimated to be about 5 million concealed carry permit holders in the United States today. Assuming that every instance reported by gun control groups of improper firearm use by individuals with a concealed carry permit is true--something that can be debated, but assuming that it is true--over an entire year, for over 142,857 permit holders, there would be one--one--improper use of a firearm.

Put another way, concealed carry permit holders would be 15 times less--15 times less--likely than the rest of the public to commit murder.

There are some States--and some large States, frankly--that have issued concealed carry permits, and probably one of the largest States is the State of Florida. They have had a concealed carry permit law in effect in the State of Florida going back to 1987. Yet if you look at the 1.57 million concealed carry permits that people have in the State of Florida, there have only been 167 of those revoked. That is less than one-tenth of 1 percent.

As of 2008, Utah, which allows both residents and nonresidents to acquire concealed carry permits, had 134,398 active concealed handgun permits. Over the past year they have had 12 revocations or .009 percent because of some type of violent crime, but none of those crimes, incidentally, involved the use of a gun. During the 1990s and through the decade of 2000 so far, independent researchers have found 11 cases where a permit holder committed murder with a gun.

I would simply point out to my colleagues that the points that are being made by the Senator from Illinois are largely speculative. If you go back to 1991, the number of privately owned guns has risen by about 90 million to an all-time high. Over that same timeframe, the Nation's murder rate has decreased 46 percent to a 43-year low, and the total violent crime rate has decreased 41 percent to a 35-year low. This at a time--as I said, since 1991, the number of privately owned guns has increased by about 90 million to an all-time high. Also, as I said before, the number of permits that are issued across the country is about 5 million nationally. My State of South Dakota has about 47,000, but it is a small percentage of the overall number of Americans who actually could access or could get a concealed carry permit who do it. Most of them have a reason for doing it. Most of them are going to be

people such as truckdrivers who are going across State lines such as the example I mentioned. There are lots of people who travel.

For example, as another case in point, I have two daughters who are in college. My oldest one will graduate next year. Currently she is in the safe confines of a college campus, but she attends college several States away from our State of South Dakota. When she is out of college next year, I fully expect--and we have discussed this--that she may get a concealed carry permit in the State in which she resides, to have a firearm in order to protect herself, because I think a lot of single women in this country do, particularly those who live in large cities and she would be living in a large city. When she comes home to South Dakota she, of course, traverses several States and during the course of that, she crosses two States where it would be illegal to have a firearm in her possession in her car to protect her as she travels those vast distances across several States.

There are lots of examples I think of people--law-abiding citizens-- who, for purposes of self-defense, simply want the opportunity to, in a legal way, transport that firearm and they have concealed carry permits. They have gone through their State's background check--and by the way, all but three States that issue concealed carry permits require background checks, so it is the same thing you would go through in order to buy a firearm.

So the suggestion that all of these people are going to be able to get firearms: The Federal law prevents some of the very examples the Senator from Illinois mentioned from having access to firearms in the first place. Of course, the background checks, with the exception of those three States--as a practical matter those three States, which are New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Delaware, also go through the background checks. They don't have it as a requirement to get a conceal and carry permit. But background checks are going to be conducted. You are going to find out if there is criminal behavior in the background, mental illness, all of those things which under Federal law would prevent that person from possessing a firearm in the first place.

I reserve the balance of my time. The Senator from Louisiana is here and I assume the Presiding Officer will recognize the other side.

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Louisiana such time as he may consume.

Mr. President, a couple quick observations, if I may. First, I need to correct for the record the State of South Dakota has reciprocity agreements with 27 States. It does not have national reciprocity, which I think gets at the very point I am making; that is, anybody who has a concealed carry permit in one State is so confused by this patchwork of laws we have that they cannot determine which State is legal and which State is not legal. That is a very serious problem for people such as truckdrivers, such as individuals who want to protect themselves when they travel across the country.

In terms of the arguments made to individuals who have access to firearms, the 1968 Gun Control Act prohibits individuals from even possessing a firearm if the individual is under indictment or convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year, is an unlawful user or addict of a controlled substance, has been adjudicated to be mentally ill or committed involuntarily to a mental institution, is subject to a court order restraining him or her from domestic violence or has been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor.

My amendment does nothing to change Federal law. But if individuals are not allowed to possess a firearm, they certainly are not going to be able to conceal and carry one.

I might add, with regard to the issue taking multiple guns in a sack and transporting them, there are Federal laws that prevent trafficking in firearms already. We do nothing to address

that issue. What we simply do is allow those law-abiding citizens who have concealed carry permits in their home States and choose to defend themselves when they travel around the country to do that.

Florida is a case in point. Florida is a big State that has had concealed carry permits for over 20 years and has agreements with multiple States. There is no evidence whatsoever in the State of Florida that there has been any suggestion of increasing crime.

Rather, I suggest the opposite would be true. I say to my colleague from New York that if someone who has a concealed carry permit travels to the State of New York, and I will say anybody who has a concealed carry permit from the State of South Dakota goes to New York and is in Central Park, Central Park would be a much safer place.

I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.

I yielded time to the Senator from South Carolina. I will be happy to yield for a question later on the time of the Senator from New York.

I object, Mr. President. The Senator from South Carolina has been yielded time.

Mr. President, I yield up to 15 minutes to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. President, I do not want to get into the weeds here, but the Senator mentioned Michael Iheme. He did not have a carry permit. One of the other gentleman whom he mentioned, Willie Donaldson, evidently the court recognized that the person had acted in self- defense and he did not do any jail time for it.

The broader point is, criminals commit crimes, that is what they do. Criminals kill people. This is not directed at criminals, this is directed at law-abiding citizens who want to protect themselves. The statistics I mentioned earlier make it very clear. If you want to look at the studies, there is a lot more defensive gun use by victims than there are crimes committed with firearms. It is further estimated that there are as many as 2.5 million defensive uses of firearms in the United States each year. Again, many of those go unreported.

But I think you have to come back to the point that of the 5 million people in this country who are concealed carry permit holders, if you assumed that every instance of reported crime by gun control groups, of improper firearm use by individuals with concealed carry permits, if every one of those is true, something that can be debated, but let's assume it is true, over an entire year for every 142,857 permit holders, there would be one improper use of a firearm.

To put that another way, concealed carry permit holders would be 15 times less likely than the rest of the general public to commit murder. The point I am making is criminals commit crimes. That is what they do. They are criminals. Criminals kill people. What we are trying to do here is to allow law-abiding people to protect themselves from criminals when they travel across State lines, striking the right balance between Federal, the Constitution, which protects an individual's second amendment right, and State laws. We are not preempting State laws. Illinois and Wisconsin preclude or prevent anybody from owning a concealed carry permit or having a concealed carry permit in their States. So this amendment does not even apply to them. Nobody can carry a concealed weapon in either of those States. It recognizes the rights of States and all of the State laws that apply. Most States have place and time restrictions. In my State of South Dakota you cannot carry in a place that serves alcohol, you cannot carry in schools, you cannot carry in courthouses.

