Providing for consideration of 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.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 645, I call up 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, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 38.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017.

Mr. Speaker, throughout my career in elected office, I have believed in and adhered to two fundamental principles regarding firearms policy: first, the right guaranteed to law-abiding Americans by the Second Amendment must be aggressively protected and preserved; second, the laws we have on the books need to be enforced to the fullest extent possible. The bipartisan bill before us today does both.

H.R. 38 ensures that law-abiding citizens' Second Amendment right does not end when they cross State lines. The bill allows law-abiding gun owners with valid State-issued concealed carry firearm permits or those who live in so-called constitutional carry States to carry a concealed firearm in any other State that also allows concealed carry.

We know that citizens who carry a concealed firearm are not only better prepared to act in their own self-defense, but also in the defense of others. Take, for instance, an incident that occurred just last November on a highway in Florida. Lee County Sheriff's Deputy Dean Bardes had just concluded a high-speed chase just off Interstate 75. As Deputy Bardes approached to apprehend the suspect, the suspect, Edward Strother, violently attacked Deputy Bardes.

A witness on the scene told reporters that the attacker ``just started punching him and hitting and hitting and hitting. I was afraid for the police officer. I thought he was going to kill him.''

Fortunately for Deputy Bardes, Ashad Russell, a Florida concealed carry permit holder, was also watching the attack unfold. Mr. Russell pulled his gun and approached the altercation. He told Strother he would shoot him if he didn't stop beating the deputy. The State Attorney's Office said Strother ignored Russell's commands to stop beating the deputy, so Russell fired his gun three times, hitting and fatally wounding the assailant. Lee County Sheriff Mike Scott has hailed Russell as a hero.

Importantly, this bill also contains the Fix NICS Act of 2017. This is a bipartisan and bicameral measure. The Fix NICS Act takes steps to ensure that State and Federal agencies enter all relevant records into the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System. This bill will help ensure people who are legally prohibited from having guns, like those with violent felony convictions, do not obtain them.

The shooting at Virginia Tech and the church shootings in Charleston, South Carolina, and Sutherland Springs, Texas, are tragic reminders of what can happen when all relevant records are not entered into the system.

Our NICS system is only as good as the information within it. This important piece of legislation will ensure that more of the information already required to be uploaded to NICS under current law is actually placed in the NICS system.

Taken together, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act and the Fix NICS Act preserve and protect the right guaranteed to us by the Second Amendment and ensure that those prohibited by existing law from receiving a firearm are prevented from doing so.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

I want to thank the lead sponsor, Mr. Hudson of North Carolina, for his hard work on this bill. I would also like to thank the authors of the Fix NICS provisions, Mr. Culberson and Mr. Cuellar, for their important contributions to the legislation before us today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson), the lead sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds, and I include in the Record an article entitled, `` `Good Samaritan' Kills Active Shooter in Texas Sports Bar,'' in which a shooter with two guns and two knives entered a sports bar and was shot by an individual that the police labeled a Good Samaritan who happened to be eating at the restaurant with his wife. He was a concealed carry permit holder. He told his wife to get down on the ground, and then he shot the assailant.

[From nbcnews.com, May 4, 2017]

`Good Samaritan' Kills Active Shooter in Texas Sports Bar: Police

(By Phil McCausland)

A ``good Samaritan'' with a gun killed an active shooter

who may have been gearing up for a deadly rampage at a Texas

sports bar Wednesday night, police said.

When 48-year-old James Jones walked inside the Zona

Caliente Sports Bar, started yelling and then allegedly shot

and killed Cesar Perez--a 37-year-old restaurant manager

who'd attempted to calm him down--Arlington police said

witnesses were afraid they would be next.

In addition to the gun used to kill Perez, police say Jones

had another semiautomatic pistol and two knives on him. The

serial number on the second gun had been scratched off, and

Jones did not have a gun license, police said.

``He definitely had the capacity, if he wanted, to commit

further violence and potentially kill other patrons in the

business,'' Arlington Police Lieutenant Chris Cook told NBC

News, adding that it did not appear that the shooter knew his

victim.

An armed ``good Samaritan''--as the Arlington Police

labeled him--happened to be eating at the restaurant with his

wife. A concealed carry permit holder, he told her to get

down on the ground and then shot Jones in the back.

