he's tied up in a epw hearing. he may be able to get here. >> we, of course, would like to finish so we'd like to be at the end of the line here. >> sure. >> senator mccain and i. >> i'll be happy to go ahead and make some comments and then senator mccain and senator dodd and you to close it out and if senator inhofe comes in, we'll give him a couple minutes. is that satisfactory? okay. madam president, would you notify me when i have used 6 minutes, please. >> the chair will notify you. >> excuse me, 5 minutes. i'm sorry. and i would like to ask unanimous consent for the army fellow in my office, david evans to have floor privileges in consideration for this nbbill.

>> without objection. >> madam president i want to make a couple of quick comments relative to some things that have been said up here. first of all, with regard to senator wyden's comments concerning the national guard, sure, all of us want to make sure that we equip our guard, as but i would simply cite him to the letter of general wyatt, who is the to the letter of general wide who is the head of the army guard -- excuse me, the air force guard. and general white says the f-22 is uniquely qualified to fill the needs that the guard has for its national security mission so to even slightly indicate that the guard has issues with its program is simply not correct because the guard is on record as being a strong supporter of this program. madam chairman, too, i have a

letter from retired lieutenant backle, he's now the executive director, acting active director, of the reserves officers association. let me just quote part of this. war plans in the united states are predicated upon technological air dominance to provide asymmetric advantage for victory. military experts believe the current cap of 187 f-22s is an inadequate number of aircraft to ensure no future threat can impede the u.s. air dom mentioned. ñ minimum number of f-22s required to ensure a strong defense is 250. i would ask unanimous consent that the letter of the retired general be inserted into the record. >> without objection. >> i had quoted earlier the comments by an active duty general, a guy that i consider a great american hero not just because he falls into that category of wearing the uniform

of the united states of america but he is standing up to the personnel at the pentagon and he's saying you guys are wrong. and for a general -- active duty general to do that it, takes significant courage and this is the guy i want in the foxhole with me and that's general korley who is commander of air combat command and he said in a letter that we have previously put in the record is that a fleet of 187 f-22s puts execution of our national military strategy at high risk in the near to midterm. and that the minimum number of f-22s that we need in his opinion is 381. i want to also, madam president, talk for a moment senator ) cost. and this is an expensive weapon system but it's also the most sophisticated weapon system ever designed by mankind.3iv

and most importantly, it's doing its job. it's doing its job in a professional way and instead of costing the $350 million as senator mccain stated in his earlier statements, because of a multiyear procurement contract that we entered into between the pentagon and the air force as approved by this body -- and i know senator mccain objected to that and i understand that but by a vote of 70-28, that multiyear contract was approved by this body as well as by the house. and as a result of that, instead of paying that $350 million he alluded to, we're today under that multiyear contract paying $140 million a copy. and that's in comparison to the $200 million a copy that's going to be paid for every single f-35 that we're buying in this budget f-35s

out there budget. are watching this debate out there today -- certainly those folks at the pentagon are anxiously awaiting the results of the vote. the white house is anxiously vote. the chinese are really anxiously awaiting this vpñvote. and let me tell you why. there's a'iç quote from an arti, july 19 from a=agentleman named robert d. fisher, jr., who is a senior fellow with the international assessment of strategy senior. he says in here that though the chinese government says next to nothing and the u.s. government says very little what is known about china's fifth generation fighter program is disturbing. both of china's fighter manufacturers aircraft corporations are competing to build a heavy fifth generation fighter. and there are serious indicators china may be working on a medium

weight fifth[y generation fight similar to the f-35. china can be expected to put a fifth generation fighter on its future aircraft carriers-u and can be expected to -- >> that's -- >> build more than 187. madam president, i would ask that that article be put in the record. >> without objection. >> madam president, let me close by saying there's another group that's watching very anxiously out there and it's a group of men and women who wear the uniform of the united states air force. they're lieutenants, they're captains and they're majors. they are watching this anxiously because they are saying to themselves, i signed up to be a part of a united states air force that believes in putting men and women in cockpits, men and women who are going to carry the fight to the enemy. and what am i hearing from members of congress and what am i hearing from the leadership at the íómpentagon? that we're going to move away from the most advanced fighter

in the world today and move to a smaller fighter. that we're going to move>iñ awa from fighters and maybe even all together by going to uavs is this the air force i signed up for? well, i can tell you why they're anxiously awaiting the outcome of this because they've talked to me time and time again about the fact that they're concerned about their future in the united states air force. now, the worst thing we can do is to discourage those brave men and women who want to make a career of the air force and want to be wearing those two, three, four stars one of these days but i assure you, those lieutenants and those captains and those majors are watching what this body does from a policy standpoint today. they know where their leadership at the pentagon is coming from. and they don't like what they're hearing. they are now looking to congress to fulfill the role that john hamry, the director of csis has said time and time again and

that is to objectively review the budget that the pentagon sends to the hill, and we're in the process of doing that and exercising the type of oversight that we should exercise. with that, madam president, i would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and i would yield to senator inhofe 2 minutes -- 2 minutes. >> madam president i know everything that could be said has been said and i served on the senate arms committee for some time and the thing that's kind of worrisome to me when he we started the fifth generation fighter program, it was at that time -- they were talking about 750 and then the number started coming down and then as it approached, i guess, 243, the

air force officials have repeatedly stated that no fewer than that would be sufficient with a moderate level of risk. my concern has been the same concern that i have when we're talking about ground capability. when we see countries like china and countries like russia passing us up in areas. i won't bring up canyon right now. but there are many places where our prospective enemies have better capabilities than we do. china has their t-12s -- or the j-12s and russia, i believe, they're calling theirs the t-50s and it's very disturbing to me that we would consider stopping at this point when this is not going to be adequate to get us out of the medium-risk category. so i certainly support the effort to maintain those seven. quite frankly, when senator

chambliss introduced an amendment to expand it by seven, i was thinking we really should be shooting for more and i think he agreed with that. however, apparently, with the exports out there and with the additional seven that was put in in the committee, that would be enough to keep the line open. so i strongly support the effort to keep those numbers where they are. and i'll yield the floor. >> who yields time? >> madam president. >> 14 minutes and 45 seconds. >> and how much time -- >> well, if the senator would go and then senator dodd. >> the senator from georgia. >> how much time we have remaining. >> 45 seconds. >> i'll be glad to yield a

couple more minutes. i think the senator from connecticut, if that's -- [inaudible] >> or 3 or 4. do you want to go ahead now? okay. >> the senator from arizona. >> madam president, i'll be fairly brief here. this argument has been made and we pretty well covered most of the issue. i would remind my colleagues that all the things we do are a matter of choices because we don't have unlimited amounts of funds, obviously. and if you spend money on one project, then, obviously, you may have to spend less on another. and that is the case of the f-35 if we don't eliminate this $1.75 billion. but most importantly i want to point out again, this amendment is more than just about a weapon

system. this amendment is about whether we will stop doing business as usual, and that is continuing to fund weapon systems that are no longer needed and unnecessary we are not saying the f-22 isn't a good aircraft. we are saying it's time to end the production of the f-22. the president of the united states has threatened to veto this entire bill. that's not good for the men and women in the military to have to go through this whole process over again. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the chief of staff in the air force and very importantly the secretary of defense who has served now under two presidents and has gained the respect and appreciation of all of us for his service. madam president, i would ask unanimous consent that secretary of defense gates' speech last july 17th to the economic club of chicago be included in the

record. >> without objection. >> madam president, i'm a student of history. and there's one particular president that i have grown along with historians to appreciate more and more for his two terms as president of the united states, and that's dwight david eisenhower. we were at peace during president eisenhower's term and many believed that perhaps the war in vietnam might have been avoided if we had heeded his wise counsel. there are many, many things that president eisenhower did most to contribute to this nation both in war and in peace. and on several occasions, i have re-read his farewell speech of january 17th, 1961. in his speech, president eisenhower said, in the councils of government we must guard

geneva convention the acquisition of unwarranted influence whether sought or unsought by the military industrial complex. the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. we must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties, our democratic processes. we should take nothing for granted. only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military struggle with the liberty at stake. military struggle -- with liberty at stake only thus shall we remain despite every provocation. so security and liberty may prosper together. i want to repeat that last sentence. to meet it successfully there's called for not so much the emotional and transitory

sacrifices of crisis but those which enable us to carry forward without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle with liberty at stake. i would only add to president eisenhower's farewell address to the nation, which is compelling in many ways. that it should be changed -- the word should be changed from military industrial to military industrial congressional complex. what we are seeing here, despite the advice and counsel of our president and our secretary of defense, of our uniformed military with rare exception is a recommendation that we stop with this aircraft and build another. not that we stop building fighter aircraft for our inventory. not that we stop defending this nation with the weapon systems that we need. we're even defending a weapon systems continued production that has never flown in the two wars that we're engaged in.

so i urge my colleagues to understand the impact of this amendment. if we're able to succeed, it's going to send a signal that we're stopping business as usual and we must move forward providing the men and women with the necessary means to win the struggles we are in throughout the world, especially, two wars. so i urge my colleagues to understand that sacrifices will be made. jobs will be lost. it will cause disruption in some communities. but our first obligation is the defense of this nation and the use of scarce defense dollars in the most effective fashion. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment. madam president, i yield the floor. >> madam president -- >> the senator from michigan. >> i have nine unanimous consents to meet in the today's senate and i ask unanimous consent that these requests be

agreed to and that they be printed in the record. >> without objection. >> madam president, i have 2 minutes; is that correct? >> correct. senator from connecticut. >> madam president, first of all, let me begin where i did a few moments ago and that is my great respect for carl levin and john mccain and their work in this area and let me begin with a point that my friend from arizona made. there's nothing more important than the national security of our nation and it's that argument that brings those to the side of the table in support of this program in opposition to this amendment. this program is a critically important program to maintain superiority, not parity but superiority which has always been our goal in protecting our national security interests. it was the very pentagon itself which advocated that we move forward with this program only 36 months ago. now, obviously, people can change their minds. but over the months when they're preparing for the needs of our nation, it was the commission and the future of aerospace authorized by this congress which concluded the following,

madam president. they said and i quote them that the nation immediately reversed the decline of scientifically and aerospace work force adding and i quote the breakdown of america's intellectual and industrial capacity is a threat to national security and our role to continue in the future. only 36 months ago in their quadrennial review that have said the following and they said in this report -- the report stated that the f-22 production should be extended through fiscal year 2010 with a multiyear acquisition contract to not have a fifth generation capabilities. the reports that the f-35 could be delayed that creates a gap of five years we're talking about. the danger of losing not just any jobs anywhere from 25,000 to 90,000 aerospace workers is not

insignificant. four days ago we were warned there's been an excess of 15% decline in the area -- aerospace industry. the work force is at risk. that is why the issue not only of the technically capability aircraft but the work force to produce it is at stake with this amendment and i say that respectfully. we have this gap in production which we've been warned about now by the pentagon, not the industry itself, by the pentagon, by the very commission this congress authorized to determine what our capacities were and the industrial capacity in aerospace we are defying both reports and recommendations by canceling this program at number and placing at risk a future generation of superior aircraft that we need in the 21st century. so again, madam president, i urge my colleagues respectfully to reject this amendment.