So to suggest that somebody is going to transport a whole bunch of guns, which would be a violation of Federal laws because there are laws against trafficking, into an area of a State, public school, or someplace like that, are wild exaggerations and scare tactics that are not based on any evidence. The data we have that suggest the contrary.

I yield such time to the Senator from Wyoming as he may consume.

I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

How much time remains on the other side?

Mr. President, how much time is left on our side?

Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. President, the Senator from California has made some comments, and actually both Senators from California talked about the issue of assault weapons. Of course, assault weapons--as my colleague from Oklahoma pointed out, it is very difficult to conceal an assault weapon. It is not something you are going to be running around--it is not a concealed weapon. Obviously, when you get into the State of California, those weapons are illegal.

I think it is fair to point out again that any State can impose restrictions on the people who come into their State with a concealed carry permit from another State. So State laws still trump when it comes to the place where guns can be carried.

To this issue of multiple guns being brought into a State, States can also say the permit only applies to one gun. Obviously, that is an issue on which a State can rule. Secondly, the issue of multiple guns I would think would fall under the rubric of trafficking, which is a Federal offense. It is illegal. For people who have committed crimes, that is illegal under Federal laws. They cannot get guns in the first place--or at least they are not supposed to get guns. It is a Federal crime if they do. People who have a history of mental illness--all these issues are addressed in Federal law, which provides a floor against all these types of things that are being suggested.

Much of what has been suggested here really is scare tactics, it is fear mongering. There is no basis on which to make many of the arguments. It is totally speculative that somehow this amendment is going to lead to all kinds of people, thugs and gangsters, getting guns and then transporting them someplace else in the country.

I will tell you, I do not think there are too many criminals--by the way, criminals commit the crimes. The Senator from New Jersey talked about the thousands who are killed by guns every year. Most of them are killed by criminals. There may have been an exception or two where somebody had a concealed carry permit, but relative to the general population, it is minuscule.

If you think about the number of crimes that are committed every year by criminals, what we ought to be doing is focusing on criminals, the people who commit crimes. Criminals are not going to go down to the courthouse in Sioux Falls, SD, and say: I want to get a concealed carry permit, or anywhere in this country, for that matter, because almost every State, with three exceptions, by law does a background check. So in order to own a gun or possess a gun, you have to go through a background check. So to get a concealed carry permit, you also have to go through a background check. I do not think most criminals are going to be going down and saying: I want to get a background check so I can get a gun so I can haul it and commit a crime in some other State. That is ludicrous. Think about the logic of that. For anybody who has a criminal record, obviously, the background check is going to reveal that. They are not going to be able to either acquire a gun or get a concealed carry permit, which means they are going to do what they usually do; that is, get those firearms illegally and commit crimes and felonies because that is what criminals do.

I want to mention some of those who have endorsed this amendment. The NRA has endorsed this amendment. Gun Owners of America--I have a letter from them endorsing this amendment. Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has endorsed this amendment. The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, which, as I pointed out, represents a lot of the truckdrivers across the country, endorses this. This is a real issue for them because they are traveling across State lines in interstate travel on a regular basis. This is something they have advocated for a long time. The Passenger-Cargo Security Group, which, of course, represents a lot of those who fly cargo in this country, has endorsed it. GOProud has endorsed this amendment. And the Pink Pistols group has endorsed this amendment. So there are a number of groups, organizations out there that have endorsed this amendment that believe, as I do, it represents a commonsense approach that balances the constitutional right people in this country have to keep and bear arms--the second amendment right. It is in the Bill of Rights. All the other amendments in the Bill of Rights apply across State lines, and it seems to me, at least, this one should too, subject to restrictions that are imposed by the individual States. This does not preempt any of those.

States have different restrictions that apply and restrict the place and the manner in which firearms may be transported into their States. So what we are simply trying to do is clarify this patchwork of different regulations and laws and requirements that different States have all over the country, so people, law-abiding citizens--not the criminals who are being referred to who commit the crimes in this country--so law-abiding individuals who want to defend themselves against those very criminals have the opportunity to do so by being able to possess a firearm if they have a concealed carry permit.

As I said, every State is a little different as to how you go about getting one of those permits, but every State has its own requirements, and all of the States, with a couple exceptions, have background checks as a part of that.

Mr. President, let me point out what I pointed out earlier. This amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia. But I also want to come back to a basic point; that is, how did we get here today? Why are we here? Well, we are here, supposedly, to be talking about the Defense authorization bill. But last week the Democratic leadership decided to put a hate crimes amendment on the floor as the first amendment to the Defense authorization bill--unrelated, nongermane to the underlying Defense authorization bill.

The hate crimes bill, it could be argued, preempts a lot of State laws because a lot of States have their own laws with regard to hate crimes. But we decided here--the Democratic leadership did--that it was more important to talk about hate crimes legislation than it was to talk about defense-related amendments.

Well, my view was, they are going to offer a hate crimes amendment on the floor of the Senate. What better way to prevent hate crimes than to allow the potential victims of hate crimes to defend themselves against those very hate crimes? So I was going to offer this amendment, this concealed carry amendment, as a second-degree amendment to the hate crimes amendment that was put on the floor last week by the Democrats. The leader filled the tree, preventing us from doing that. So we worked it out to have this debate and to talk about this amendment today. But it ties in very closely to the hate crimes amendment, the legislation we have had on the floor of the Senate for the last week when we should have been talking about Defense authorization issues.

But that being said, I will come back to my basic fundamental point. This is a commonsense amendment that strikes a balance between the constitutional right the people in this country enjoy under the second amendment to keep and bear arms--and which has been supported by the Supreme Court, I might add--and the rights of States under federalism to restrict that according to their own wishes and laws. And every State does that differently. This amendment does not preempt those.

The States of Wisconsin and Illinois prevent concealed carry permit holders, and so there is not anybody in this country who is going to be able to travel through Illinois or Wisconsin and carry a gun because they just do not allow it. So it respects the rights of the individual States. But it does allow law-abiding citizens in this country to exercise their constitutional right under the second amendment, and that right should not end at State lines. State borders should not be a barrier to an individual's right to defend themselves.

I believe the studies are very clear. As I have said earlier--they are all speculating about all the crimes that are going to be committed--people, concealed carry permit holders, if you look at the data, are 15 times less likely than the rest of the public to commit murder. Criminals commit crimes, not law-abiding citizens, not people who go down to their courthouse to get a concealed carry permit so they can defend themselves against the very criminals who routinely break the laws and possess firearms illegally so they can commit crimes.

This is a reasonable, commonsense balance which I believe strikes the right balance between the constitutional second amendment right citizens in this country enjoy and the States' ability to restrict that right. And any concealed carry permit holder who has a concealed carry permit in their State of residence who travels to another State has to abide by and is subject to the laws that are enacted by that individual State.

So, Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will vote for what is a commonsense amendment that allows people across this country who are law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from the very criminals who break those laws and try to commit these crimes.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I always thought this debate kind of went down the side of liberal versus conservative until I got to understand during the confirmation hearings of Judge Sotomayor that Senator Feingold is probably one of the strongest gun guys in the Senate. So I have had to recalibrate where I stand on this issue in terms of trying to pigeonhole people.

The point of the amendment, No. 1, is it should not be on the Defense bill. I think we all agree with that. We are talking about a Defense authorization bill to protect our troops and provide them the equipment they need and give them a pay raise. Now we are talking about guns and hate crimes. I don't know how we got here as a body, but we are here.

If you had to pick a nongermane amendment to talk about that makes some sense, that most Americans, I think, would like us to be talking about, it would be something fundamental to our country. I think most Americans are a little bit right to center on an issue such as this, for lack of a better phraseology. Most Americans believe in lawful and responsible gun ownership. Quite frankly, that is what this is trying to bolster.

I make an observation that if you take the time to get a concealed carry permit in South Carolina or any other State that allows it, you let the law enforcement authorities know you are interested in owning a gun, you go to a training seminar that most States have to be able to get the permit or you have to go through whatever hoops the State set up to be able to carry a weapon in a concealed fashion, that you are probably not high on the list of people who want to use a gun to commit a crime. You would be incredibly stupid. You are pointing out to the whole State: Hey, I have a gun. I argue that the people who go through the exercise of getting a concealed carry permit are the ones you probably want to have a gun because they seem to understand the responsibility that goes with owning it.

The idea of does this make us less safe by allowing reciprocity nationwide makes no sense to me. I think of all the people we need to worry about committing gun crimes and violence unlawfully, the people with concealed carry permits are probably last on the list.

Americans do object to guns being used in the commission of crimes, and a lot of States have enhanced punishment whereby if you use a firearm in the commission of a crime your incarceration time can go up. In other words, we want to deter people from using a gun in the commission of a crime, and I think most Americans agree with those laws. I think the city of Richmond was one of the first cities in the Nation to have enhanced punishment for the use of a weapon. It is true that some people do misuse a weapon. Some people misuse a car. But it is a fundamental right under our Constitution, according to our Supreme Court, to possess a gun.

This amendment makes sense at every level. If I go through the process of getting a concealed carry permit in South Carolina and I go to another State that has a similar law, I automatically get the benefit of that law--no more than that law. So I don't know what the law is about carrying a gun in Central Park in New York. I know this: If you have a permit to carry a gun in South Dakota or South Carolina and you go to New York, you don't have any greater rights than the people in New York. And I also understand that whatever Federal restrictions on gun ownership that exist are not changed by this.

So this is pretty common sense to me. If someone goes through the process of getting a permit to carry a weapon in their own State and they choose to go to another State, they automatically get the benefit of that State's law when it comes to concealed carry. They do not get any more, they do not get any less, and it may be less than I would have in South Carolina. But because we are a group of people who travel around and visit among ourselves, this Federal legislation allows us to go from one State to the next and get the benefit of any law that may exist when it comes to concealed carry. But the precondition is that you would have to have that permit in your own State and you have to go through the rigors of getting that permit in your own State.

To anybody who says this makes America less safe or more dangerous, again, that just makes no sense to me. Whatever gun crimes are being committed out there, they are not being committed, as an overwhelming general rule, by the people who have gone through the process of getting a permit and who carry a weapon. So, to me, it makes sense.

I congratulate my friend from South Dakota and tell him he has done something I think most Americans would agree with. He has allowed the American public to be able to travel and get the benefit of whatever law exists in a State when it comes to carrying a weapon--no more, no less. And this argument that people are somehow going to start carrying a weapon across the border makes no sense because whatever Federal restrictions there are on arms trafficking still stand.

At the end of the day, this legislation will help people who follow the law and obey gun laws to travel throughout the country without tripping themselves up and getting in trouble when they do not mean to get in trouble. If we didn't have this law, it really would be a mess. What we are trying to do is provide some clarity to gun ownership in America. We are not enhancing the ability to commit a crime. Quite frankly, I think it is the other way around; if everybody had the same attitude about gun ownership as people who get a permit, the country would be okay.

We are not changing any law that regulates trafficking of firearms. We are not allowing criminals to get access to guns. We are simply allowing people who go through the process of getting a permit in their own State to travel to any State in the Union which has a similar law and to get the benefit of that law. That will make life better for them, it will make life better in terms of legal compliance, and I think it is a proper role for the Federal Government to play.

This amendment enhances our second amendment rights. It doesn't change them in a way that makes America less safe. It allows people who are going to do the right thing to be able to do the right thing with some knowledge as to what the right thing is.

So Senator Thune has done the country a great service, and I think we will have a big vote--I hope we will--across party lines. You don't have to agree with my right to carry a weapon lawfully. You may not choose that same right for yourself. But that is kind of what makes the country great--the ability for one citizen to understand that even though I wouldn't make that choice, as long as you make a choice responsibly, I am going to allow you to do that. That is what makes this a very special place.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for up to 30 minutes, although I doubt I will take that long.

Madam President, I take to the floor to inform the Senate and my colleagues about how I intend to vote on the pending nomination of Supreme Court nominee Judge Sotomayor. I understand the path of least resistance for me personally would be to vote no. That is probably true anytime you are in the minority party and you lose an election. But I feel compelled to vote yes, and I feel this is the right vote for me and, quite frankly, for the country in this case.

Why do I say that? Well, elections have consequences. I told Judge Sotomayor in the hearing that if I had won the election, even though I wasn't running, or Senator McCain had, she would probably not have been chosen by a Republican. We would have chosen someone with a more conservative background--someone similar to a Judge Roberts or Miguel Estrada. She is definitely more liberal than a Republican would have chosen, but I do believe elections have consequences.

It is not as though we hid from the American people during the campaign that the Supreme Court selections were at stake. Both sides openly campaigned on the idea that the next President would be able to pick some judges for the Supreme Court. That was known to the American people and the American people spoke.

In that regard, having been one of the chief supporters of Senator McCain and one of the chief opponents of then-Senator Obama, I feel he deserves some deference on my part when it comes to his first selection to the Supreme Court. I say that understanding, under our Constitution, I or no other Senator would be bound by the pick of a President. But when you look at the history of this country, generally speaking, great deference has been given to that selection by the Senate.

While I am not bound to vote for Judge Sotomayor--voting no would be the path of least political resistance for me--I choose to vote for Judge Sotomayor because I believe she is well qualified. We are talking about one of the most qualified nominees to be selected for the Supreme Court in decades. She has 17 years of judicial experience. Twelve of those years she was on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. I have looked at her record closely. I believe she follows precedent; that she has not been an activist judge in the sense that would make her disqualified, in my view. She has demonstrated left-of-center reasoning but within the mainstream. She has an outstanding background as a lawyer. She was a prosecutor for 4 years in New York. Her record of academic achievement is extraordinary--coming up from very tough circumstances, being raised by a single mother, going to Princeton, being picked as the top student there, and doing an extraordinary job in law school. She has a strong work ethic. That all mattered to me. It is not just my view that her legal reasoning was within the mainstream. She received the highest rating by the ABA--the American Bar Association--as ``well qualified.''