``I don't think the shooter even knew where the rounds were

coming from because he started shooting at the front door,''

Cook said, who described the scene as ``chaotic.''

Police reviewed video surveillance and pieced together the

incident via witness interviews, but it remains unclear how

many shots were fired by either individual. Police were

looking into Jones' background to see whether he suffered

from any mental illnesses and were awaiting test results to

find out if he was under the influence.

The man who took down Jones wished to maintain his

anonymity, police said, noting that he felt overwhelmed but

relieved that he prevented further violence.

``We're thankful that the good `Samaritan' acted quickly

and decisively to end the threat,'' Cook said. ``We never

recommend people get involved. That's a personal decision

that a citizen has to make.''

Use of force and firearms expert Emanuel Kapelsohn told NBC

News that, from his understanding, the man who took down the

shooter reacted appropriately.

``I think it's to be applauded,'' he said. ``Not everybody

in the world ought to own a gun. Not everybody in the world

ought to carry a gun. Not everyone in the world ought to

engage an armed criminal where innocent people could be

potentially injured.''

``But this good Samaritan obviously had the ability to do

what he did,'' Kapelsohn added. ``Who knows how many people

would be dead if he had not acted?''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to include in the Record a letter signed by 23 of those States' attorneys general who say, in part, in this letter: ``Strong evidence indicates that concealed carry permit holders actually deter and reduce crime.'' This is taking action by passing this legislation.

Attorney General of Missouri,

Jefferson City, MO, December 1, 2017.

Re Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (S.

446) and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R.

38).

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Chuck Schumer,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressional Leaders: As the chief legal officers of

our States, we, the undersigned 23 state Attorneys General,

write in support of the Constitutional Concealed Carry

Reciprocity Act of 2017 (S. 446) and the Concealed Carry

Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R. 38). We share a strong interest

in the protection of our citizens' Second Amendment right to

keep and bear arms, and we are committed to supporting

federal and state policies to preserve that constitutional

right. These bills, if enacted, would eliminate significant

obstacles to the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms

for millions of Americans in every State.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides an

individual right to own and carry a firearm for self-defense.

The Amendment states that ``[a] well regulated Militia, being

necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the

people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'' U.S.

Const. amend. II. As the Supreme Court recognized in District

of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008), the Second

Amendment ``guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and

carry weapons in case of confrontation.'' Indeed,

``individual self-defense is `the central component' of the

Second Amendment right.'' McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561

U.S. 742, 767 (2010) (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599).

The core interest protected by this right is self-defense

by law-abiding citizens. This right therefore extends to

weapons ``in common use'' and ``typically possessed by law-

abiding citizens for lawful purposes.'' Heller, 554 U.S. at

624-25, 627 (quoting United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174,

179 (1939)).

The Second Amendment historically has guaranteed the right

to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense. In

Heller, the Supreme Court relied on the preeminent authority

on English law for the founding generation, William

Blackstone, who explained that the right to self-defense,

codified by the framers in the Second Amendment, was an

``individual right protecting against both public and private

violence.'' Heller, 554 U.S. at 594 (citations omitted). As

Justices Thomas and Gorsuch have written, `` `[s]elf-defense

has to take place wherever the person happens to be,' and in

some circumstances a person may be more vulnerable in a

public place than in his own house.'' Peruta v. California,

137 S. Ct. 1995, 1998-99 (2017) (Thomas, J., and Gorsuch, J.,

dissenting from the denial of certiorari) (quoting Eugene

Volokh, Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for

Self-Defense: An Analytical Framework and a Research Agenda,

56 UCLA L. Rev. 1443, 1515 (2009)).

To be sure, the right to carry firearms for self-defense is

not unlimited, and the Supreme Court has stated that its

decisions do not cast doubt on the ``longstanding

prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the

mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in

sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or

laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial

sale of arms.'' Heller, 554 U.S. at 626-27. But these

exceptions all assume that the right to carry a weapon in

self-defense applies in public places generally.

The Second Amendment, moreover, applies to both the Federal

Government and the States. The Second Amendment is a right

``fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty,'' and so it

applies not just to the Federal Government but also to the

States under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment. McDonald, 561 U.S. at 767; see also Caetano v.

Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027, 1027 (2016) (per curiam).