there is a compromise in my view available to end up with a number far less than the originally projected numbers but to cancel the program prematurely, create the gap in our production capabilities i think is a great danger for our nation not to mention these jobs which are critically important to our nation and its future. for that reason, i urge the rejection of the amendment. >> how many minutes left. >> five minutes, 45 seconds. >> i would yield 2 minutes to the senator from delaware. >> madam president, i want to -- >> the senator from delaware. >> i want to commend the leaders of the committee and i also want to commend senators dodd and davis to stave off the closure and i try the position of their shoes -- it comes from the heart and not because of lack of respect for the efforts that you have shown in support of your

constituents. madam chair -- madam president, we have today what we've just come out of eight years where we've seen our national debt double. we've incurred as much new debt for our countries in the last eight years than the previous 208 years. we're looking for a one-year deficit higher than in the history of our country -- it's believed to be well over $1 trillion. if you go back to 2001 and we look at cost overruns for major weapon systems, 2001 is about $45 billion. last year that number had grown to almost $300 billion. we tell the folks who are running the pentagon, the department of defense -- tell us which weapon systems you need and those you don't and secretary gates has told us very clearly as well as his deputy, this president, the last president have said we don't need more f-22s. we have f-16s and we'll have 2500 f-35s and if people are

displaced if the f-22 is not continued in production, my hope is that we'll be smart enough since lockheed has a role in building the f-35 that some of the folks who can build a f-22 can help build f-35 and i would hope that would be the case and i would ask to keep in mind the -- there's a old naval site that i think how much it costs to fly an aircraft for an hour. anywhere from 20 to $40,000 for the f-22. it's just -- it's just too much money. thanks very much. >> the senator from michigan. >> in terms of the alleged gap, there is no gap. the qdr we should build f-22 production to fy10 and we're exceeding that production with f-35s. we have 30 f-35s in this fy10 budget. there is no gap in fighter production and as to whether the

f-35 is a capable fighter, let me just read from what secretary gates says. the f-35 is 10 to 15 years newer than the f-22. it carries a much larger suite of weapons. it is superior in a number of areas. most importantly, air to ground missions such as destroying sophisticated enemy air defense. less than half of the total cost of the f-22. now, the f-22 is costing an awful lot more than has been represented here because they're asking now if this amendment is defeated that we would be spending $1.75 billion for seven f-22s which is over -- or approximately $250 million a copy for the ones that the opponents of this amendment want to build this year. madam president, the president of the united states, the last president of the united states, the previous one, two secretaries of defense, this one

and the previous one, two chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff, secretary of the air force, chief of staff of the air force say it is time to end production of the f-22. to move into greater production of the f-35 which will serve three services, not just one. if not now, when? if not now, when? when will we end production of a weapon system if not now when you have both president obama and president bush trying to end it, secretaries of defense trying to end it, chairman of the joint chiefs trying to end the production of the f-22. we must now do the sensible thing, the thing which is requested by secretary gates. not because he's saluting the commander in chief as has been suggested. he's not doing just saluting the commander in chief. he feels deep in his gut that we must change the way we do business. we must finally bring some of

these systems to an end. and that is why secretary gates so passionately believes that we must bring this production of f-22 to an end and move into greater production of f-35s. more f-35s produced in this budget than would be produced of the f-22 if this amendment is defeated. madam president, i don't know if there's any time left. if there is, i yield the balance of my time. >> john donnelly of "congressional quarterly" joins us. what does this outcome mean for this vote? what does it mean for the underlying defense authorization bill? >> okay. well, the vote was on essentially whether or not to keep the f-22 fighter jet production line going or not. and the senate voted 58-40 not to continue to produce the jet, which is what president obama had wanted. and president obama had

threatened to veto any bill that provided funds to continue producing f-22 fighter jets. >> he won the vote today but why are supporters of the f-22 so determined to continue production of that fighter jet? >> well, for various reasons. in some cases folks have jobs in their districts or their states that are dependent on the production of the aircraft. many of the lawmakers receive campaign contributions from the contractors involved. and to some degree, members may believe in their hearts that this really is a necessary hedge in an uncertain world. >> senators levin and mccain sponsored the amendment to strip the bill of the f-22 authorizing. in the news conference what did you hear about the outcome of the vote? >> obviously, they were encouraged about it. they said it was more decisive than they had expected. i think most people were surprised by the margin of

victory. it was expected to be a closer vote than it was and they attributed the lopsided victory to the fact that the president and the secretary of defense had weighed in so clearly in favor of stopping the program. >> what's this vote in the house on this f-22 issue mean on action on the defense spending bill in the senate or on the house side the f-22 issue there in appropriations or in the authorization bill when it comes to the house? >> well, you've got -- on the house side, the authorizers have -- the house defense authorization bill has already passed. it's got some money in there for -- to buy parts for future f-22s. it kind of keeps things going at a low level. that's the house authorizers. the house defense appropriation subcommittee has marked up a bill that provides the funding to do what the authorizers wanted. but the full house appropriations committee and the full house have not acted on that spending bill.

in the senate, it looks like the -- not that it looks like, the defense authorization bill will not have any money for f-22s. the senate appropriators have not acted yet. but senator inouye said after the vote that he would not advocate putting f-22 money into the defense spending bill. i should point out inouye is the chairman of the defense appropriations subcommittee so he's going to have a big say on it. but the members of the defense appropriation subcommittee are split just about down the middle on the f-22 issue. and if the house spending bill has some f-22 money in there, it will definitely be a live issue in the conference so this is not over yet. but i think that the senate vote today is a real -- i don't know how many nails in the coffin of the f-22. all the nails are not in but a lot of the nails are in. >> and briefly what's ahead on the issue of the joint strike fighter, particularly, the joint

strike fighter engine? >> okay. on that one, the senate arms services committee bill and the house arms services committee bill and the house defense appropriations measure for that matter would like to continue developing a backup engine for that plane. that is something that the obama administration opposes. they think it's a waste of money but the moment in congress is for continuing to build that second engine. and it is quite possible -- it's not certain, but it's possible that the senate will consider an amendment to do what the president wants and take out of the senate arms services bill money for that backup engine. >> john donnelly of "congressional quarterly" joining us for an update. thanks for being here. >> my pleasure. >> and the senate back to work today on defense department programs and policies for the new budget year. a number of unrelated provisions have been inserted into the bill. and today they'll consider concealed weapons legislation.

the amendment to the defense bill would allow people with concealed weapons permits in one state to carry their weapons into another state as long as the other state allows concealed weapons. a vote on that amendment planned for about noon eastern. a number of other amendments also pending. the issue of f-22s could come up in the house appropriations committee marking up the defense spending bill for 2010. live now on c-span3. here's the senate on c-span2. the chaplain will now lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. spirit of god, descene upon ours the members of this body in their ministry of legislative

work. give them the ethical and spiritual insight to see beyond the faulty and superficial so that they will accomplish your will on earth. lord, turn their weights into wings by increasing their strength and gladenning their spirit. open doors of opportunity for them to render service that will empower the powerless and unshackle the oppressed. make them eager to extend the helping hand of kindness and friendship that will send rays of hope far down the future's broadening way. give them your wisdom to make

creative decisions, and your power to offset the pressures of the demanding life they are called to live. we pray in your sacred name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, july

22, 2009. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom udall, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: robert c. byrd, presidet pro tempore. mr. reid: following leader remarks the senate resume defense authority bill and the time until 12:00 is for debate on the thune amendment with time equally divided and controlled between senator thune and durbin and at 12:00 there will be a vote on relation to the thune amendment an agreement we reached a couple of days ago with a 60-vote affirmative vote required with the adoption of that amendment. to all senators, there will be a live quorum at 2:00 p.m. today for the court of impeachment of

san unuof imimpeachmentof judgel roll call votes expected throughout the afternoon as the senate considers amendments to the defense authorization bill. conferredauthorization. yesterday the managers asked for 11:00 am filing deadline for first-degree amendment and we hope this is accomplished with a consent agreement. mr. president, i will later today meet with the distinguished republican leader and make some decisions as to how we are going to finish our work this next, rest of this week and the next two weeks and to find out if we're going to have to work weekends. we have a number of things we are required to do. i have given the republican leader, last week, an idea of what i think we need to accomplish. without going into detail now i

will meet with him later to see to we can figure out a way to do this. we have two weekends until the august recess and i hope it's not necessary we work weekends but it certainly is possible. i hope we can end when we need to end here. we have some things we have to do before we lebanese. before -- before we lebanese. i hope that can be accomplished. i am confident it can be. the choices in this health care debate going on today should be about which ideas contain the best solutions to fix severely broken system. the choices in this health care debate should be how bet to -- t to lower cost and bring security back to health care. the choices in the health care debate should be how to make it easy to stay healthy but for some the choice is whether we should do anything, whether to

act at all. this is a false choice. that is not a choice we have. not acting is not an option. republican leader in the house of representatives a week or so ago said -- and i quote -- "i think we all understand we've got the best health care system in the world." unlike the vast majority of americans, he seems content with the status quo. just this week the senator from south carolina said we just need to "get out of the way and allow the market to work." in other words, he says, let's do nothing, let's repeat the same mistakes of the past and dig ourselves deeper and deeper into this hole that the obama administration inherited. that is not responsible and it's not legislating. that approach does nothing to help the millions of americans who live one accident, one illness or a pink slip away from losing health coverage and that

does nothing to help the millions of americans who have no health insurance to begin with. we get out of the way, as the senator suggests, health care costs will get higher, more people who have health care this year will not be able to pay next year. mr. president, today, 14,000 people in america will lose their health insurance. yesterday, 14,000 people already lost their health insurance. tomorrow, 14,000 people will lose their health insurance. no weekends off, no holidays, 14,000, seven days a week. if we let the market work its will, as the senator suggests, less than a decade from now we will have to spend almost half of your family's income on health care. that is not sustainable. we sit this out, as the senator suggests more parents will decide not to take their children to the doctor weapon they are hurt or sick because it costs too much to pay the bills. and more small businesses will

lay off more workers because it costs too much to give health coverage. if we do nothing, we will keep our economy from recovering, keep businesses from growing and keep families from getting the doctor visits and medicine they need to stay healthy. allowing the market to work is code for letting the greedy insurance companies that care more about profits than people to deny coverage because you have a previously existing condition or you have gotten too old are or maybe even changed jobs. we have seen what happens when we do nothing. over the past eight years of inaction costs of health care rose to record levels and the number of americans who cannot afford insurance did the same. right now in nevada far more than 100,000 people lack coverage which they need to have adequate coverage, adequate insurance, and coverage to take care of themselves.

we cannot afford to treat them in emergency rooms which is where the uninsured go for treatment, the only place they can go. if we don't act many more nevadans lose coverage and many around american will lose coverage. a lot of good ideas on how to fix the health care system in america and at this critical time our economy's health and citizens' health, it is important we determine what those challenges -- changes should be. the question is not whether we should explore them b which of the paths lead us back to recovery, prosperity and good health. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: yesterday the

president, to his credit, acknowledged what the american people have been telling us for weeks, the dealt health care proposals making their way through congress are not where they need to be. i couldn't agree more. all of us recognize the need for reform. that's not in question. that's why day after day i've come to the floor to propose con concrete, commonsense reforms that all of us can agree on, reforms that increase access, decrease costs, and guarantee no one in this country is forced to give up care they currently have. as i said repeatedly we should reform malpractice laws, encourage wellness and prevention programs that encourage healthy lifestyles like quitting smoking and fighting obesity, promote more competition in the private insurance market and address the needs of small business in a way that doesn't kill jobs in the middle of a recession. unfortunately, the

administration seems bent on its own proposal for a government-driven land that costs trillions and asks small business and seniors to pay for it. when the plan is implemented the american people could have a system that no one would rock mieno one wouldrecognize and th. a system that is delayed and rationed that delivers worse care than americans currently receive at higher costs. americans want reform. but they don't want this. and they don't want either of the two proposals we have seen so far. both proposals could lead to a government takeover of health care, increased long-term health care costs and cost trillions on the backs of seniors, small business and by adding hundreds of billions to the staggering national debt. the president has said both of

these bills need work and in my view democrats this congress should listen to the president and come up with something americans want. this may take time. but americans would rather we get the reforms right rather than just get them written. when it comes to health care americans are sending a clear message, slow down and get it right, a message many of us have been delivering for weeks and a message that one of the senate's top democrats in the health care debate seemed to echo yesterday when he said the critical test isn't whether we meet a certain deadli but whether we get this reform right, whether it stands the test of history. we know americans reject an artificial deadline on closing guantanamo without a plan of what to do to keep us safe from detainees housed there and they regret accepting a rushed deadline at stimulus. health care is too important to

rush. just to meet a date someone picked out of the air. the arguments we have heard in favor of rushing do not square with reality. the administration and some in congress say we have to pass these bills right away because rising health care costs are an eminent threat to the economy. yet the democratic plans we have seen make the problem much worse. according to the independent congressional budget office the democratic proposals would very likely increase overall health care spending, not reduce it. there goes that argument. others say we need to pass the bills right appear because people cannot live under the current system but many proposals do not go into effect for another four years -- four years. there goes that argument. some say under the proposals we have seen americans won't lose coverage they have. yet independent studies show that millions would be pushed off plans they currently have.