The reason I mention that is not because I feel bound by their rating, but during the Alito and Roberts confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court under President Bush, I used that as a positive for both those nominees. I feel, as a Republican, I can't use it one time and ignore it the other. So the fact that she received the highest rating from the American Bar Association made a difference to me.

Her life story, as I indicated before, is something every American should be proud of. If her selection to the Supreme Court will inspire young women, particularly Latino women, to seek a career in the law, that is a good thing, and I hope it will.

On balance, I do believe the Court will not dramatically change in terms of ideology due to her selection. Justice Souter, whom I respect as an individual, has been far more liberal than I would prefer in a judge. I think Justice Sotomayor will not be any more liberal than he. On some issues, quite frankly, she may be more balanced in her approach, particularly when it comes to the war on terror, the use of international law, and potentially the second amendment. But time will tell. I am not voting for her believing I know how she will decide a case. I am voting for her because I find her to be well qualified, because elections matter, and because the people who have served along her side for many years find an extraordinary woman in Judge Sotomayor, and I confirm their findings.

What standard did I use? Every Senator in this body, at the end of the day, has to decide how to give their advice and consent. One of the things I chose not to do was to use Senator Obama's standard when it came to casting my vote for Judge Sotomayor. If those who

follow the Senate will recall, Senator Obama voted against both Judge Alito and Judge Roberts, and he used the rationale that they were well qualified; that they were extraordinarily intellectually gifted; but the last mile in the confirmation process, when it came to Judge Roberts, was the heart. Because 5 percent of controversial cases may change society, one has to look and see what is in a judge's heart.

I totally reject that. If the Senate tries to have a confirmation process where we explore another person's heart, I think we are going to chill out people wanting to become members of the judiciary. Who would want to come before the Senate and have us try to figure out what is in their heart? Can you imagine the questions we would be allowed to ask? I think it would have a tremendous chilling effect on the future recruitment of qualified candidates to be judges. Let me say this: Judge Sotomayor agreed with me and Senator Kyl that trying to find out what is in a judge's heart is probably not a good idea.

Senator Obama also indicated that judicial philosophy and ideology were outcome determinative when it came to Judge Alito. If I used his standard, knowing that her philosophy is different than mine, her ideology is different than mine, she would have no hope of getting my vote. I daresay not one Republican, using the Obama standard, would provide her with a confirmation vote. So I decided to reject that because I believe it is not in the long-term interest of the Senate or the judiciary.

I went back to a standard I think has stood the test of time--the qualifications standard. Is this person qualified to sit on the Court? Are they a person of good character? Do they present an extraordinary circumstance--having something about their life that would make them extraordinary to the point they would be unqualified? There was a time in this country where a Justice, such as Justice Ginsburg, who is clearly left of center, received 90-something votes in this body. There was a time in this country, not long ago, where a conservative judge, such as Justice Scalia, received over 95 votes from this body. Every Democrat who voted for Justice Scalia could not have been fooled as to what they were getting. They were getting an extremely qualified, talented, intellectual man who was qualified for the job but had a different philosophy from most Democrats. Someone on our side of the aisle who voted for Justice Ginsburg had to know what they were getting. They were getting someone who was very talented, extremely well qualified, incredibly smart, and who was general counsel for the ACLU. You had to know what you were getting, but you understood that President Clinton, in that case, had the right to make that decision.

What happened to those days? I would say to my Democratic colleagues--and I am sure Republicans have made our fair share of mistakes when it comes to judges--that this effort, not too far in the past, of filibustering judges, declaring war on the Judiciary, has hurt this body. In my opinion, the politicization of our Judiciary has to stop for the good of this country, for the good of the Senate, and for the good of the rule of law in America.

What am I trying to do today? I am trying to start over. The political ``golden rule'' is: Do unto others as they did unto you. The actual Golden Rule is: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I hope we can get back to the more traditional sense of what the Senate has been all about. That brings me back to the recent past.

This body was on the verge of blowing up. Our Democratic colleagues were filibustering President Bush's nominees for the appellate court, and even the Supreme Court, in a fashion never known by the body. There was an effort by frustrated Republicans to change the rules so all you needed was a majority vote to get on the bench--the Supreme Court. This body, for a couple hundred years, had not gone down that road. A Gang of 14 was created--7 Republicans and 7 Democrats--and they tried to find a better way; they tried to get the Senate back to a more reasoned position. That Gang of 14--the 7 Democrats and 7 Republicans--said filibustering judges should only be done in an extraordinary circumstance. We left that up to the Members of the body, but we were focusing on someone who was clearly out of the mainstream when it came to judging.

If you look at Judge Sotomayor's record for 17 years, it is left of center but not the record of someone who is wearing a robe but under the robe is an activist. An extraordinary circumstance would be somebody clearly not qualified--a pick that is political in nature alone.

I am glad to say my colleagues on the Democratic side and the Republican side who were part of that group--and they are still here-- did not see an extraordinary circumstance. I would like to compliment Senator Sessions, who did a very fine job in this hearing. He has acknowledged there is nothing extraordinary about this nominee for the Republican Party to try to block her through filibustering. I think that is a correct assessment.

But then it comes down to the individual vote. I have tried to indicate the best I can that I desire, as a Senator, to find a new way to start over and get back to a Senate that is more rational in its approach when it comes to confirmations.

Having said that, to my colleagues who vote no, I understand your concerns and there are things about this nominee that are troubling. The speeches she has given in the past are troubling because I think they embrace identity politics, something I don't embrace. The ``wise Latina'' comment that has become famous, that she believes more often than not that a wise Latina woman with her experience and background would reach a better conclusion than a White male--we had a long discussion about how that does not set well with most Americans and that is not what we want to be expressed by people trying to become Supreme Court nominees.

But having said that, do we want to exclude from consideration people with boldness, who are edgy? Do we want milk toast nominees who are afraid to speak their minds and to disagree with their fellow citizens? I think not.

Her speeches, while troubling, have to be looked at in terms of her record. When we look at this 17-year record we will find someone who has not carried out that speech. I will take her at her word. She rejected this idea of picking winners and losers and was very mainstream in her understanding of the role of a judge. She understood the difference between a policymaker and a judge. I will take her at her word. I cannot understand her heart any more than she can understand mine. The speeches are troubling, but I guarantee I have made some speeches that are probably troubling to people on the other side. I hope they would look at everything I have done, not just the speeches I may have given.