Nevertheless, some activist courts have held that the

Second Amendment has no application at all outside the home,

and thus have upheld state laws banning any firearm ownership

outside the home. See, e.g., Peruta v. California, 137 S. Ct.

1995, 1997, 1999 (2017) (Thomas, J. and Gorsuch, J.,

dissenting from

the denial of certiorari) (collecting cases); e.g., Williams

v. State, 10 A.3d 1167, 1177 (Md. 2011); Mack v. United

States, 6 A.3d 1224, 1236 (D.C. 2010). Further, ten states

refuse to recognize any out-of-state concealed carry permits,

and many more refuse to recognize out-of-state concealed

carry permits unless certain conditions are met.

The citizen interest in self-defense, supported and

protected by the Second Amendment, is called into serious

question by such blanket refusals to permit carrying firearms

in self-defense outside the home or to allow non-resident

visitors to carry concealed weapons. Because some States

refuse to give the Second Amendment its full import, Congress

should enact concealed-carry reciprocity legislation, to help

implement and enforce the constitutional right to self-

defense for millions of law-abiding Americans across the

country.

The exercise of Congress's power is particularly warranted

in this case because the States that refuse to allow law-

abiding, non-resident visitors to carry concealed weapons

place their occupants in greater danger--not less--from gun

violence. These States leave citizens without any real option

for self-defense, and so it is not surprising that they have

been unable to show that their regulations reduce crime.

Authorizing permit holders to carry across state lines will

not result in an increased risk of crime. Concealed carry

permit holders are among the most law-abiding members of

society, and those States that allow for reciprocal

concealed-carry permits have not encountered any significant

safety issues. In Texas, for example, state data on permit

holders shows that, compared to the general public, they are

``ten times less likely to commit a crime, eleven times less

likely to commit an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon,

and seven times less likely to commit deadly conduct with a

firearm.'' Kevin Ballard, Peruta v. County of San Diego: An

Individual Right to Self-Defense Outside the Home and the

Application of Strict Scrutiny to Second Amendment

Challenges, 47 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. 25, 59 (2017).

Further, strong evidence indicates that concealed-carry

permit holders actually deter and reduce crime. Those who

engage in lawful and licensed concealed carry are not only

less likely to be involved in criminal activity themselves,

but their presence also deters others from engaging in

violent crime. See John R. Lott, Jr., More Guns, Less Crime

(University of Chicago Press, 3d ed. 2010). County-level data

for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, the period in

which many concealed-carry laws took effect, shows annual

reductions in murder rates between 1.5 percent and 2.3

percent for each additional year that a right-to-carry law

was in effect, and the total economic benefit from reduced

crimes usually ranges between approximately $2 billion and $3

billion per year. Florenz Plassmann & John Whitley,

Confirming ``More Guns, Less Crime,'' 55 Stan. L. Rev. 1313

(2003). ``Violent crime falls after right-to-carry laws are

adopted, with bigger drops the longer the right-to-carry laws

are in effect.'' John R. Lott, Jr., What a Balancing Test

Will Show for Right-to-Carry Laws, 71 Md. L. Rev. 1205, 1212

(2012).

Our experience as attorneys general further reinforces this

data. Law-abiding individuals who choose to exercise their

constitutional right to carry a firearm for self-defense

promote public safety. Our states have chosen to respect the

rights of residents and non-residents alike to carry arms for

their defense, and we ask Congress to protect the same rights

of our law-abiding residents as they travel throughout the

United States.

States should not be able to deny citizens of other States

the basic constitutional right to self-defense. We thus urge

Congress to enact legislation such as the Constitutional

Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (S. 446) or the

Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R. 38). These

bills aim to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to

carry a concealed handgun. They do not allow for carrying

firearms by felons, those involuntarily committed to mental

health facilities, and other persons prohibited by federal

law from possessing or receiving firearms. And these bills

would not prevent States from allowing governmental and

private entities to preclude concealed carry on their own

property.

As the Supreme Court held in McDonald, it is

``unmistakably'' true that ``the Second Amendment right to

keep and bear arms'' is ``fundamental to our scheme of

ordered liberty'' and ``deeply rooted in this Nation's

history and tradition.'' McDonald, 561 U.S. at 767-68.