there goes that argument, too. the only possible explanation for passing a bill in two weeks that could hand over a sixth of the economy to the government, the longer are it sits in the open the more americans oppose it. already, americans are shocked at the requested of funding a government takeover of health care on the backs of seniors through cuts to medicare or through taxes on small business in the middle of a recession. they're shocked to hear the final proposal could help fund abogs. they have serious concerns about adding to the national debt. and they're worried about the prospect of being forced off of plans they have. these concerns are serious concerns. they should be taken seriously. not brushed aside in the service of some artificial deadline. no one in washington wants to block health care reform but many of us want to take the time

needed to deliver the kind of reforms that americans want not a so-called reform that leads to a government takeover of health care that leaves people paying more for worse care. the proposals are not where they need to be, not even close. but that doesn't mean reform isn't possible, that reform isn't coming or that anyone doesn't want reform. what it does mean is that we need to take the time to get the health care reforms the american people really want. that is what they expect, and we should do no less. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 1390, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 89, s. 1390, a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for military activities of the department of defense and so

forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the time until noon will be equally divided and controlled by the senator from south dakota, mr. thune, and the senator from illinois, mr. durbin, or their designees. on the amendment number 1618 offered by the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota is recognized. mr. thune: mr. president, amendment 1618 is a very simple amendment. iit 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 the do not allow their citizens to do so. my amendment does not allow

citizens to circumvent their home state's concealed permit carry laws. if an individual is currently prohibited from carrying 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 that 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 already permit some form of conceal and carry. law-abiding individuals have the right to self-defense, especially since the supreme court has consistently found that police have no constitutional obles to protect individuals from other individuals. the seventh circuit explained this most simply in their 1982 bowers v. devito decision,

"there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen." responsible gun ownership by law-abiding individuals provides a constitutional means by which individuals may do so and responsibly conceal carry holders have repeatedly prove than they're effective in protecting themselves and those around them. reliable, empirical research shows that states with conceal carry laws enjoy significantly lower 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%, rape by 2%, and robbery by over 2%. 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 that actually carry 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 much less likely to commit a crime when they fear they may come into contact with an individual that is armed. this deterrent is so strong that a department of justice study found that 40% 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 also ears around them, like children. in addition to the empirical evidence, there are anecdotal stories as well. recently a truck driver from south dakota, a long-haul strucker, ten years ago on a trip to atlanta, he stopped at a truck stop in atlanta. a strange man suddenly jumped on the hood of his truck, shows a gun and starts demanding all the cash that this truck driver has. work on instinct, he pulled out the firearm he always keeps in his cab and showed the gun to

the perpetrator who jumped off the hood and ran away as soon as he saw t that story is the type of story that individuals that my amendment will help. law-abiding individuals who travel from state to state either for work or for pleasure. and so it is very straightforward, mr. president. 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, and there are a couple of states where their individuals are precluded from having conceal carry, and in those states this amendment would not allow. obviously we are, as i said before, very respectful of the states s. rights and state laws that have been enacted fryer this issue. in my state of south dakota we

have a national reciprocity understanding be, a national reciprocity conceal carry understanding, with all the other states in the country. and so of the other 47 states where conceal carry is allowed, any of those residents of those states who have conceal carry permits can carry in the state of south dakota. there are 10 other states who also fit into that category, and i believe that if you check the records and look at the data, it's pretty clear that the states who have enacted national conceal carry reciprocity agreements have not seen, as has been suggested by opponents of this amendment, any increase in crime rates. this is something that i believe, mr. president, is consistent with the constitutional right that citizens in this country have to keep and bear firearms. and we have, as i said, 48 states today who have some form of conceal carry law that allow 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 one's self and the right to exercise that basic second amendment constitutional right does not end at state borders or state lines. and so, mr. president, i hope that my colleagues here in the senate will adopt this amendment. it is a commonsense, i think, approach to allowing more people across this country to have the opportunity to protect themselves when they are threatened and, as i said before, the statistics bear out the fact that when that is the case, when people have that opportunity in states that have enacted conceal carry laws have seen actually crime rates, particularly violent crime rates, go down. mr. president, i reserve the balance of my time. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, i rise in opposition to the thune amendment of the senator from south dakota tells us this is a very simple amendment. he tells us that his amendment,

consistent with self-defense and the reduction of crime. what the senator from south dakota cannot explain is why 400 mayors, the international associciation of chiefs of poli, the major cities police chiefs association, the bipartisan association known as state legislators against illegal guns oppose this show of called very simple amendment. here's 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 in the state, including which out-of-state permits that the state will accept, if any. the states already have laws. under the thune amendment, those laws could 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's supposed to take place tomorrow on this amendment

before the senate judiciary subcommittee on crime. but the senator from south dakota didn't want to wait for a hearing before the committee. he's asked the senate to take up this measure today. before the hearing date. now, here's some of the reasons why this amendment is so troubling: as my colleagues know, we have a federalist system, a government in washington and a national government, and in each state and the district of columbia, a 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, elogy for example, a nuf

states won't allow you to if you've an abuser of alcohol, if you've been convicted of certain misdemeanor crimes, or if you have not completed a training course to show you know how to use a gun. states have those standards. you better not be an habitual drunkard, you better not have committed misdemeanor crimes aand you have to prove that you can safely use this gun that you want to carry. in iowa, you can't have a permit to carry a weapon if you're adicted 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 can't carry a firearm for 10 years after being

convicted of misdemeerntion including asawcialghts battery, stalking, threatening a judge, victim, or witness. other states, in contrast, have minimal or no conceal carry standards beyond the baseline of 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 that -- quote -- "a blind person can get a permit in georgia, since 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 that you know how to use a gun, those people could visit states where they've 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 that the elected representatives of the people in that state have enacted. some states do little oversight on the concealed carry permits they've 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, sex seoul battery, child abuse, and manslaughter. so even i in the states where they've established standards for conceal education, many of them are not keeping an eye on it. there's 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 permits, and that person can travel to another state, which has established standards for safety of their own citizens. and you under the thune amendme, they can legally carry a gun. if the thune amendment is enacted, states with carefully crafted conceal 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 really want in my state -- well, illinois would be an exception, because we don't have a concealed carry law. we're one of two states that don't. but for the other 48 states, do we really want people traveling across the border who don't meet the basic requirements of knowing how to use a firearm, don't 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's safe in their own snait why do we want to override some states' standards to protect questionable conceal carry permit holders? it's not necessary for us to pass this amendment. to give amendment individuals the ability to recognize each other's concealed carry permits. the senator from south dakota h has said his state welcomes all to carry the concealed weapons and they made that decision in their state. states are free to form conceal carry reciprocity agreements with other states and 12 stated decided to honor the concealed carry permits issued by every other state, obviously including south dakota. however, 25 other states look carefully at the other states and make this decision selectively. they have decided some states have acceptable standards and some do not.

11 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, rhode island. overall 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 in their bothers. let me tell you what has happened. a washington state residents obtained a concealed carry permit despite his history of drug addition and schizophrenia.

in may 2008 he was in a fight at a public festival, fired a shot that hit one person in the face, a second in the wrist, and lodged in a third person's leg. cincinnati resident obtained in ohio concealed carry permit and although we she was previously fined for unlawful transportation of a firearm in august of 2007 she shot and killed a panhandler who asked her for 25 cents at a gas station. in moscow, idaho, resident and aryan member was given a concealed carry permit although he had domestic violence conviction and in may of 2020 he went on a shooting spray and killd 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 permit holders were charged in the shooting deaths of at least 43 private citizens during that time. if light of incidents like these it's 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, visitors from states with concealed carry law don't have to meet the state standards where they're visiting. the thune amendment is troubled because it leaves law enforcement agencies in the dark about the concealed carry population if their own area and -- in their own area and plays a key gatekeeper role. under the thune amendment that's 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 have knowledge of it. when you look at the thune amendment along with the amendments offered earlier this year that repeals the d.c. 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 community safe. that's no justification for this. the supreme court's decision made it clear that although the second amendment right is to be respected, 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 states' laws to trump another. new york should not have to let visitor on the city streets be governed by the laws of alaska regarding carrying guns and it should be up to the state to decide who will permit to carry

concealed weapons within their borders. america won't be safer if the thune amendment passes. it has not gone through a hearing in the senate and the senator decided to call it the day before the 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 and puts guns in the hands of dangerous people who could easily misuse them and 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, major cities police chief associations, the u.s. conference of mayors, a coalition of 400 mayors called mayors against illegal guns, chicago mayor daley, a group of state attorneys general, including my own, a bipartisan association of state legislators against illegal guns is many

others. the amendment has been criticized in many news including the "usa today," miami herald, "washington post" and "baltimore sun" and should be defeated. i urge my colleagues to reject it. the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: i will add in response to my colleague from illinois' comments this does not apply to the district of columbia and with respect to the issue of federalism, back in 2003, there were 70 consponsors in the senate for a piece of legislation that allowed retired law enforcement officers and country 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 we did

know the impact, so we don't know what the impact of this will be. any suggestion about what impacts could occur are very hypothetical. what we do know there are a number of states that have enacted national conceal-carry reciprocity agreements and in those states we know what the impacts have been and the impacts have been, clearly, there has been less crime rather than more. studies have shown there is mr. defensivis moredefensive gu. researchers estimated there are as many as 2.5 million defensive uses of firearms in the united states each year and a lot of those are unreported because no shots are ever fired. there are lots of examples and i have a list i could go through, too, and these are those that have been reported by the press, where actually the defensive use of -- by a firearm, someone with

a conceal-carry permit, and thousands have been documented by the press and reported and the estimated 2.5 million defensive uses of firearms in the united states each year. now, there are estimated to be about five million conceal carry permit holders in the united states today. assuming every instance reported by gun control groups of improper firearm use by individuals with the conceal-carry permit is true, something that can be debated, assuming it is true over an entire year, for every 142,857 permit holders there would be one -- one improper use of a firearm. put it another way, concealed-carry permit holders are 15 times less likely than the rest of the public to commit murder. now there are some states who have, and large states, frankly, who issued concealed-carry permits and probably one of the largest is the state of florida.

they have had a concealed-carry permit law in affect in the state of florida going back to 1987 yet if you look at the 1.57 million concealed carry ps thats in florida there have only been 167 revoked less than .1%. as of 2008, utah, which allows residents and nonresidents to get these presidentials they had 134,398 active conceal handgun permanents and in the past year they have had 12 revocations or .09% because of some type of violent crime. but no crime, incidentally, involved the use of a gun. during the 1990's and through the decade of 2000 researcher wees have found 11 cases where a permit holder committed murder with a gun.