Her time as a lawyer--this is very important to me. During the Alito and Roberts hearings, they were pushed hard about some legal memos they wrote for Ronald Reagan espousing conservative thought and how that made them dangerous. How dare you write a memo about the Civil Rights Act that somebody on the other side may disagree with? Lawyers who advocate positions should not feel chilled in terms of picking their clients if they hope to be a judge. The worst thing we could do is take a lawyer's advocacy position, their clientele, and hold it against them for being a judge.

She was a board member of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund. Some people say we should not talk about her time as a lawyer or even mention that organization. I do not believe that at all because when I am looking at this nominee, I am looking at every aspect of her life.

During her time as a board member, the board and the organization advocated positions I think are out of the mainstream, that I do not agree with, but certainly are legitimate positions to take--such as taxpayer-funded abortion. I could not disagree with her more. I don't think most Americans want their taxpayer dollars to be used to fund abortion. The Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund argued to the court that if we do not allow taxpayer-funded abortion for poor women, it is a form of Dred Scott kind of oppression. I could not disagree more, but that is not the point. Disagreeing with me is OK.

What I hope will happen in the future is, if a conservative gets into the White

House, and we pick someone who was on the other side of that case, we will have the same understanding I do: being an aggressive advocate for causes I disagree with does not disqualify them from being a judge, if otherwise they have demonstrated the capability.

The advocacy role of a lawyer is unique. I have represented people with whom I disagreed. I have represented people accused of child molesting. I have been a criminal defense lawyer. There is nothing more noble in our system than making the government prove their case regardless of how one feels about the defendant.

The fact that she was an advocate, choosing causes I disagree with, does not, in my opinion, disqualify her because, when I looked at her record, I did not see a judge who was continuing to be a lawyer for the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund. I saw a judge who felt bound by the law.

Temperament--for those Members who have practiced in court, I do not like a bully judge, and I know it when I see it. I don't mind being pressed, I don't mind being challenged, I don't mind being interrupted. I just do not want to be belittled in front of my clients for no good reason.

There were some things said about Judge Sotomayor, anonymous comments from lawyers who were asked by the Federal Almanac how they rate the temperament of people on the Second Circuit, and Judge Sotomayor had some things said that were, frankly, disturbing. But I looked at the other part of the record, the people who served with her as a prosecutor, the defense attorneys who wrote on her behalf, people who served with her on the court, and I found on balance that her temperament does not disqualify her. Frankly, I found somebody a lot of people from different backgrounds admire.

Ken Starr, one of the strongest conservatives in the country, found her to be a qualified person who would do a good job; Louis Freeh, the former Director of the FBI, is someone who came and vouched for her character and her qualities as a person.

When I look at the record, the anonymous comments by lawyers who were asked by Federal Legal Service did not win the day, nor should they have.

I do not know what is ahead for this country when it comes to picking Supreme Court Justices. I don't know what openings may occur and when they will occur. I know this. Elections have to matter. I don't want to invalidate elections by disagreeing with someone against whom I ran or I opposed politically because when the election is over, everything has to change to some extent. I am not bound to agree with every pick of President Obama, but when it comes to trying to show some deference, I will. I will try to do better for him than he was able to do for President Bush.

I don't want to turn over the confirmation of judges to special interest groups on the left or the right, and that is where we are headed if we don't watch it. Special interest groups are important, they have their say, they have every right to have their say, but we can't make every Supreme Court vacancy a battle over our culture.

I am trying to start over. I have only been here one term plus a few months. But since I have been here, I have been worried about where this country is going when it comes to judges. I happen to be here at a time when we are about to change the rules of the Senate in a way it had never been done in 200 years. I was new to the body, but I was understanding of the law and how our system works well enough to know that I did not want to be part of that. I had not been here long, but I understood what would happen to this country if we changed the rules of the Senate, even though people felt frustrated and justified to do so.

As a member of the minority, I promised President Obama that I would look hard at his nominees. I will try to help him where I can, but I will not abandon the right to say no and to stop, in an extraordinary circumstance, a nominee who I think would be bad for the country and would dramatically change the power of a branch of the government, the Supreme Court, that is very important to every American.

As to my colleagues who find a different decision on the Republican side, I can understand and appreciate why they did not feel comfortable giving their confirmation votes to Judge Sotomayor. But I am trying to look beyond this moment, look to the future and come up with a reason to support her that will create a different way of doing business, that will help the judiciary, the Senate, and the country as a whole.

Senator Sessions did an outstanding job. Senator Leahy did a very good job. People wanted to know more about her at the hearings, but she is limited, like every nominee, in terms of what she can say.

One last comment about Judge Sotomayor. She is 1 year older than I am. I grew up in the Deep South. I am the first person in my family to go to college. I lost my parents when I was in college and had a 13- year-old sister to raise.

She grew up in the Bronx, came to this country from Puerto Rico. Her mother joined the Army. She lost her dad when she was very young. Her mother raised Judge Sotomayor and her brother under difficult circumstances. Her brother is a doctor. She has been able, Judge Sotomayor, to excel academically and reach the highest rung of America's legal system. That, to me, is a hell of a story. Nobody in my family ever expected me to be a United States Senator--including myself. Only in America can these things happen.

I choose to vote for Judge Sotomayor looking at her from the most optimistic perspective, understanding I could be wrong but proud of the fact that my country is moving in the right direction when anybody and everybody can hit it out of the park. I would not have chosen her if I had to make this choice as President, but I understand why President Obama did choose her and I am happy to vote for her.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Thune amendment. The Senator from South Dakota tells us this is a very simple amendment. He tells us his amendment is consistent with self-defense and the reduction of crime.

What the Senator from South Dakota cannot explain is why 400 mayors, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Police Chiefs Association, and the bipartisan association known as State Legislators Against Illegal Guns oppose this so-called very simple amendment.

Here is why they oppose it. The Thune amendment provides that if a State gives a person a permit to carry concealed weapons, then that person is free to carry concealed weapons in 47 other States and the District of Columbia. Those other States would be required to let this visitor carry a concealed loaded weapon in their State, even if their laws in that State would not currently allow that person to carry a gun.

Let's be clear about the effect of this amendment. There are 36 States with laws governing who can carry concealed weapons, including which out-of-State permits that State will accept, if any. The States already have laws. Under the Thune amendment, those laws can be ignored. So if the Thune amendment becomes law, people who are currently prohibited from carrying concealed guns in those 36 States are free to do so.

It is absurd that we are considering this amendment today. We know nothing about the impact this amendment is actually going to have across America. How many Senators from the 36 States that already have laws governing concealed carry have had a chance to talk to their State law enforcement officials about this amendment and what it means?

Apparently, those who support this amendment want to move it very quickly. We scheduled a hearing--it is supposed to take place tomorrow--on this amendment before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime. But the Senator from South Dakota did not want to wait for a hearing before the committee. He has asked the Senate to take up this measure today before the hearing date.