Congress should act to safeguard and implement this deeply

rooted right for those traveling across state lines.

Thank you for the opportunity to address this legislation.

As the chief legal and law enforcement officers of our

respective States, we urge Congress to pass this important

legislation implementing one of the most basic American

freedoms, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Very truly yours,

Joshua D. Hawley, Missouri Attorney General; Steve

Marshall, Alabama Attorney General; Mark Brnovich, Arizona

Attorney General; Leslie Rutledge, Arkansas Attorney General;

Pamela Jo Bondi, Florida Attorney General; Chris Carr,

Georgia Attorney General; Lawrence Wasden, Idaho Attorney

General; Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Indiana Attorney General; Derek

Schmidt, Kansas Attorney General; Jeff Landry, Louisiana

Attorney General; Bill Schuette, Michigan Attorney General;

Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General.

Doug Peterson, Nebraska Attorney General; Adam Paul Laxalt,

Nevada Attorney General; Wayne Stenehjem, North Dakota

Attorney General; Mike DeWine, Ohio Attorney General; Alan

Wilson, South Carolina Attorney General; Marty J. Jackley,

South Dakota Attorney General; Ken Paxton, Texas Attorney

General; Sean Reyes, Utah Attorney General; Patrick Morrisey,

West Virginia Attorney General; Brad D. Schimel, Wisconsin

Attorney General; Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to include in the Record two articles, one from Tennessee and one from Florida, in which concealed carry permit holders stopped dead in their tracks people who were going to commit murder.

[From www.wsmv.com, Oct. 8, 2017]

Usher Being Called ``Hero'' for Helping to Stop Antioch Church Shooter

(By Edward Burch)

Antioch, TN.--Robert Caleb Engle is being hailed as a hero

after helping to stop the accused gunman during the shooting

at Burnette Chapel Church of Christ in Antioch on Sunday.

According to police and witnesses at the scene, Engle, who

is an usher at the church, confronted the accused shooter,

Emanuel Kidega Samson. Engle was then pistol-whipped by

Samson. The two got into a scuffle before Samson shot himself

in the chest.

Engle, who has a carry permit, went out to his car to get a

gun, despite suffering a head injury.

Engle then went back inside the church to confront Samson

and held him at gunpoint until authorities arrived.

Engle, 22, declined an on-camera interview but did send a

statement.

When complimented about his heroism, Engle said, ``I do not

want to be labeled a hero. The real heroes are the police,

first responders, medical staff and doctors who have helped

me and everyone affected.''

``I've been going to this church my whole life,'' Engle

said ``I would have never, ever thought something like this

would have happened.''

``(He's) just an outstanding young man, even before

today,'' said Tammy Adcock, one of Engle's neighbors. ``Today

just proved his character.''

Engle also asked for prayers for not just the victims, but

for the shooter and the shooter's family.

``They are hurting as well,'' Engle said.

Engle and 64-year-old Catherine Dickerson were taken to

Skyline Medical Center with non-life-threatening injuries.

Both Engle and Dickerson have since been released from the

hospital.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to point out that the attorney general of the State of Texas has signed a letter, along with 22 other State attorneys general, in support of this legislation and pointing out that authorized permit holders to carry across State lines will not result in an increased risk of crime. Further, strong evidence indicates that concealed carry permit holders actually deter and reduce crime.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar), who is the lead Democratic cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Dunn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert) for the purpose of closing the argument.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, with this motion to recommit, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are trying in vain to hamper the passage of this important legislation. H.R. 38 seeks to allow law- abiding citizens the ability to exercise their Second Amendment right when they cross State lines.

The Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense. Further, the Court concluded that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation, and that central to this right is the ``inherent right of self-defense.''

Additionally, in McDonnell v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court ruled that the right of an individual to ``keep and bear arms,'' as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment against the States.

An individual's Second Amendment right is no different than the First Amendment's protections on speech and free exercise of religious expression and the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure or the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

Can you imagine my colleagues' outcries if any of the aforementioned rights stopped at their State's borders? Believe me, I can. They would be loud and boisterous about it, and justifiably so. Despite that fact, here they are trying to derail a bill that affords the Second Amendment the same respect.