i point out to my colleagues, mr. president, the points made by the senator from illinois are largely speculative. if you go back to 1991 the number of privately owned guns has risen by 90 million to an all-time high and over the timeframe the murder raise has decreased 46% to 43-year low and the total crime rate has decreased 41% to a 35-year-old at a time since 1991 that the number of privately owned guns has increased by 90 million to an all-time high and also as i said before, the number of permits issued across the country is five million nationally and my state of south dakota has 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 have a reason for doing it and will be people like truck drivers going across state lines and some of the examples, the example i mentioned, there are lots of people who travel and i

can think of, for example, as another, perhaps, case in point, i have two daughters in college and my oldest will graduate next year and currently in the safe con fines of a college campus but lives where she attends college several states away from our state of south dakota. when she is out of college next year i fully expect is we have discussed this she may get a concealed carry p in the state in which she resides and have a firearm in order to protect herself as i think a lot of single women in this country do particularly those would 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 those states she crosses two states where she would be illegal to have a firearm in her possession, in her car, to protect her as they traveled those vast distances. there are lots of examples who are law abiding, who simply want

the opportunity in the legal way to transport that firearm and they have concealed-carry permits and they have gone through their states' background check -- by the way, all but three states who issue concealed-carry permits require background checks so the same thing you go through in order to boy a firearm and all the suggestion that all these people are going to be able to get firearms, federal law prevents some of the examples of the senator from illinois from having access to firearms in the first place. the background checks with the exception of those three states and as a practical matter, those three states go through a background checks which are going to be conducted. if they are conducted, you will find out if there is criminal behavior in the background, mental illness, all those things which under federal law would prevent that person from possessing a firearm in the first place. so i would, as i said, i would

reserve the balance of my time and the senator from louisiana is here and i assume, mr. president, someone will be recognized from the other side. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i yield six minutes to the gentleman lady from new york. the presiding officer: the senator from new york is recognized. mrs. gillibrand: smrpt, some would suggest a permit to conceal a gun in one state should provide authority for legal concealment in another state. what rights are right in new york are not necessarily right for south carolina and vice versa. states should be able to make decisions and pass reasonable constitutional safety standards based on their public safety requirement, true diagnosis, population, crime rate, and geography. it is wrong to overdue constitutional gun laws designed to prevent alcoholics, criminals, domestic abusers, those with grave mental illness and other potentially violent

and dangerous people from carrying guns in our cities. in fact, senator thune's amendment creates a double standard in recognition of states' rights with regard to conceal-carry laws by allowing, ex-shunexemptions, this strikesn laws like in new york with basic safety standards for conceal-carry. new york should be allowed to opt out with an exemption. this standard would eviscerate concealed-carry permitting standards moving to a new national lowest common denominator and would even allow individuals ineligible to obtain a bermt in their own state the means to shop around for a lower standard in other states that other permits to out of state residents undercutting laws that render the applicant ineligible.

a study using f.b.i. crime statistics demonstrates relabsinrelaxingthe laws could e affect on the crime rate with the violent crime rate that kept laws fell by an average of 30% and they dropped only by 15% in states with weak conceal-carry laws. a second concern is the lack of acceptable safety standards in all states. according to the "the washington post," in at least two-thirds of states, some form of safety training is required in order to receive a permit. abusers of alcohol are prohibited from getting a permit and those convicted of certain misdemeanors are prohibited. in many states, statutory requirements are minute tall and d -- are minimaland some peopled carry ps despite criminal convictions for violent or drug-related misdemeanors, assault, or stalking.

it is not completely evident what a national overrule of state conceal and carry laws might do to local crime rates but it is suggested that state and local governments understand what works in protecting their citizens. i spoke with our nypd commissioner who said the thune amendment would invite kay os in our cities and put people at risk by enabling anyone with an out-of-state permit, including gun trearvetion to carry multiple handguns whereever they go. new york's strict requirements as to who can carry a weapon have stricted to the city's unparalleled safety. our efforts, our entire mission, would be severely undercut by this bill. in a city where 0% of all guns used in crime come from out of state, it is easy to see how senate bill 845 would pose a danger to new yorkers by greatly

increasing the availability of illegal handguns for purchase. in 2 ao 2008, new york has had e largest crime rate. of the other major cities, new york's crime rate ranks 46th. the mayor focuses on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. this week "the washington post" cited similar success in reducing crime in big cities across the country stating that new york, d.c. and los angeles are on track for fewer kill things year than in the last four decades. this is part of a larger trend in many big cities across the country. our local and state-elected officials and law enforcement officers across the country, such as the international association of chiefs of police and the major cities chiefs association, are speaking out in opposition to this amendment. mayors against illegal guns, a

bipartisan coalition of more than 450 mayors, including mayors of our cities like new york city, albany, binghamton, buffalo, rochester and syracuse, representing more than 56 million men's, have also state add strong opposition to this amendment. i stand here today with law enforcement and the cities and states across this country. they know what's best in keeping their cities safe: commonsense gun laws focused on training, keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and other dangerous people are reducing crime and we should be supporting their efforts, not gutting such basic safety standard. i strongly believe in our constitution and the second amendment and americans' right to defend themselves. i also strongly support the states' and cities' rights to provide basic constitutional and reasonable regulation of firearms. i urge my colleagues in the senate to stand up for our local communities and their commonsense gun safety laws.

the presiding officer: who yields time? mr. thune: i yield to the senator from louisiana as much time as he may consume. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana is recognized. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise in strong support of senate amendment number 1618. i am a proud cosponsor of this amendment by senator thune, along with dozens of other senators on a bipartisan basis, and i urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment. mr. president, the second amendment is a valued constitutional right, and thank god courts, particularly in recent years, have expressly recognized that. of course, the supreme court in the landmark heller decision ruled that -- quote -- "the individual right, the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation" -- close quote -- 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 -- quote -- "deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition" -- close quote -- and has long been regarded as -- quote -- "the true palladium of liberty." it also said that -- quote -- "nothing less than the security of the nation, the defense against both external and internal threats rests on the provision." -- close quote. that is why this amendment is so particular. it is a fundamental right. what does that mean in everyday terms? it means the ability of citizens, tuckly those more vulnerable in our society like women, to protect themselves, people like sue fontanel in louisiana who told me -- quote -- "when my family and i go out at night it makes me feel safer just knowing that i am ana ableo have my concealed weapon." it is personal safety and

security. it is a fundamental ability to protect one's self and one's family and one's property. and so if that is a fundamental right, and if we have reasonable laws and reasonable permitting processes, why shouldn't sue fontaneaux have that right, have that freedom when she visits other states which also allow conceal carry? this isn't just anecdotal quotes. this is also backed up by criminal logical studogical stu. it has been concluded "allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes. when state conceal handgun laws went in effect into a county, murders fellly 8.5% and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5% and 7%."

in the 1990's, two other researchesser found that guns were used for self-protection abouabout 2.5 million times anny and that number, of course, dwarfs these tiny numbers in anecdotal evidence of limited, very tiny numbers of improper use of guns by folks with conceal carry permits. responding to the clec and gertz study, wolfgang, as strong a gun control advocate that can be found in this country" said that he couldn't dispute the methodology an of the clec and gertz study. he agreed with it. so 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. now, as we do this, as we protect that fundamental individual right, we also protect states' rights. i think it's 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 conceal carry in any state that do not allow the practice, and there are some states -- illinois and wisconsin -- that fall into that category. we do not mandate conceal carry right in those states. in addition, our amendment does not establish national standards for concealed carry. it does not provide a national carry permit. it simply allows citizens who are able to carry in their home state to also carry in other states but only in those other

states have concealed carry permits. and 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 types of location in which firearms may not be carried must be followed by the visiting individual, and that's very, very important. so, finally, we absolutely protect and enshrine current federal law in terms of background checks and people with criminal problems or mental problems who cannot carry guns. so if under current law 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. mr. president, at the end of the day, this is really, again, a fundamental debate about what is the problem in terms of violent crime? is the problem really law-are abiding citizens who follow the -- is the problem really law-abiding citizens who follow the law and take all of the time and all of the trouble needed to get conceal carry permits, go through background checks, fill out forms, do everything that's required by their home state? that class of people the fundamental cause of violent crime? or is the dominant, 99.9% fundamental problem in the violent crime arena people who don't follow the law, who ignore the law, who ignore conceal carry law, who 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, clearly, in the minds of commonsense americans, it's the latter category of folks who are the problem, not the former. and the statistics and the evidence and the history bears that out. so conceal carry is a useful and essential tool for law-abiding citizens to be able to protect themselves and stop and deter violent crime. it's not any significant source of violent crime whatsoever. we have the numbers that bear that out. we have some states that allow reciprocity now -- 10 states allow reciprocity under their state law. have they seen incidents of problems with conceal carry permits from other states? no. have they seen spikes in violent crime because of this reciprocity?

no. so, again, mr. president, because this is a fundamental right, because it goes to people's security, because criminalogical and other studies are on our side and don't show any spike in val crim violent cy this but in fact deter crimes by conceal 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, the n.r.a., is a strong supporter of this amendment. i thank them for that. i thank them for their leadership. they're also speiv 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, 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 conceal carry does work, because it prevents crimes and deters crimes and does not significantly add in any meaningful way to the crime problem. again, mr. president, 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, goes to the trouble of filling out the forms and following all the rules for

conceal carry? i don't. or do you think the fundamental problem -- the 990.99% problem -- is the criminal who doesn't respect that law, surely doesn't respect that law, because he doesn't even respect laws against murder and armed robbery and other violent crime? that's the problem, mr. president. commonsense americans know that. and this amendment will protect law-abiding citizens and provide another effective and important tool against those criminals who are the problem. thank you, mr. president. i yield back my time. mr. durbin: how many time is left on this side? the presiding officer: 47 minutes and 34 seconds. mr. durbin: i yield 10 minutes to senator schumer from new york. the presiding officer: the senator from new york is is recognized. mr. schumer: well, thank you, mr. president. and i'd like to thank all of my

colleagues who are without objectioning with us on this amendment -- who are working with us on this amendment. the senator from california, who has been such a leader on these issues, who will speak after me, and she and i were commenting that this is probably the most dangerous piece of legislation to the safety of americans when it comes to guns since the repeal of the assault weapons ban, which she led the charge on to pass. i'd like to thank my colleague from new jersey, senator lautenberg, who has been a leader on gun issues and done such a great job, senator menendez, senator gillibrand, senator durbin, so many others who are working with us today on this issue. today we're here to say that we urge all of our colleagues to oppose this legislation. the legislation would do nothing less than take state and local gun laws and tear them up.

it would take the carefully crafted gun laws in new york and tear them up. it would do the same in 47 other states. the great irony of this amendment is that the progun lobby has always said, let the states decide. now they're doing 180-degree turn and saying, let the federal government decide, and impose the lowest common denominator when it comes to carrying concealed weapons on all of the states except illinois and wisconsin which don't have any carry laws. now we know the gun lobby is strong. we know there are many members on both sides of the aisle who believe strongly in an individual's right to carry arms. but this legislation goes way beyond the previous progun laws we have voted on this session. it is a prij to bridge too far.