Here are some of the reasons this amendment is so troubling. As my colleagues know, we have a federalist system--a government in Washington, a national government, and in each State and the District of Columbia State government and local control. States have adopted different standards in their State with regard to who the State will permit to carry concealed weapons. Each State has considered this issue and decided what is safe for their residents. Elected representatives, elected by the people, have made that decision State by State.

Some States have very rigorous standards. If you want to carry a concealed weapon, for example, a number of States will not allow you to if you are an abuser of alcohol, if you have been convicted of certain misdemeanor crimes or if you have not completed a training course to show you know how to use a gun. The States have established that standard. If you want to go ``packin' '' in these States, you better not be a habitual drunkard; you better not be in a position where you have committed these misdemeanor crimes, and you have to prove by test and sometimes on the range that you can safely use this gun that you want to carry.

In Iowa, you cannot have a permit to carry a weapon if you are addicted to alcohol or if you have a history of repeated acts of violence.

In Pennsylvania, individuals convicted of certain misdemeanor crimes, such as impersonating a police officer, cannot have a concealed carry permit.

In South Carolina, any person who is a member of a subversive organization or a habitual drunkard cannot carry a handgun.

In California, you cannot carry a firearm for 10 years after being convicted of misdemeanors, including assault, battery, stalking, threatening a judge, victim, or witness.

Other States, in contrast, have minimal or no concealed carry standards beyond the baseline of the Federal law which applies to all States.

For example, a number of States, including Georgia, do not require any firearms training for a concealed carry permit. In 2008, a spokesman for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation told a newspaper: ``A blind person can get a permit in Georgia since all you have to do is pass a background check.''

Two States--Alaska and Vermont--do not even require a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Those States let anyone carry a concealed weapon. Under the Thune amendment, people from those States--with virtually no standards for concealed carry or no requirement to prove they know how to use a gun--those people could visit States where they have established standards for the safety of their residents and under the Thune amendment legally carry a gun.

In other words, the visitors can ignore the law of the State--a law the elected representatives of the people in that State have enacted. Some States do little oversight on the concealed carry permits they have issued. In the year 2007, the South Florida Sun Sentinel newspaper found that 1,400 people in Florida had active concealed carry licenses even though they had received sentences--criminal sentences--for major crimes, including assault, sexual battery, child abuse, and manslaughter.

So even in the States where they have established standards for concealed carry, many of them are not keeping an eye on them. There is no oversight. As a consequence, people may be legally carrying in one State which has lax standards in obtaining the permit and no review-- virtually no review when it comes to the people who end up with the permits--and that person can travel to another State which has established standards for the safety of their own citizens and under the Thune amendment legally carry a gun.

If the Thune amendment is enacted, States with carefully crafted concealed carry laws must allow concealed carry by out-of-State visitors who may not meet their own State's standards, who may even have sexual battery, child abuse, or manslaughter convictions.

Is that going to make us safer? Do we want in my State--well, Illinois would be an exception because we do not have a concealed carry law. We are one of two States that do not. But for the other 48 States, do we want people traveling across the border who do not meet the basic requirements of knowing how to use a firearm, who do not meet the basic requirements in terms of their own criminal background? Is it so important that everybody carry a gun everywhere or do we want to respect States rights--States rights to determine what is safe in their own State? Why would we want to override some States' standards to allow questionable concealed carry permit holders from States with lower standards or virtually no standards?

It is not necessary for us to adopt this amendment to give individual States the ability to recognize each other's concealed carry permits. The Senator from South Dakota has said his State welcomes all people who have concealed carry permits. But that was their decision. They made that decision in their State. States are free to form concealed carry reciprocity agreements with other States. Twelve States have already decided to honor conceal and carry permits issued by every other State, obviously including South Dakota. However, 25 other States look carefully at each of the other States and make this decision selectively. They have decided that some States have acceptable standards and some do not. Eleven States and the District of Columbia have chosen not to grant concealed carry reciprocity to any other State. They want their own laws to govern the protection of their own people.

The Thune amendment is a direct assault on those States that have chosen not to allow reciprocity. They are California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Rhode Island. Over all, the Thune amendment would override the selective reciprocity or no reciprocity laws of each of the 36 States I have mentioned.

There are good reasons a State might want to be careful with who they allow to carry concealed weapons within their borders. Let me give some examples of what has happened with concealed carry. Washington State resident Clinton Granger obtained a concealed carry permit despite his history

of drug addiction and schizophrenia. In May of 2008, Granger was in a fight at a public festival, fired a shot that hit one person in the face, the second person in the wrist, and then lodged in a third person's leg.

Cincinnati resident Geraldine Beasley obtained an Ohio concealed carry permit, even though she had been previously fined for unlawful transportation of a firearm. In August 2007 she shot and killed a panhandler who asked her for 25 cents at a gas station.

In Moscow, ID, resident and Aryan Nation member Jason Kenneth Hamilton was given a concealed carry permit even though he had a domestic violence conviction. In May 2007, Hamilton went on a shooting spree, killing his wife, a police officer, and a church sexton, and wounding three others.

According to the Violence Policy Center, from May 2007 to April 2009, at least seven law enforcement officers were shot and killed by concealed carry permit holders--these are law enforcement officers--and concealed carry holders were charged in the shooting deaths of at least 43 private citizens during that time.

In light of incidents such as these, it is perfectly reasonable for States to decide what the standards will be for concealed carry. The Thune amendment would override this authority of the States and basically say that visitors from States with a concealed carry law don't have to meet the State's standards where they are visiting.

The Thune amendment is troubling because it leaves law enforcement agencies in the dark about the concealed carry population in their own area. In many States, law enforcement plays a key gatekeeper role, an oversight role on the concealed carry population. Under the Thune amendment, that is impossible. The first person who drives in out of State under the Thune amendment may carry a gun and the law enforcement officials wouldn't even have knowledge of it.

When you look at the Thune amendment, along with the amendment offered earlier this year by Senator Ensign that repeals the DC government's local gun laws, we see a disturbing trend. We see Members from that side of the aisle leading an organized effort to strip State and local governments of their ability to keep their own communities safe. There is no justification for this. The Supreme Court's decision in Heller made it clear that although the second amendment right is to be respected in terms of the rights of individuals, there was still authority to deal with this issue of concealed carry. Justice Scalia in the Heller opinion specifically discussed the lawfulness of prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.

Congress should not require one State's laws to trump another's. New York should not have to let visitors on its city streets be governed by the laws of Alaska when it comes to carrying guns, and it should be up to the State to decide who it will permit to carry concealed weapons within their borders.

This is not a good amendment. America won't be safer if the Thune amendment passes. It has not gone through a hearing in the Senate. The Senator decided to call it up the day before that hearing was set. It guts State laws in 36 States. It will leave law enforcement with no knowledge of who is carrying concealed weapons in their State. It puts guns in the hands of dangerous people who could easily misuse them.

This amendment is opposed by law enforcement organizations, mayors, and State elected officials. I have received letters in opposition to what Senator Thune calls a very simple amendment from the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Police Chief Association, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, a coalition of 400 mayors called Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, a group of State attorneys general, including my own Lisa Madigan, the bipartisan Association of State Legislators Against Illegal Guns, and many others.