Now, this motion to recommit attempts to extend the law, the Federal law, which already bars people from having firearms if they have been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor domestic violence crimes, by saying any violent crime be covered. And they define violent crime by saying it means ``any offense that involves injury or the threat of injury to the person of another.''

Well, in my State of Virginia and in most other States, it is up to the police officer in a traffic accident, if you rear-end somebody and you injure them, whether or not you are simply charged with a traffic offense or you are charged with a criminal offense. That should not be the basis of denying somebody their Second Amendment rights under the United States Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion to recommit and support the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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 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.

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.

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. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), a very good friend of mine.

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?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

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. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), my good friend

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

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 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. 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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) to discuss our proposal.

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.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, let me say that the problems that my good friend just mentioned on the floor can be solved by real, sensible gun safety legislation. Unfortunately, H.R. 38 is not that, and it is not that because it has ignored the pleas of law enforcement, and it has ignored the rational addition of amendments that would save lives.

H.R. 38 is dangerous, it is reckless, and it is secretly packaged as a fix to gun violence, but, instead, it is laced with lethal elements of catastrophic proportion.

Then, in the midnight hour, it matches the NICS Fix, dealing with the background checks, with the concealed carry reciprocity. That is patently unfair, Mr. Speaker.

Then it would not allow reasonable amendments, exposing victims of domestic violence, an amendment that I had, it will expose them, victims of domestic violence, to stalkers, and those who have been involved in domestic violence to gun violence or death.

It will entice those who perpetrate hate crimes. It will add to the current alarming death rate. Unfortunately, where we could have fixed the NICS, it does not do that.

556 women have been murdered this year alone by intimate partners with firearms. My amendment would have made this bill safer on the concealed carry bill. Didn't want to have it. Fourteen other sensible amendments were blocked.

4.5 million American women alive today have been threatened by abusers.

Hate crimes, those worshippers in Charleston, South Carolina, were killed by a person who came there with hate. My amendment dealing with not allowing someone convicted of a hate crime--even though they say that that is the Federal law, why not have it in this underlying bill where so many people are killed?

Let me give you an example. Under the Brady Campaign, 114,994 Americans are killed by guns. They include those in Las Vegas; they include those at the Pulse nightclub; in Charleston; those who marched in Charlottesville, with all the violence that they had; and of course, Sandy Hook. Seventeen thousand children are gunned down by guns.

The laws of different States, 12 States, have an open carry law with no rules. That means that if you are in Washington, D.C., where heads of state and other dignitaries come, then recklessly someone can come on the streets.

Do we even listen to police officers? The Major Chiefs Association has indicated that they are opposed to H.R. 38 because it will require those making legitimate legal stops as law enforcement officers, seeking to come home to their families, being subjected to individuals whose documents they may not know are credible, or whether they are fraudulent or whether, in fact, these individuals legitimately should have a gun.

I can't understand why this is not understood. So let me just say that it is usually understood that we respect the constitutionality of States. This is a bad bill. It ignores sovereignty, and we should vote it down because too many people are murdered by guns without safety regulations.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 38, the ``Concealed to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017''.

I oppose the bill for the following reasons:

H.R. 38 is dangerous, reckless and secretly packaged as a fix to gun violence, but instead, is laced with lethal elements of catastrophic proportion.

It will expose victims of domestic violence or stalking to gun violence or death.

It will entice those who perpetrate hate crimes.

It will add to the current alarming death rate.

The majority has elected to combine this dangerous measure with a more sensible and bipartisan measure, the Fix NICS Act, which we all supported as a stand-alone bill at markup.

This trickery tactic is both disappointing and deadly, of which, neither approach is welcome, for this reckless effort will negate any protections offered by the Fix NICS Act.

My Amendments would have remedied these glaring defects in H.R. 38, which is a recipe for disaster because it authorizes anyone who is allowed by one state to carry a concealed handgun to do so in any other state, even if other states have higher standards than the state where permit was granted.

This bill would endanger many more lives when dealing with domestic partners by exposing victims to gun violence.

Approximately, 556 women have been murdered this year alone by intimate partners with firearms, as statistics show that guns are the weapon of choice for domestic violence homicides.

My domestic violence amendment is an important public safety measure. Had it been made in order, it would have provided that States not be required to allow an individual to carry where such person is convicted of an offense of domestic violence or stalking as defined under the law.