it threatens the safety of millions of americans particularly in urban and suburban areas and directly threatens the safety of millions of new yorkers. and let me illustrate. our neighboring state of vermont -- a beautiful state, and i have great respect for it and its two senators -- is a rural state. it has a strong libertarian belief. and it has a very lenient concealed carry law. the vermont law says that if you're 16 years of able you can apply for a gun license and you automatically get a concealed carry permit and you get the gun. you simply have to -- that's all you have to do. can you imagine if this law

passed what would happen? known gunrunners would go to vermont, get a gun license, get a concealed carry permit, and they could bring 20, 30, 50 guns concealed in a backpack, in a suitcase, and bring them and sell them on the streets of the south bronx or central brooklyn, bring them to central park or queens and our local police would have their hands tied. so one of the points i'd like to make to my colleagues about this amendment, it endangers not only the citizenry but our police officers. today at about this time, the mayor of the city of new york and our police commissioner will be speaking out against this proposal. and our police commissioner is

particularly upset because his job is the safety of police officers. when a police officer stops someone in a car they now have the safety and sanctity of mined to know to that person has a gun in their car it has been approved by the new york city police department. there are people who need to carry guns for self-defense or other purposes. after this law passes they have no such peace of mind, no such safety. in fact, they have no way. imagine you are a liver and youa police officer and you stop someone, they have 47 states with different requirements. it is impossible to have this

law in our larger urban areas. for that are reason, mr. president, each state has carefully crafted its concealed carry laws in the way that makes the most sense to protect its citizens. clearly, large urban areas like new york merit a different standard than rural areas like wyoming. to gut the ability of local police and sheriffs to determine who should be able to carry a concealed weapon makes no sense. it could reverse the dramatic success we've had in reducing crime in most parts of america. and that's one thing i want to stress. one of the things i'm proudest of is what our government has done over the last 20 years, federal, state, local. greatly reduced crime. my state of new york, people are

no longer afraid to come live in new york. if you ask the experts, not me, not senator thune, not us who have political beliefs that are different, ask police expert, a top reason we have been able to reduce crime in our cities, and it's that we have had reasonable laws on guns. and we've allowed our larger, urban, more crime-ridden areas to have stricter laws than our rural areas. i understand in my state of new york that guns are a way of life in large parts of the state and i respect that. the heller decision is a decision i welcomed. i talked about the right to bear arms in the constitution. i believed in it even before heller. but you know, mr. president, and this is what i would like to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle and the n.r.a.

regarding the amendments of the constitution, but no amendment is absolute. most of my colleagues on both size of the aisle support laws preventing the spread of pornography but that's an infringement to the first amendment but reasonable because there is a balancing test. most of my friends on both sides of the aisle support libel laws if someone says something defamatory about a decision they have the right to sue -- of course. that's a limitation on the first amendment. we don't go against it. the concealed carry laws of the states are reasonable limits on the second amendment. and if you believe that the second amendment should have no limits, of course, you vote for

this amendment. but then i would ask you the contrary question, some who are pro gun ask those of us would believe in more gun control: how is it that the second amendment should have no limits but the first, third, fourth, and fifth should have limits? they thud have limits and if there is a balancing test, it is that each state should come up with their own conceal carry law. so my colleagues, this is an amendment that i don't think anyone can be proud of. i understand the power of the gun lobby. i understand that we have different beliefs and represent different states. but we are not trying to say, what south dakota should do. why should south dakota say what new york or california should

do? when i spoke, and i have great respect for the sponsor of this amendment, we were speaking in the gym yesterday among and he said a problem he hears about in his area and i understand it, is truck driver, in the cab of his truck, carries a gun and is allowed to carry a gun and why should that truck driver when he crosses state line, going from south dakota or north dakota or minnesota be limited? well, i can understand that argument. but this amendment goes way beyond that. it doesn't talk about one weapon. it doesn't talk about a person who has been granted the license because he needs it for protection as he commerces across state lines. it is unlimited based on whatever the lowest common denominator state would do. this law is going to make the gun traffickers, the small number of people -- i ask unanimous consent the rest of my

remarks be added to the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: a couple of observation. i need to correct for the record, the state of south dakota has reciprocity agreements with 27 states not national reciprocity which gets at point i'm making is that anybody who has a concealed carry permit in one state is so confused by the patchwork of laws we have they cannot determine which state is legal and which state is not legal and i think that is a very serious problem for people like truck drives or like individuals would want to protect themselves when they travel across the country. and, i add, to, in terms of arguments made about the types of individuals that get access to firearms, the 1968 gun i don't act pro-hints individuals from possess -- prohibits individuals from possessing if they are under indictment, has

been adjudicated to be mentally ill or committed involuntary to a mental institution, subject to a court order restraining him or her from domestic violence or convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor. my amendment does nothing to change federal law and an individual is not allowed to possess a firearm and will not be allowed to conceal and carry one and i add with regard to the issue about taking multiple guns in a sack and transporting there are federal laws that prevents trafficking firearms. we do not address that. we allow law-abiding citizens who have conceal carry in their state, if they travel around the country this we can do that. florida is a big state, a great state in point, with concealed carry permits now for 20 years and has agreements with a multiple states and no evidence whatever in the state of florida

that there has been any suggestion of increasing crime. rather, i suggest, the opposite would be true. and 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 say this any conceal carry permit in the state of south dakota that guess to new york and is in central park, central park is a much safer place. i would yield ten minutes to the gentleman from south carolina. mr. schumer: will the senator yield for a question? would my colleague yield for a question? mr. thune: i yielded time to the senator from south carolina and am happy to yield to a question later on the senator from new york's time. mr. schumer: i be asked unanimous to be given 30 seconds to ask a question. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. thune: i object to that. the senator from south carolina has been yielded time. the presiding officer: the objection is recognized. the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you,

mr. president. i thought this debate 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 pigeon hole people. the point of the amendment, it shunned be oshouldn't be on thee bill. we are talking about a defense authorization to protect our troops and provide them equipment they need and give them a pay raise and now we're talking about guns and hate crimes and i don't know how we got here as a body but we're here. if you had to pick a nongermane amendment to talk about that made some sense that most americans, i think, with like us to be talking about would be something fundamental to our country and i think most americans are a little bit right to center on an issue like this

for lack of a better phraseology and most americans believe in lawful and responsible gun ownership and, quite frankly, that's what this is trying to bolster. i make an observation: 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're 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, you're probably not high on the list of people with want to use a gun to permit a crime because, one, you would be incredibly stupid 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 that you probably want to

have a gun because they seem to understand the responsibility that goes with owning it. so the idea, does this make us less safe 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, are the people with concealed carry permit 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 that if you use a firearm in the commission of a crime, you're -- 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 is one of the first cities in the nation to have enhanced punishment for the use after

weapon. it is true that some people misuse a weapon. some people misuse a car. but it is a fundamental right under our constitution, according to our supreme court, to poe seas gun. this amendment -- to possess a gun. this amendment makes sense at every level to me. if i go through the process of getting the conceal 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 no more than that law. i don't know what the law is about carrying a gun in central park in new york. i know this: that if you have you've got a permit to carry a gun in 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 that if someone goes through the process of getting a

permit to carry a weapon in their own state, they choose to go to another state, they automatically get the benefit that have state's law when this comes to conceal carry. they don't get anymore. they don't 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 conceal carry, but the precondition is that you'd have to have that permit in your own state, and you have to go through the rirgs of getting that permit -- the rigors getting that permit in your own state. whatever gun crimes are being committed out there they're not being committed as an overwhelming general rule by the people who have goo gone througt process of getting a weapon.

i want to congratulate my friend from south dakota that you've done something that i think most americans would agree with. you've allowed the american public to be able to travel and get the benefit of whatever law exists in 00 state when it comes to -- in a state when it comes to carrying a gun no more, no less. this argument that people are going to start carrying weapons across the border makes no sense because whatever restrictions there are on arms trafficking still stands. so at the end of the day, this legislation will help people who follow the law and obey gun laws, help them be able to travel throughout the country without tripping themselves up and getting in trouble when they don't mean to get in trouble. and if you didn't have this law, it really is amiss. and what we're trying to do is provide some clarity to gun

ownership in america. we're not enhancing the ability to commit a crime. quite frankly, i think it's the other way. if everybody had the same attitude about gun ownership as people who get a permit, the country would be okay. we're not changing any law that regulates trafficking of firearms. we're not allowing criminals to get access to guns. we're simply allowing people to go through the process -- who go threthrough the process of getta gun in their own state to be able to travel to other states. it will make life better for them. it will make life better in terms of legal compliance. i think it is a proper role for the federal government to play. it does enhance 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 shiew senator thunee

country a great service. 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's kind of what makes the country safe. 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'm going to allow you to do that. that's what thacks this a very special place. so, with that, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from california. the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: how much time is remaining? the presiding officer: 37 minutes and 13 seconds. mr. durbin: i would like to say to the record that i have many more democrats seeking time than i have time. and i wanted to alert those who are coming to the the floor that they're 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 try to abbreviate their time in the interest of other colleagues.

i yield bac to my colleague from california, senator feinstein. mrs. feinstein: i tries spheek in opposition to this amendment. if passed, this amendment would require states like mine, california, to allow people with concealed weapon permits from other states to carry a concealed gun or guns, even if they fail to meet california's stringent requirements for obtaining a permit. we heard the senator from south dakota say that 5 million people across this nation have concealed weapons permits. we counted 25 states and came to 4 million. but let's say 4 million or 5 million do hold concealed weapon permits in the united states. so this is no minor shift in policy. it in fact would be a sweeping change, and i think with some deadly consequences. i believe this is a grave threat to public safety.

i do not believe it enhances public safety. and i believe it completely undermines the rights of state government to protect public safety. this amendment essentially overturns the standards and regulations that many states have enacted to prevent concealed weapons from falling into the wrong hands. this is not a philosophical debate. it is a matter of life and death. my home state, california, sets a very high bar for those who wish to obtain a concealed weapon permit. it does not honor permits granted elsewhere. in fact, only 40,000 permits have been granted in california. we have 38.2 million people. contrast this with florida, a state of about half that number -- 18 million people -- has

580,000 permits. and georgia has 300,000 permits. california, the most populous state, has but 40,000. california's strict rules ensure that felons, the mentally ill, and people who have been convicted of certain misdemeanor offenses are considered a threoa threat it otherare automatically disqualified. those who do meet the qualifications, do not automatically receive a permit. in order to obtain a concealed weapon permit in california, an applicant must, (1) undergo fingerprinting, pass through a federal background check, (2) complete a course of gun training, (3) be considered a person of good, moral character by the local sheriff, and just as importantly, demonstrate a good cause for needing a concealed weapon permit.

this gives local authorities the discretion to decide who should obtain a concealed weapon permit. this amendment will force california to honor permits issued by all other states, including those which allow minors, convicted criminals, and people with no firearm safety training to carry concealed weapons. only the time and place requirements of a state would remain intact under the thune amendment, and by this i mean that if the state of south carolina had a provision that you couldn't carry a weapon into an office building that was government-owned, that would remain in the state to which the gun or guns was then carried. this isn't just bad policy; it's extremely dangerous policy. the thune amendment is designed to undermine the rights of states to determine their own

rules and regulations for concealed weapons permits. here we have people who believe in states' rights, that when it comes to something they really want are willing to pounce on states' rights and destroy them. california standards, i admit, are tougher than most. but many other states routinely deny concealed weapon permits for various reasons. 18 states prohibit alcohol abusers from obtaining concealed carry permits. 24 states prohibit persons convicted of dism disdid he miss from carrying concealed weapons, 19 states require completion of gun safety programs, the thune amendment obliterates these public safety standards. it's important to note that

eight states voluntarily honor concealed weapon permits carried in any other state. another 29 states recognize permits issued by states with similar or equivalent concealed weapon permit standards. but 13 states, including california, choose not to recognize any out-of-state permits. these states have made a choice about what's best for their citizens, and that choice ought to be respected. this amendment says that the views of california's sheriffs, police, governor, and people don't matter. but the views of those who promote guns do matter. i cannot accept that. if this amendment were to pass, it would possibly allow those with concealed weapon permits to bring one or more assault weapons into our state, which has an assault weapons ban.