The amendment has been criticized in many newspapers, including USA Today, the Miami Herald, the Philadelphia Enquirer, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Baltimore Sun.

This amendment should be defeated. I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from New York.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

I yield 10 minutes to Senator Schumer from New York.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Mr. President, I would say for the record that I have many more Democrats seeking time than I have time. I wish to alert those who are coming to the floor that they are going to have to accept an abbreviated time. We did not have all the time we hoped for this morning. I ask each of my speakers to also try to abbreviate their time in the interest of accommodating their colleagues.

I yield 15 minutes to Senator Feinstein and hope that she will yield back a sizeable portion of it.

Mr. President, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

The other side.

Mr. President, I yield 9 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey, Senator Menendez.

I ask that the Senator from New Jersey be recognized for 9 minutes and then, after an intervening speaker on the other side of the aisle, the Senator from California be recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, this morning around Washington, hundreds of lobbyists strapped on their suits and their ties and went to work waiting for the Thune amendment and his theory and their theory on keeping America safer by putting more guns on the street. Across America today, thousands of law enforcement officials strapped on their guns and their badges and went out on those mean streets to risk their lives to keep us safe.

Did you listen to the groups that have endorsed the Thune amendment? Do you know what is missing? Not a single law enforcement group supports John Thune's amendment. The men and women who are risking their lives for our safety every day do not support his amendment. They oppose it. Do you know why they oppose it? Because they realize there are different standards in different States for concealed carry and in some States almost no standards at all. They realize that in 17 States you do not need to even prove you know how to fire a gun safely. And under John Thune's amendment, those people can go into States that require a test or even a test on a firing range--the 31 States that require it--and they can carry a gun without any evidence that they know how to use it.

There are also some 35 States that prohibit people convicted of certain misdemeanor crimes from carrying concealed firearms. That means that 13 other States can send their people in

with convictions for these misdemeanors and they can carry a firearm legally under John Thune's amendment.

Let me say, finally, they realize, too, that if you happen to be a drunk driver in a State--17 States--you can still get a concealed carry permit. It does not matter how many times you have been convicted for DUIs, whether you are a habitual drunkard, an alcoholic, you can still get a concealed carry permit in 17 States. Senator Thune wants those people to be able to drive into your State, where you say, frankly, you cannot have a concealed carry permit if you cannot handle alcohol--he wants them to be able to come into those States and to have the right to carry a firearm.

Will that make us safer? The men and women in uniform, who went out this morning and are out there right now protecting us, say no. And that is what we ought to say to the Thune amendment: No.

I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment. I believe it is reasonable. It is not as draconian in its implications as many of my colleagues, whom I greatly respect in terms of their concerns, are anticipating.

I would also like to say there has been a lot of misinformation on the Senate floor about this amendment, to the effect it will allow felons, people who are mentally defective, and other dangerous individuals to carry weapons on the streets of American cities and also to buy up hordes of guns and transport them into places, as Senator Schumer mentioned, such as New York City. My colleague from New York gave as an example, in his terms, a Crip or a Blood moving to Vermont, establishing residency, then bringing a permit down into New York and being able to carry a weapon with impunity.

I think the reality of that particular situation is the gang members already have their guns. They don't need this bill. In fact, this amendment has protections that would prevent those who engage in criminal activity--such as gang members--from taking advantage of this legislation. The people who need this bill are the ones the gang members might be threatening.

With respect to standards of conduct, aspects of criminality, and issues of mental health, it is important to note there is a Federal floor under this amendment that guarantees certain standards will be met regardless of varying State standards. If you read the amendment, it states:

A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from

possessing, transporting, shipping or receiving a firearm--

and who meets other conditions, may be granted reciprocity.

If you go into the Federal law, and I am going to read from 27 CFR section 478--this is the current standard in terms of being able to possess a firearm or ammunition.

Anyone who--

Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by

imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year;

May not possess a firearm.

Anyone who:

Is a fugitive from justice;

Anyone who:

Is an unlawful user or addicted to any controlled

substance;

Anyone who:

Has been adjudicated as mentally defective or has been

committed to a mental institution;

Anyone who:

Is an alien or illegally or unlawfully in the United States

or an alien admitted to the United States under a

nonimmigrant visa;

Anyone who:

Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under

dishonorable conditions;

Anyone who:

Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced

his or her citizenship;

Anyone who:

Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from

harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or

child of such intimate partner; or

Anyone who:

Has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic

violence--cannot lawfully receive, possess, ship, or

transport a firearm.

In addition:

A person who is under indictment for a crime punishable by

imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year cannot lawfully

receive a firearm.

Those are the Federal guarantees, the floor under which this reciprocity legislation operates.

Senator Lautenberg has said in his comments that passing this legislation is akin to allowing someone from another State to come into your State and follow their speed limits. This is not an accurate interpretation of this amendment. The amendment specifically provides that anyone carrying a firearm into another State must follow the laws regarding firearms usage in that State, and I quote from the amendment:

. . . in a State that allows residents of the State to

obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms . . .

A person gaining reciprocity is:

Entitled to carry such a firearm subject to the same laws

and conditions that govern specific places and manner in

which a firearm may be carried by a person issued a permit by

the State in which the firearm is carried.

I would say the better analogy at work here is the driver's licensing process itself. States decide the conditions under which a license can be granted, but the nature of interstate travel allows licenses issued in another State to be recognized across the country, so long as the holders of those licenses obey the laws of the State in which they are driving.

I also keep hearing that this amendment will increase the number of purchases of handguns and other weapons. I would like to clarify for this body, as someone who holds a concealed carry permit, a permit to carry does not allow anyone to purchase a firearm automatically. One still has to go through the entire process of the background check as if you did not have a permit.

Illegal firearms sales are a separate matter for this body to address--one that we clearly should be focusing on--but they fall outside the parameters of this amendment.

The issue of gun usage in our country understandably divides people-- usually along the lines of those who believe that any relaxation of gun laws will benefit criminal and violent activity versus those who believe gun laws need to be modified in order to allow law-abiding people to defend themselves. I have a great deal of empathy for those who have been the victims of gun violence. I have worked with citizens groups as well as our Governor in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings, to focus our approach. We have made significant improvements in our laws since then, including working to modify privacy laws as they relate to mental health matters, which was the primary concern in the Virginia Tech shooting, and also to improve the instant background check process. I will continue to work on these areas.

I also believe very strongly that the violence we see in our streets and in our neighborhoods must be addressed. But very little of that violence has ever been caused by those who seek permits to carry. As I mentioned before, the people who are perpetrating that kind of violence already have their guns. Their access to those guns is a matter we should all focus on. But few criminals are going to go down to the county courthouse and file for a permit. Those who seek permits to carry and who are within the Federal guidelines specifically addressed in this bill seek to do so in order to protect themselves from the violence we see on our streets.