Despite this sensible measure, my amendments along with 14 other germane democratic amendments were all blocked by the majority.

A 2016 meta-analysis found that approximately 4.5 million American women alive today have been threatened by abusers with firearms; of those, one million had either been shot or shot at by their abusers.

Stalking is also a strong indicator of lethality, with one study of female murder victims in ten cities finding that 76% of women who were murdered by an intimate partner were stalked the previous year.

My second amendment would have prohibited any person convicted of a hate crime, as defined under section 249 of title 18 United States Code, or any substantially similar offense under the law of any State, from carrying under this bill.

We all remember the vicious church shooting in Charleston, South Carolina where a white supremacist opened fire in a historic black church, killing nine people, including a pastor, during a prayer meeting.

Again, recently, in Charlottesville, VA, white nationalists invoked violence during a march by plowing a car into a group of anti- protesters, killing 32 year old Heather Heyer of Charlottesville.

This event prompted Attorney General Sessions to call the fatal attack ``domestic terrorism'' and said you can be sure we will charge and advance the investigation toward the most serious of charges that can be brought.

Imagine if this killer from Ohio was allowed to cross state lines freely at that time under this bill with a gun; the additional loss of life on that day could have been catastrophic.

New analysis of National Crime Victimization Survey data by the Center for American Progress reveals that between 2010 and 2014, roughly 43,000 hate crimes were committed in the United States that involved the use or threat of a gun.

Under federal law and the law in most states, individuals who have been convicted of hate crimes remain free to buy and possess guns. And now, under this bill, they can take their guns with them to inflict mayhem beyond their home states.

Hate-motivated individuals such as violent extremists and hate criminals often use guns as a tool to terrorize, threaten and intimidate members of historically vulnerable or marginalized communities. My amendment therefore, was a sensible and practical measure.

Mass shootings and carnage-filled classrooms, churches, workplace, concerts and clubs should not be the new normal because Congress can and should do better.

Every day on average, 315 people are shot, of which 93 die from gun violence, daily. And of the 315 shot, 46 are children and teens between the age of 0-19 and at least 7 of our children die daily from gun violence.

Every year on average, 114,994 people are shot, of which 33,880 people die from gun violence and of those shot, 17,012 of those victims are children and teens. Therefore, we lose at least 2,647 of our children a year to senseless gun violence.

These numbers are alarming and we should be devoting our efforts to saving lives, not opening up the flood gate to more carnage by snuffing innocent lives in passing H.R. 38.

This bill will amplify tragedies such as Sandy Hook Elementary, Charleston, SC, Florida's Pulse night club, San Bernardino, Las Vegas bump stocks killings, Texas recent church massacre, and the countless lives lost on our streets across this country daily.

Although the NRA argues that the United States is a dangerous place and that owning and carrying a gun is the only way to protect oneself and one's family, there are over 30,000 dead.

Removing safeguards intended to protect the public against potential harm or deadly force by private individuals jeopardizes universally recognized human rights--including the right to life.

H.R. 38 prohibits Congress' ability to address gun violence in a constructive and realistic manner? Adding more guns to our streets and loosening existing laws is extremely dangerous and counterproductive to ensuring public safety.

Disguising the danger in this bill, by wrapping it in the cloth of H.R. 4477, a more sensible measure, does not negate the toxicity level of H.R. 38.

In response to the TX recent church shooting, my amendment strengthened H.R. 4477 by requiring DoD to conduct a more comprehensive review of the procedures used by each branch of the Armed Forces to ensure that the Department is in substantial compliance with the DoD instruction 5505.11 entitled, ``Fingerprint Card and Final Disposition Report Submission Requirements'', dated December 1, 1998. But again, these amendments were blocked.

Unlike H.R. 4477, the Fix NICS Act, a bipartisan measure and good first step, which aims to improve key elements in the submission of information by federal and state agencies to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and which I supported, H.R. 38 as is and combined is lethal.

For the reasons stated above, I oppose this Rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article by Mark Kelly entitled ``Good Guys With Guns Can Be Dangerous, Too. Don't Gut Conceal Carry Laws. Why is Congress about to Vote to Loosen Gun Laws Again;'' a letter from Major Cities Chiefs Association opposing H.R. 38; a letter from the chief of police from the City of Houston; and, finally, a report from the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence.