we've consulted with the congressional research service, and here's what they say about this, and i quote, "the amendment would appear to have a preemptive effect on state reciprocity laws or regulations because it would appear to require those states which have more stringent eligibility requirements for concealed carry to recognize the permits of other states where the eligibility requirements are less stringent." this is a direct quote. and it continues, "it could be argued that the language of this amendment is broad enough, such that it would allow certain firearms that are banned from purchase or possession in one state to be brought into that state. for example, one could legally purchase, possess, and carry a concealed permit for a firearm

that is banned in states like california, connecticut, hawaii, massachusetts, new jersey, and new york." end quote. that's not my state. that's the c.r.s. statement. so, it places in jeopardy states' assault weapons control legislation. i don't know whether that was intended or not, but this is a very broad piece of legislation that is being passed. and what it means is that the amendment is so vague that -- by its interpretation -- it supersedes states' assault weapons bans. and i believe assault weapons will be brought into california, should this legislation pass, and particularly those states of which california is one are border states, where we see the

movement of guns back and forth -- well, mainly down to mexico. this also provides a route to conduit guns down to that country. now, some say -- and we've heard it here this morning and in other places -- an armed society is a polite society. and they portray concealed weapons carriers as responsible citizens who are simply exercising their rights. earlier this morning on tv i heard a senator say that only good, responsible people have these permits. that simply is not true. let me give you an example. in april, this man, richard poplawski, killed three pittsburgh police officers. he had the right to carry a concealed firearm in pennsylvania. despite having been discharged from the marine corps during basic training. he was also subject to a

protection-from-abuse order filed by an ex-girlfriend. he killed three pittsburgh police officers. he was a concealed carry permitee. in march, michael mclondon killed 11 people including the wife of a deputy sheriff before taking his own life following a gun battle with police in alabama where he had a concealed weapons permit. this is his picture, he killed ten people in rural alabama including his mother and five family members. he was a concealed weapon permittee. so when i hear people on television saying only the good people get these permits, that is simply not true. in my view, these unstable men

should never have been permitted to own any weapon for any reason and, of course, in february of this year, frank garcia killed four people in a shooting rampage in upstate new york. he held a concealed weapons permit in that state. i think these tragedies and as i understand it, 26 people have been killed this year by people who carry concealed weapons. we don't want other states' concealed weapons permittees in the state of california. we have 38 million people. it's a diverse, disparate population. guns did not help. i believe it's unlikely these men would have obtained concealed weapons permits in my state. and candidly, we want to coop it

that way. mr. president, i would like to submit for the record a letter from the governor of our state, arnold schwarzenegger, who opposed this amendment, along with 400 united states mayors and the international police chiefs association, as well. i believe the amendment is reckless. i believe it is irresponsible. i believe it will lead to more weapons and more violence in the streets of our nation. and, mr. president, i hope and pray this body will turn down this very ill-advised amendment. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: how much time is remaining? the presiding officer: the time remaining is 25 minutes and four seconds and throot minute and 37 seconds. mr. thune: i yield up to 15 minutes to the senator from virginia. mr. webb: mr. president, i rise in support of this

amendment. i believe it is reasonable. i believe it is not as draconian in implications as many of my colleagues whom i greatly respect in terms of their concerns are anticipating. i'd like to also say there has been a lot of misinformation on the senate floor about this amendment to the of fact it will allow fell lons, people mentally defective and other dangerous individuals to carry weapons on the streets of american cities and also to buy up hoards of guns and to transport them into places as senator schumer mentioned, like new york city. my colleague from new york gave an example about in his terms a krip or blood moving to vermont and establishing residency and then bringing a permit into new york and be willing able to carry a weapon with impunity but i think the reality of that

particulaparticular situation ig members hferre already have the. this amendment has presentations that prevent those who engage in criminal activity such as gang members from taking advantage of this legislation and the people who need this bill are the ones that the gang members might be threatening. with respect to standards of conduct, aspects of criminality and issues of mental health, it's important to note that there is a federal floor under this amendment that guarantees that certain standards will be met regardless of varying state standards. if you read the amendment it states that "a person who is not prohibited by federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm and who meets other conditions"

then may be granted resolution profit. if you go into the federal law and i will read from 27cf c-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 with a term of imprisonment of one year may not possess a firearm or anyone a fugitive from justice or unlawful user or adicked to anyo controlled subject or anyone in a mental institution or anyone 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 undishonorable conditions, anyone with a citizenship of the united states and having renounced that

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 unlawfully receive, possess, ship or transport a firearm." "in addition, a person under indictment or information for a crime punishable by prison for a term exceeding one year cannot lawfully receive a firearm." those, mr. president, 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 interest your state and follow their speed elements. speed -- speed limits. had is not accurate. the amendment specifically provides that anyone carrying a

firearm into another state must follow the laws regarding firearm usage in that state -- and i quote -- "in a state that allows residents to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed weapons, a person gaining resolution profit is entitled to carry a firearm subject to the same laws and conditions that govern specific places and manner in which a fire am may bfirearm may be cara permit issued by the state the firearm is carried." a better analogy is the driver licensing process. states decide the conditions under which the license is 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 the licenses obey the laws of the state in which they are driving."

drive i hear this will increase the number of purchasers of handguns and other weapons. i would like to clarify to this body as someone who has 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 background check as if you did not have a permit. a legal firearm sale or -- are a separate matter to address that we should clearly focus on but they fall outside the parameters of this amendment. mr. president, the issue of gun use acknowledge in our country understandably divides people. usually along the lines of those would believe any relaxation of gun laws will benefit criminal and violent activity versus those who believe that gun laws need to be modified in order to allow law-abodying peoplabidingo

defend themselves. i have worked with citizens grounds and our governor in the aftermath of the virginia technical shootings to focus our approach. we have made significant improvements in our laws including working to modify privacy laws relating to mental health matters, the primary concern in the virginia t.c. shootintechshooting and to impre instant background check and i will continue to work on these areas and the violence we see in our streets and in our neighborhoods must be addressed but little of that silence has ever been caused by those who seek permits to carry. as i mentioned, the people who are perpetrating that violence have their guns. their access to the guns is a matter we should focus on but few criminals are going to go to the county courthouse and file a permit.

those who seek permits to carry and who are within the federal guidelines specifically addressed in this bill seek to do so if order to protect themselves from the violence we see on our streets. i would say when i look at this amendment a couple of clear examples come to mind. one is my father, 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 two-day journey. my father was old are. he was by himself in the car. he was a classic target, a potential -- of potential criminal activity. he carried a weapon, a firearm, when he traveled. when he stopped at night and went to a motel he brought the weapon with him and check in a motel by yourself and you are

77, people will look at you. i don't think people in that situation need to wonder if they're committing a felony by having to be able to defend themselves when they're in that situation. somebody else that comes to mind are the truck drivers we see on the roads within we're on the interstate. these are independent contractors, 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 breakdown and wonder where they stop whether they might be victimized if they sleep in the cabin of the truck. they can legally carry, many of them in their own state, do they have to worry if they cross into another state boundary to dopedd themselves? this is the type of situation that this legislation, i believe, is attempting to

address. i believe it will have a beneficial affect. i believe strongly we need to work together in this body to address other situations of gun violence in this country and i am glad to add whatever insight i have to do so but i support this legislation and i intend to vote for it. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: yield nine minutes to the senator from new jersey, senator menendez. mr. menendez: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i come to the floor saddened by the tragic death yesterday of mark denardo, one of five of new jersey's fine of the shot last week by a gunman. he was killed not by a law-abiding gun owner, a sportsman or hunter like millions of americans but by a

lone armed man too willing to pull the trigger to kill another human being in cold blood. last night or the night before gunshots were fired in jersey city, in newark three were killed, the victims of gun violence, and the statistics are staggering, this one year, 30,896 died from gun violence, 12,791 people were murdered, and another 69,863 survived gun injuries. and 48,676 were injured in a gun attack. according to the brady campaign, this one year, 20,784 american children and teens were shot in murders, assaults, suicide, accidents or by police intervention. homicide was the second leading cause of death for young people ages ten to 24 and 84% of the victims were killed by a firearm.

amazingly, firearm homicide is the second leading cause of death for young people ages 1 to 19. these numbers are shocking. mr. president, i think about what this amendment does. who it affects. and i cannot help but ask, who is it who feels the need to carry a concealed weapon and for what purpose? one must ask how we would ever want to permits as a matter not of state but federal law those whose motives may not be pure, to walk into a playground, a school, a crowded stadium, in any state, licenses under federal law, to carry a concealed weapon in their coat pocket or bag. do we honestly believe that person will be the priest or the rabbi? do we think it will be the mother taking her child to a school thinking, i have the house keys, cell phone, oh yes, permit for my gun. is it the law abiding sportsman

who use guns and rifles hunting or for target practice? sportsman don't need to conceal weapons. who will benefit from this amendment? who do we believe will carry a concealed glock 39 through the streets of cities, a stadium, a church, synagogue or mosque? it is not the mother, hunter or sports man. as president of the brady campaign pointed out, someone like richard poplawski who allegedly murdered three pittsburgh police officers on his front porch. he was a concealed carry permit holder. it will be michael mcleonden who murdered ten in alabama and hot himself. who, too, was a concealed weapon carry permit holder. it will be criminals like a man charged with first-degree murder in the shooting dfght his wife s

after shooting his wife he called 9-1-1 and said "i killed that woman who messed my life up." he was a concealed carry permit holder as well. mr. president, we're being asked to seriously consider an amendment that would benefit those criminals, not their victims, and amendment that would override state laws and federally mandate states to recognize the concealed weapon permits of people like these three notorious criminals, even though they may not be residents of that state, even though they might be legally barred from possessing weapons in that state? let us make no mistake, this amendment is a blatant infringement on state rights, a stealth repeal of states' hard-fought gun laws. it strips legislators and governors duly elected by the people to represent the best interests of their constituents

to make sound, competent, informed judgments about how to best regulate guns in their own state, to make those judgments based on the recommendations and input of law enforcement officials who know and understand the specific situation on the ground on the street in their cities, in their communities. even the congressional research service has found this amendment would have a preemptive effect on state reciprocity laws. they said, an and i quote, "this amendment is broad enough such that it would allow certain firearms that are banned from purchase or possession in one state to be tbliewt that stat -e brought into that state. one could legally purchase, possess a concealed permit for a firearm that is banned in states like california, connecticut, hawaii, maryland, massachusetts, new jersey, and new york." in my view, this would turn the

clock back on reasonable, responsible gun laws that states like new jersey have passed to protect us from men like richard poplawski, michael mclendon, and others. career to the usual approach of my republican colleagues to maximum states' rights, this amendment will trample the right of states to pass their own laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. mr. president, too many times for too long we have seen blood on our streets from senseless, pointless, lethal gun violence. we have tried in our states and in this chamber to mitigate it tried in our own ways to stop it. we've all been outraged at those who with language, attitude and demeerng seem to accept it as part of american culture. i do not. we cannot stand down from the battle being waged by law

enforcement in every city and state against gun violence in our streets. our charge, our solemn responsibility, is to end the violence, not toad it. there are too many guns on our streets as it is and there are also too many people willing to use them. irsay to my colleagues, let us not make it easier to carry a concealed weapon against the wishes of the people of a state whose elected representatives express their will and say "not in our state." to legally have a federal mandate that would permit them to cross state lines into your neighborhood or my neighborhood. the evidence is before us in the names of richard poplawski, michael mclen done, both of whom have permit permits to cara concealed weapon. why should they come into my state and create the opportunity to murder some innocent family when my state, my governor, my