I would say, when I look at this amendment, a couple clear examples come to mind. One is my father who, in his later years, lived in Florida and then Arkansas, and would drive alone in his car to come and visit me and my brother, who lived in Minnesota. It was usually at least a 2-day journey. My father was older. He was by himself in

the car. He was a classic target of potential criminal activity.

He carried a weapon, a firearm, when he traveled. When he stopped at night and went into a motel, he brought that weapon with him. You check in a motel by yourself, you are 77 years old, people are going to start looking at you. I don't think people who are in that situation need to wonder if they are committing a felony by having a gun to be able to defend themselves when they are in that situation.

Somebody else who comes to mind are all these truck drivers we see on the roads anytime we are on the interstate. These are independent contractors. They are people who are out there making a living the hard way. They constantly cross State boundaries. They have to worry about whether their truck is going to break down. They have to wonder sometimes, where they stop, whether they are going to be victimized if they sleep in the cabin of their own truck. Many can legally carry in their own State. Do they have to worry, if they pull over for the night in another State, if they try to defend themselves they are committing a felony? This is the type of situation I believe this legislation is attempting to address.

I believe it will have a beneficial effect. I believe strongly we need to work together in this body to address other situations of gun violence in this country. I am glad to add whatever insights I can have to do so, but I support this legislation and I intend to vote for it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of amendment No. 1618.

I am a proud cosponsor of this amendment, along with dozens of other Senators on a bipartisan basis. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

The second amendment is a valued constitutional right. Thank God, the

courts, particularly in recent years, have expressly recognized that. Of course, the Supreme Court, in the landmark Heller decision, ruled that ``the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation'' is a protected fundamental constitutional right. Even the very liberal Ninth Circuit Court, based in California, ruled that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms is ``deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition'' and has long been regarded as the ``true palladium of liberty.'' That court also wrote that ``nothing less than the security of the nation--a defense against both external and internal threats--rests on the provision [second amendment].''

That is why this amendment is a fundamental right. What does that mean in everyday terms? It means the ability of citizens, particularly those more vulnerable in our society, such as women, to protect themselves, people such as Sue Fontenot in Louisiana, who told me:

When my family and I go out at night, it makes me feel

safer just knowing I am able to have my concealed weapon.

It is personal safety and security. It is a fundamental ability to protect one's self, one's family, and one's property. So if that is a fundamental right, and if we have reasonable laws and reasonable permitting processes, why shouldn't Sue Fontenot have that freedom, right, and security when she visits other States, which also allow concealed carry?

This isn't just anecdotal quotes, this is also backed up by criminological studies. Studying crime trends around the country in the United States, John Lott and David Mustard concluded:

Allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent

crimes. . . . When State concealed hand gun laws went into

effect in a county, murders fell by 8.5 percent and rapes and

aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent.

In the 1990s, Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz found guns were used for self-protection about 2.5 million times annually. That number, of course, dwarfs these tiny numbers and anecdotal evidence of limited, very tiny numbers of improper use of guns by folks with concealed carry permits.

Responding to the Kleck and Gertz study, the late Marvin Wolfgang, self-described ``as strong a gun control advocate as can be found among criminologists in this country,'' said he agreed with the methodology of the study.

Our amendment will simply allow law-abiding Americans to exercise their fundamental right to self-defense, by using the full faith and credit clause of our U.S. Constitution.

As we do this, as we protect that fundamental individual right, we also protect States rights. I think it is very important to address some of the arguments with regard to States rights that have been made by the other side.

We do not mandate the right to concealed carry in any State that does not allow the practice. Some States, such as Illinois and Wisconsin, fall into that category. We do not mandate a concealed carry right in those States. In addition, our amendment does not establish national standards for concealed carry. It does not provide a national concealed carry permit. It simply allows citizens who are able to carry in their home States to also carry in other States, but only if those other States have concealed carry permits.

We also respect the law of those other States, in terms of where guns can be carried and where they cannot be carried. So we explicitly respect that State law by requiring that State laws concerning specific times and locations in which firearms may not be carried must be followed by the visiting individual, and that is very important.

Finally, we absolutely protect and enshrine current Federal law, in terms of background checks and people with criminal problems or mental problem, who cannot carry guns. If an individual is prohibited by current Federal law from carrying a firearm, we absolutely protect and enshrine that. Let me say that again. If under current Federal law an individual is prohibited from carrying a gun, that is fully protected.

At the end of the day, this is, again, a fundamental debate about what is the problem in terms of violent crime? Is the problem law- abiding citizens who follow the law, who take all of the time and all of the trouble needed to get concealed carry permits, go through background checks, fill out forms, and do everything that is required by their home States? Is that class of people the fundamental cause of violent crime or is the dominant, 99.9 percent fundamental problem in the violent crime arena people who don't follow the law, who ignore the law, who ignore a concealed carry law, ignore those requirements, as well as every other law on the books--unfortunately, including laws against murder and armed robbery and other violent crime?

Clearly, in the minds of commonsense Americans, it is the latter category of folks that is the problem, not the former. The statistics and the evidence and the history bear that out. So concealed carry is a useful and essential tool for law-abiding citizens to be able to protect themselves and stop and deter violent crime. It is not any significant source of violent crime whatsoever. We have the numbers that bear that out. We have some States that allow reciprocity now. Ten States now allow reciprocity under their State law.

Have they seen incidents of problems with concealed carry permits from other States? No. Have they seen spikes in violent crime because of this reciprocity? No. Again, because this is a fundamental right, and because it goes to people's security, because criminological and other studies are on our side and don't show any spike in violent crime by this but in fact show crimes prevented and deterred by concealed carry, I urge all of my colleagues to support this important reciprocity amendment.

Groups around the country who respect the second amendment and find that a fundamental and important right are certainly supporting this amendment. The National Rifle Association, NRA, is a strong supporter of this amendment. I thank them for that and for their leadership. They are also specifically scoring this amendment in terms of Member votes. Gun Owners of America, another leading gun rights second amendment group, is a strong supporter of this amendment and is specifically pushing for passage and scoring Members' votes. The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, the Passenger-Cargo Security Group, and many other groups around the country are strong supporters of this amendment, because the second amendment is a fundamental right because concealed carry does work, because it prevents crimes and deters crime and doesn't significantly add, in any meaningful way, to the crime problem.

Again, like with a lot of gun control debates, this comes down to a pretty fundamental question: Do you think the big problem with regard to violent crime is the law-abiding citizen, the one who takes the time and goes to the trouble of filling out the forms and following all the rules for concealed carry? I don't. Or do you think the fundamental problem--99.99 percent of the problem--is the criminal who doesn't respect that law, because he doesn't even respect laws against murder, armed robbery, and other violent crimes? That is the problem. Commonsense Americans know that.

This amendment will protect law-abiding citizens and provide another effective and important tool against those criminals who are the problem.

I yield the floor.