`Good Guys With Guns' Can Be Dangerous, Too. Don't Gut Concealed Carry

Laws

why is congress about to vote to loosen gun laws again?

(By Mark Kelly)

That day in Tucson, amid a gun tragedy, one of the heroes

almost got shot.

It was Saturday, Jan. 8, 2011, and a mentally ill young man

who'd gotten his hand on a gun opened fire on my wife, then-

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), and her constituents at an

event in a Safeway parking lot. He shot my wife in the head

at close range, injured 12 others and took the lives of six

people. One victim was a 9-year-old girl.

After Gabby's would-be assassin dropped the full magazine

as he sought to reload his gun and continue his rampage,

people tackled him, kicked his gun away, subdued him as they

waited for law enforcement to arrive and brought an end to

the chaos. They were heroes.

The chaos nearly continued, though. Because the man who

murdered those innocent people wasn't the only one there with

a loaded, concealed gun.

Joe Zamudio was shopping at a drugstore nearby when he

heard the shots. Allowed to carry a concealed weapon under

Arizona law, Zamudio recognized the sound of gunfire and

rushed to the scene with his gun in his jacket pocket, his

hand on his weapon and ready to fire. But then Zamudio--a

good guy trying to do the right thing--almost shot another

good guy.

As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun.

Zamudio confronted him: ``Drop it, drop it!'' he yelled.

But that man with a gun was a good guy, too. He was one of

the heroes who had wrestled the shooter to the ground. And he

was moments away from being shot for the wrong reason.

To his credit, Zamudio held his fire--just barely. As he

recounted to reporters later, ``It was a matter of seconds. .

. . I was really lucky. . . . I've never been in the military

or had any professional training. I just reacted.''

The situation that played out in the Safeway parking lot

that day shows the potential for tragedy and bloodshed when

untrained people carrying loaded guns react to a crisis. Even

with the best intentions, an armed person without the

extensive firearms training that is required to respond under

pressure in a crisis will risk making the situation worse,

not better.

But this week, as we approach the seventh anniversary of

the tragedy in Tucson and the fifth anniversary of the

tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School--and after two of the

five deadliest mass shootings in modern history happened in

the last two months--Congress is working hard to pass one of

the big-ticket items on the National Rifle Association's

wishlist, a bill that weakens our gun laws and poses serious

threats to public safety.

The House of Representatives is on the verge of voting to

allow people permitted to carry concealed weapons to carry

them into any other state regardless of what that state's law

on such guns is. That would make it harder for law

enforcement to do their job and allow all permit holders,

even if they don't have a single shred of training, to carry

loaded, hidden guns on every street in our country.

Right now, each state has the right to determine the extent

to which it will recognize the concealed carry laws of other

states. Some states have strong laws, preventing dangerous

people like domestic abusers and convicted stalkers from

obtaining concealed carry permits and requiring training and

a thorough evaluation as part of the process. In other

states, concealed carry laws have much lower standards. The

12 states with the weakest laws, permitless carry states, do

not even require a permit. That means a resident of those

states may carry loaded, concealed guns in public spaces

without ever having passed a background check.

The bill before Congress would allow people who have a

permit issued by any state--including permitless carry

states--to carry loaded, concealed handguns in any other

state that allows concealed carry, even though they might not

meet local public safety standards. This would mean an 18-

year-old high school student from West Virginia could legally

carry a concealed firearm in New York City, where residents

must be 21 to even own a handgun.

And what would it mean for law enforcement? Nothing good.

The bill would impose a threat of personal litigation on all

law enforcement officers by allowing anyone whose ability to

carry a concealed gun is mistakenly questioned by law

enforcement to personally sue the officer. This bill would

also effectively require them to be an expert on nationwide

gun laws as they work to determine if it's legal for someone

from out of state to be carrying a gun in whatever state they

might be visiting. Just as concerning, it will mean that more

law enforcement officers will have to confront more people

with guns. And think back to the tragedy in Tucson: When law

enforcement officers arrive at a crime scene where multiple

people are holding guns, how do they even know who the good

guy is?

We need politicians to show courage and listen to the

American people, who want stronger laws to make them safer,

not giveaways to gun lobbyists that threaten the safety of

our communities. And that's exactly what this irresponsible

bill would do.