legislature has determined that in fact there is a better way to protect our citizens? when we go down this road, it is a slippery slope. some day, some federal issue will come in your state and you won't want the federal government to tell your state how to protect your citizens. if you permit this to happen today, then it will happen tomorrow in a way that you won't like. that is a dangerous precedent. that's a precedent i don't think that we want. and finally, let us remember the victims. let us remember officer mark denardo and all the victims of gun violence that are out there protecting us eve and every day. they won't know the good guy from the bad guy. they will just know that if this passes, someone could have a concealed weapon on them. and at the end of the day, their lives will be greater at risk. that is not something i want on my conscience. i don't know what member of the senate wants it on theirs. i ask unanimous consent that the entire statement be entered into

the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: i don't want to get in the weeds here but the gentleman mention michael ijime who did not have a carry permit. and another gentleman, willie donaldson, the court recognized that the person acted in self shf defense. the point is that criminals commit crimes. that's what they do. criminals kill people. this isn't directed at criminals. this is directed at law-abiding citizens who want to protect themselves and 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 fire jamplets it is further estimated that there are as many as 2.5 million defensive uses of firearms in the united states each year, many of which 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, and if you assume that every instance of reported crime by a gun control group, of improper firearm use by individuals with a conceal carry permit, every one of those is true. it can be debated. but let's assume that it is true. over an entire year, there would be one -- one -- improper use of a firearm and 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'm making, mr. president, is criminals commit crimes. that's what they dovment they're criminals. criminals kill people. what we're trying to do here is allow law-abiding citizens 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 aren't preempting state laws. illinois and wisconsin, have -- they preclude or prevent anybody

from owning a concealed carry permit or having a concealed carry permit in their states. this amendment doesn't even apply to them. nobody could carry a concealed carry weapon in either one of those states. it recognizes the rights of all states. most states have place and time restrictions. my state of south dakota, for example, you can't carry in a place that serves alcohol, you can't carry on schools, you can't carry in courthouses. so to suggest that somebody is going to transport a whole bunch of guns -- which would be a violation of federal law to start with because there are laws against trafficking -- into an area of a statepublic school or someplace like that, these are just wild exaggerations and scare tactics that aren't based on any evidence. the evidence we have -- the data we all have suggests the contrary. mr. president, i yield such time to the gentleman from wyoming, as he may consume. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. today i rise in support of the thune amendment of the thune amendment to me is very

straightforward. it does not restrict state concealed carry laws. it does not create a national concealed carry permit. it simply allows law-abiding individuals. law-abiding individuals who lawfully carry concealed firearms across state lines while following the laws of the host state. just like a driver's license -- and this is my wyoming driver's license -- just like a drivers license, the thune amendment is a license for self-defense across state lines. this means my concealed carry license from wyoming, i will not be limited to wyoming. just like a regular driver's license, just about the same -- photo identification issues. the only difference is this one from wyoming says "concealed firearm permit" and it has on it a picture of a handgun. well, today we are hearing the same arguments against the thune amendment that we heard from the people who wanted to ban assault

weapons. during that semi automatic assault weapons debate, we heard all of the scare tactics. we heard there would be blood all over streets, terrorists would be able to purchase uzi's and ak-47's. the lives of law enforcement law enforcement will be in danger. this is simple plt not the case. -- this is simply not the case. a study for the department of justice found that 40% of felons had not committed certain crimes because they feared that the potential victims would be armed. the national institute of justice conducted a survey that found that 74% of criminals who had committed burk burglaries or violent crimes said they would be less likely to commit a crime if they thought the victim could be armed. in states where concealed carry permits are issued, it is a fact that the crime rates go down. let's take a look at illinois and florida. illinois does not allow

concealed carry permits. the number of murders last year in chicago -- 511. since florida passed their concealed carry bill and signed it into law, violent crime has dropped by 32%, and murders in florida dropped 58%. mr. president, criminals do not get licensed to carry guns. criminals do not fill out the paperwork, go to the courthouse, get fingerprinted and wait weeks to receive their concealed carry permit. criminals issue their own concealed carry permits. in the district of columbia, crime rates are high because the criminals have the advantage over the victims. the gun laws in the district outlaw law-abiding citizens from self-defense while people walk home from work or from the

store. they know it is highly unlikely in the district of columbia that the victims will be carrying a gun for self-defense. mr. president, this is a commonsense amendment. it makes sense for law-abiding gun owners all across the country. i would urge my colleagues to vote in support of the thune amendment of thank you, mr. president. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i have 13 e unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. theft approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask that these requests be agreed to and printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i now ask that the senator from new jersey being recognized for nine minutes and then after an intervening speaker on the other side of the aisle, the senator from california be recognized for five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lautenberg: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. lautenberg: mr. president, i rise in strong opposition to the amendment that's being offered because it would override our safety laws, gun safety laws in my state and other states across the country.

the thune amendment is an outright violation of states' rights. this -- the fact is that this vote isn't about the second amendment. it's not about gun rights. it's about respecting local communities and letting them make their own decisions about how to keep their streets, their homes, and their businesses safe. mr. president, as this dangerous amendment gets pushed to a vote, we are seeing opposition grow across this country. in addition to newspaper editorials, we're seeing governors and mayors and local law enforcement calling on the senate to vote against this amendment. this placard shows the wide manufacture ranging groups opposing this amendment. groups opposed to the thune amendment -- over 450 mayors, people who have responsibility for those in their community, major cities chiefs association, international association of chiefs of police, state

legislators against illegal guns, national network end to domestic violence. in a letter to the senate, the international association of police chiefs implored congress to "and i quote -- "act quickly and take all necessary steps to defeat this unacceptable legislation." that's from the international association of chiefs of police. they know what to do about concealed guns, and they will decide within their own communities. but the thune amendment doesn't just steal states' rights, their right to create their own laws. it abolishes state laws that are on the books right now. the thune amendment throws state laws out the window. for the 35 states that have chosen to keep criminals with misdemeanor convictions from carrying concealed weapons, this amendment abolishes their laws. for 31 states that have chosen to keep alcohol abusers from carrying concealed weapons, this

amendment abolishes their laws. the thune amendment would force our states to accept the weakest standards in the country and it brings about a race to the bottom. mr. president, many of us represent states that do not want lax standards on who can walk around our communities with a weapon hidden in their garments. to make matters worse, the thune amendment not only overrides the states' concealed weapon law, it could also override a state's assault weapons ban. that means if we ban them in my state, someone gets the concealed weapons permit, they can bring an assault weapon into our state. this means even if a state has a ban on assault weapons, under this amendment someone could legally enter that state wahiden uzi or assault weapon and travel around it.

think about it, if your state's residents are not permitted to carry a particular weapon, but someone can come into our state with a weapon that now is prohibited in our state, mr. president, that's one of the reasons why more than 450 mayors across this country expect -- present their alarm about this thune amendment. as these mayors explained in a letter to the congress -- i quote it -- "each state ought to have the ability to decide whether to accept concealed carry permits issued in other states." i don't want it in new jersey, and i think that people across this chamber will say, "no, i don't want it in my state as well." now supporters of this amendment like to claim that only law-abiding citizens get their hands on conceal weapons permits. but that's not true. in alaska, for example,

criminals who have repeatedly committed violent misdemeanors are permitted to carry concealed weapons. and in alaska, criminals who have repeatedly committed sex offenses are permitted to carry concealed weapons. according to a news study during the two-year period between may 2007 and april 2009, people holding concealed handgun permits killed at least seven police officers and 44 other innocent people across this country. and just recently, we've seen several gruesome examples of senseless murders committed by people holding concealed weapons permits. a few months ago, a 28-year-old concealed weapons permit holder went on a murderous rampage in alaska. first he shot and killed his mother. then he gunned down ten others, including two young mothers and a father and an 18-month-old

girl. a few weeks later another concealed weapons permit holder went on a killing spree in binghamton, new york. this gunman drove a car up to a citizenship service center and barricaded the back door with his car so that the innocent people who were inside would be trapped as he proceeded to kill those who were in his -- to shoot at those who were in his sight. the gunman sprayed gunfire throughout the center. he killed 13 people, wounded several more before taking his own life. the next day another conceal carry permit holder destroyed more life. in pittsburgh police officers arrived at a house to quell a domestic conflict. 2002 officers were ambushed and killed by the gunman who held a concealed weapons permit. minutes later the gunman shot and killed a third officer who arrived at the scene. mr. president, the special interest gun lobby is hanging

its hopes on the prospect that this chamber will abandon common sense and pass the thune amendment. but this gun lobby's dream is really a nightmare for our country. it violates states' rights and it will make it easier for gun traffickers to move firearms. if the thune amendment becomes law, traffickers could now load up a car, smuggle -- take guns across state lines legally as long as the driver has a concealed weapons permit in any state. mr. president, history will record that this senate was asked to decide today whether to put families further in danger or keep them safe or whether to savage state laws or honor them and whether to usurp states' rights or preserve them. i hope that my colleagues will do the right thing. i urge my colleagues to vote "no, no, no, no" on the thune

amendment. thank you. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: i yield ten minutes to the senator from oklahoma, senator coburn. mr. coburn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i think a little bit of history is really important for us now. let me give you a quote of what thomas jefferson had to say. and it's important for us to hear him. we recognize his wisdom in lots of what he did for us as one of the founders of this country. and here's what he said about guns: "gun control laws disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. such laws only make worse for

the assaulted and better for the assailants. they serve rather to encourage rather than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." now granted that was in a different day and a different time, but his words ring true. to those who are opposing this amendment, who truly believe we ought to have a total ban on firearms in this country, i recognize that as a legitimate position for some of those people. but what i find both disingenuous and also curious and funny at the same time is the number of my colleagues who now come to the floor to state, to preserve states' rights when 95% of their roets in the last

congress and this congress and the congresses that preceded that voted to take away those very same states' rights in every other area of freedom in this country. the second amendment -- we just had a hearing on a supreme court justice, and she got it wrong on the second amendment. the second amendment is written into our constitution in the bill of rights. the 14th amendment -- and it's important, a history lesson here -- why was the 14th amendment even brought up to congress? the historical debate shows during reconstruction, freed black slaves were losing their right to own a gun simply because they were black, simply because they were a freed slaves. and many southern states passed laws taking away those. the due process of the 14th

amendment came about so that we could preserve the right of individuals to own arms and defend themselves. what i find ludicrous in the debate is any discussion of assault weapons ban or assault weapons, first of all, you can't conceal one. that's number one. number two is we had the senator from new jersey mention it's illegal to own an uzi in this country. so you're already a criminal. you're already a felon. you're already one of those individuals jefferson was talking about when you claim to say that we're going to step all over state law. you know, we had a vote in terms of honoring states' rights, in terms of the national park bill on guns.

29 of my colleagues, 13 of which now are defending states rights stepped all over states rights with their vote against the coburn amendment when it came to allowing people to have supreme their state law in terms of national parks. so, nobody comes to the floor a purist, but i will tell you that the vast majority of people who are debating against this on the fundamental principle of stepping on states' rights have a voting record that 98% of the time they don't care about states' rights. they care about the federal government. and i have an offer. any member who wishes to vote against this bill, this amendment, if you will all

endorse the enumerated powers act and see that we pass it through congress, then you can demonstrate your fidelity to the 10th amendment, except nary a one of those who are opposing this amendment has endorsed the enumerated powers act in this congress or the last congress. so that the arguments ring hollow when we talk about the 10th amendment, because the actions, the true action would be to recognize the limited powers of the federal government to enforce the 10th amendment, and we wouldn't be having this debate at all. but states' rights are convenient only when it comes to something we don't like. they're rarely utilized to tpraoul defend states' rights. the final point that i'll make is that you have to follow the laws of the state that you're in.

that's respecting states' rights. for every incident and tragedy of somebody who had a concealed carry permit, we can give you 10,000 tragedies of those where gun control allowed the criminals to have guns, but the innocents not. so i hope the american people will look at this debate and say, number one, there's a fundamental right in this country, which the supreme court will get right in this next session, that is guaranteed to us as part of our liberty. it was inculcated -- inculcated into everything that our founders did,. knowing it to be true, it was written into our constitution. and many of the rights that we have today, that we cling to so dearly were never even considered by our founders but

have come about as a result of what the judicial branch has said. so if you're going to use states' rights as a position to defend your vote against this bill, what i would suggest is that your constituencies look at all your other votes on states' rights and see if there isn't some real big dissidence with that position, because you will find it in every case. with that, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i'd ask that i be yielded 7 minutes rather than the 5. i've cleared that with senator durbin. just two more minutes. not to the debate, just to our side's time. mr. thune: mr. president, how much time is left on the other side? the presiding officer: 8 minutes and 35 seconds. mrs. boxer: 8 minutes?

i would then go to 6 minutes if i could instead of 5. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: i agree with the senator from oklahoma on one thing. i hope the american people are watching this debate. i truly do. because we're talking about a radical proposal that is opposed by democrats and republicans in my home state, i have never seen the phones ringing off the hook. i ask unanimous consent to place in the record a statement by the california police chiefs association as well as a phrer by governor arnold -- as well as a letter by governor arnold schwarzenegger, a republican letter. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: the police chief's letter is tough and strong. the california police chiefs association is strongly owe potioned to the thune amendment. the legislation would require california to honor concealed carry permits granted by other states even when those permit holders could not meet the standards required by california law. the thune amendment would

empower gun traffickers and threaten the safety of our police officers. and if there's one thing we should do for our police officers, is not make their lives any tougher than they are. we recently lost four police officers in oakland, and i can tell you that the whole community suffered along with those families. and when my police chiefs talk about this -- and i'm quoting -- "a trafficker holding an out-of-state permit would be able to walk the streets of any city in america with a backpack full of loaded guns, enjoying impunity from police unless he was caught in the act of selling a firearm." this is one of the strongest letters i've ever seen from my police chiefs. and this debate isn't about the right to own a gun. that has been settled by the supreme court in the heller case. it's about allowing our own states to determine our own

laws. and i totally get why some more rural states with fewer people would have different laws on conceal and carry than a state of 38 million people in my home state of california. leave us alone. leave us alone. you want to have conceal and carry with very few requirements, fine. we have conceal and carry with many requirements, and it is working. some states don't have any limit on the number of weapons you could carry with one conceal and carry permit. so someone could come into my state, go into one of my schoolyards and open up duffel bag full of legal weapons. we have 3,300 gun deaths each year in my state. let me repeat that. 3,300 gun deaths each year in california. each one of them has a story.

of tragedy behind it. a lot of them are kids. so don't come down here and tell my state what we should be doing. i i support your state. you should support my state. and that's exactly what governor schwartzenegger says. he says, we have a right to write our own gun laws. 34 california mayors and 400 mayors nationwide oppose the thune amendment. as do the international association of police chiefs. you know, we have a lot of two, do here. we've got to work on health ca care. we've got to work on energy independence. we've got to work on bringing down the deficit. we have to work on bringing down the debt. we have to work on educating our

kids. but oh, no, we are spending hours, mr. president, on an amendment that is offered that tells our states that their laws are not to be respected when it comes to conceal and carry. do you know there are some states that allow a spousal abuser to carry a conceal and carrconceal-and-carry weapon. do you want that spousal abuse, maybe in a stage of rage, to walk into another state with a duffel bag full of weapons? and my senior senator as she read this -- and she's a pretty good expert on this -- says you could have an assault weapon in there. is that what we want? it's ironic, as we deal with the health care issue, do you know what it costs to try to sew up somebody and heal somebody who's been a victim of a gunshot wou

wound? we are training our doctors who go over to iraq and afghanistan in our cities. so all my colleagues on the other side who come here and talk about big brother -- big brother going into their states and telling their states what to do, this is the case of big brother. clear and simple. if i need to protect my people in california, i want to leave it to my people in california. i don't want to come in and tell them that they have to live with other state laws that are weaker. it's just wrong. it flies in the face of states' rights. it flies in the face of common sense. and, again, supreme irony is it's coming from folks who say they love our states, they respect our states, the federal government has too much power, but i say it's big brother. the presiding officer: senator, your time has expired.

mrs. boxer: i hope we will vote against this because this is not what we need in america: more gun deaths and more police being put in the line of fire. i yield the floor. mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: how much sometime left on our side? -- how many time is left on our side? the presiding officer: nine minutes. mr. thune: mr. president, i yield myself five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, the senator from california has made some comments -- actually, both senators from california talked about assault weapons. and assault weapons, the senator from california pointed out, it's very difficult to conceal an assault weapon. it's not going you're going to be running around, and obviously when you get into the state of california, those weapon are illegal. and i think it's fair to point out again that any state can impose restrictions on the people who come into their state with the conceal carry permit from another state. so state laws still trump when it comes to manner, place, where

guns can be carried. and states can also say to this issue of multiple guns being brought in that there's only -- that the permit only applies to one gun. obviously that's an issue that a state can -- can rule on. secondly, the -- the issue of multiple guns i would think would fall under the rubric of trafficking, which is a federal offense. it is illegal. people who have committed crim crimes, that's illegal under federal law. they can't get guns in the first place. or at least they're not supposed to be able to get guns. it's a federal crime if they do. people who have 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 have been -- much of what has been suggested here really is scare tactics. it's fearmongering. there's no basis on which to make many of the arguments. they're totally speculative, that somehow this amendment is going to lead to all kinds of people, thugs and -- and gangsters getting guns and then transporgt them someplace else in -- transporting them someplace else in the country.

i will tell you, i don't think that there are too many criminals -- and by the way, criminals commit the crimes. the senator from new jersey talked about the thousands every year that are killed by guns. most of them are killed by criminals. there may have been an exception or two. somebody had a conceal carry permit. but relative to the general population, it is minuscule. and 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, south dakota, and say, i want to get a conceal carry permit, or anywhere in this country, for that matter, because almost every state, with three exceptions, by law do a background check. so in order to own a gun or possess a gun, you have to go through a background check. and -- and so to get a conceal carry permit, you also have to go through a background check. i don't think that most criminals are going to be going down and say, i want to get a background check 10* that i can get -- check so that committee get a gun so that i can haul it and commit a crime in another

state. that's just ludicrous. think about the logic of that. obviously anybody that has a criminal check, th record, the d check is going to reveal that. so that means there's going to do what they usually do and that is get those firearms illegal willing, commit crimes, felonies, because that is what criminals do. mr. president, i want to just mention some of those who have endorsed this amendment. the n.r.a. 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've pointed out, represents a lot of the truck drivers across the country. this is a real issue for them because they're traveling across state lines in -- in interstate travel on a regular basis and this is something that they've advocated on behalf of for a long time. the passenger cargo security group, which, of course, represents a lot of the association -- those who fly

cargo in this country has endorsed it. go crowd has endorsed this amendment. and the pink pistols group has endorsed this amendment. so a number of groups, organizations out there who've endorsed the amendment who believe, like i do, that it represents a balance, a commonsense approach that balances the styl right that people in -- the constitutional right that people have in this country to keep and bear arm. the second amendment right, it's in the bill of rights, all of the other rights apply across state lines, or all of the other amendments in the bill of rights. and it seems to me at least that this one should too too. subject to restlaiksz are imposed -- subject to restrictions that are imposed by the individual states. this does not preempt any of those. every state has different restrictions that apply and restrict the -- the place and the manner in which firearms may be transported into their states. and so what we're simmerly trying to do here -- and so what we're simply trying to do here, mr. president, is clarify this patchwork of different regulations and laws and requirements that different states have all over the country so that people, law-abiding

citizens, not the criminals that are being referred to here who commit the crimes in this country, but 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 conceal carry permit. and as i said, every state is a little different about how you go about getting one of these permits, but every state has its own requirements. and all of the states, whether the -- the presiding officer: the senator has used five minutes. mr. thune: -- with a couple of exception haves a background check as a part of that. i reserve the balance of my time. the presiding officer: the senator durbin 245z minutes and 14 seconds remaining. mr. durbin: mr. president, around washington this morning, hundreds of lobbyists strapped on their suits and 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.

would you listen to the group that has endorsed the thune amendment? do you know what's 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. and do you know what y they oppose it? because they realize that there are different standards in different states for conceal carry and in some states almost no standards at all. they realize that in 17 states, you don't need to even prove that you know how to fire a gun safely. and under thune's amendment, those people can go into states that require a test or even a test on a firing range. 31 states that require it, 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 conceal firearms. that means that 13 other states can send their people in with convictions for these misdemeanors, they can carry a

firearm legally under john thune's amendment. and let me say final, they realize that that i too that ifn to be a drunk driver in that state, 17 states, drunk drivers, you can still get a conceal carry permit. doesn't matter how many times you've been convicted for d.u.i.'s. whether you're a habitual drunk a reasonable doubt, an alcoholic, you can still get a conceal carry permit in 17 states. senator thune wants those people to be able to drive into your state where you say, frankly, you can't have a conceal carry permit if you can't 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 -- the presiding officer: senator, your time has expired. mr. durbin: -- right now who are throughout protecting us say no. and that's what we ought to say to the thune amendment, "no." mr. thune: mr. president, i would point out what i pointed out earlier and that is that this does not apply to the district odistrict of columbia.

but i also want to come back to the basic point and that is how did we get here today, why are we sneer well, we're here supposedly talking about the defense authorization bill. but last week, the democrat leadership decided to put a hate crimes amendment on the floor as the first amendment to the defense authorization bill. unrelated, ungermane, nongermane to the underlying defense authorization bill. now, the hate crimes bill, it could be argued cramps a lot of state laws because a lot of state laws have their own laws with regard to hate crimes. but we decided here, democrat leadership did, that it was more fortunate talk about hate crimes legislation than it was to talk about defense-related amendments. well, my view was, they're going to offer a hate crimes amendment to the -- on the floor of the united states senate, what better way to prevent hate crimes than to allow the potential victims of hate crime to defend themselves against those very hate crimes. and so i was going to offer this amendment, this conceal 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 and 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 that we had on the floor of the united states senate for the last week when we should have been talking about defense authorization issues. but that being said, i'll 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 tier ow their own s and laws, and every state does that differently. this does not preempt those. the states of wisconsin and illinois prevent conceal carry permit holders and so anybody -- there isn't anybody in any state in this country that's going to be able to travel through illinois or wisconsin and have -- and carry a gun because they just don't 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. and i believe this -- the studies are very clear, as i've said earlier, mr. president. when you talk about all -- they're all talking about, speculating about all the crimes that are going to be committed. people, conceal carry permit holders, if you look at the da data, are 15 times less likely than the rest of the public to commit murder. criminals, mr. president, commit crimes. not law-abiding citizens. not people who go down to their courthouse to get a conceal carry permit so that they can defend themselves against the very criminals who routinely break the laws and possess firearms illegally so that they can commit crimes. this is a reasonable, commonsense balance which i believe strikes the right