As members of Congress consider this bill, they have to ask

themselves if they want to be remembered as voting to help

the Washington gun lobby instead of supporting law

enforcement and public safety. And they should know that

their constituents are watching their decision closely.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 645 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. 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.

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. 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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a fellow member of the Judiciary Committee.

I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.

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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Ferguson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. This bill would not protect us from gun violence, but it would make us far less safe.

Under current law, each State makes its own determination about who may carry a concealed firearm in public, including deciding which other States' concealed carry permits to recognize. This bill would eviscerate the core public safety determinations that each State makes concerning the concealed carrying of guns in public based on the unique circumstances of each State and the desires of its citizens. In fact, the standards and requirements adopted in the States vary dramatically:

Thirty-one States and D.C. require gun safety training to carry concealed guns in public, and 21 of those States require live-fire training; 27 States and the District of Columbia prohibit individuals convicted of misdemeanor crimes of violence from concealed carry; 28 States and D.C. prohibit convicted stalkers from carrying concealed guns; 34 States and D.C. prohibit those under 21 years of age from carrying concealed guns. Many States prohibit gun possession and concealed carry by abusive dating partners, exceeding Federal protections against abusive spouses.

All of these States would have their carefully considered laws governing concealed carry overridden by this bill.

The obvious solution to the varying State laws is to continue to do what is currently done by many States, which is to choose which other State permits they will recognize. Some States, including my State of New York, have chosen not to recognize permits issued by any other State. Most States, however, have chosen to recognize permits from at least some other States, basing the choice on the strength and standards employed by the other States.

We should not disregard these determinations, which is what this bill would do. Instead, this bill would say that every State must honor the concealed carry permit of every other State. About 10 States don't have any requirements and issue a concealed carry permit upon request to anyone.

What this bill would do, in effect, is to say that if New York or Illinois have strict requirements for concealed carry, if someone comes in from a State that doesn't, they have to let that person have concealed carry in their State. In effect, it uses the power of the Federal Government to import the laws of one State and make them enforceable in the other State.

In addition, I am deeply disappointed that the version of this bill before us today includes the bipartisan Fix NICS Act, a measure that should be enacted as a stand-alone bill without delay, and that was reported as a separate bill by the Judiciary Committee.

That bill would take steps to address shortcomings with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or what we often call the

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the ranking member of the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. JACKSON Lee asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. CICILLINE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), the distinguished chairman of the Democratic Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. O'Rourke).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), who is the chairman of the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is advanced I am not sure in the name of what, but what it is going to do is make us less safe and to overrule all our States.

Under this bill, someone who lives in New York could go to another State--doesn't even have to go to another State; just apply to the other State, get a concealed carry permit from that State, never set foot in that State, and then use it in New York; thus, overriding New York's laws.

We have heard it said that this bill is necessary to protect the Second Amendment constitutional rights of gun owners. But the fact is, there is no Second Amendment constitutional right for concealed carry.

In the District of Columbia v. Heller case in which the Supreme Court said that the Second Amendment established a personal right, Justice Scalia's

opinion held that the Second Amendment was not unlimited, a variety of gun regulations were entirely consistent with the Constitution, and he said:

The majority of American courts to consider the question

have held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons

were lawful under the Second Amendment for State analogues.

So the Second Amendment argument is simply wrong or disingenuous.

But let me say also that we are living in an epidemic of gun violence. 33,000 Americans are killed every year, and 30,000 more every year. No other country approaches this. No country--other than those at war--in peacetime has more than 300 or 400, or even 100 or 72, and we have 33,000. It is not because of mental illness. It is because of the presence of large numbers of gun.

A 2017 Stanford University study found a direct correlation with the most permissive concealed carry laws and violent crime. General studies have shown a direct correlation of the presence of the number of guns and murder rates by guns.

So this is a bill that is a death sentence for many Americans. That is what this bill is. It is a death sentence without trial for many Americans by increasing the danger of guns by overruling States that fear and that we don't want concealed weapons on the New York City subway or the Chicago metro or other places of great concentrations of people.

But no, we, in our wisdom, are going to say the States with the least restrictive, perhaps most rural, maybe sensible restrictions for them, will impose those restrictions on other States.

It is wrong. It is a death sentence for many Americans. It ought not pass.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.