during the watergate scandal, voice of america, i'm told by those who were involved, that voice of america's coverage was hard hitting, and that helped a lot with foreign audiences. it helped them see us credible. we were not looking at our warts at all, and that gave us a certain credibility overseas, so yes, we do report the good, the bad, and the ugly, but we are americans. we're very proud of our country. we're not ashamed of saying so as well. >> host: david ensor, new director of voice of america. thanks for being on the communicators. keach hagey is with the "politico".

>> remarks from the president and ceo of the blue cross-blue

shield company, scott serota, talking about the changing role of health care delivery and what issues providers, purchasers, and consumers face as the health care law is put into practice. this is about 45 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon, everybody. let me welcome you to u.s. chamber. it's my pleasure today to introduce our distinguished speaker, scott serota. scott is the president and chief executive officer of the blue cross-blue shield association. the blue cross-blue shield is a confederation of 49 locally operated blue cross-blue shield companies. the blue system insures nearly 100 million americans or roughly about one out of every three of us across the country.

scott has been president and ceo since the year 2000 after serving two years as chief operating officer before that, and prior to all of that, he was executive vice president for system development, responsible for new business, strategy, and the blue technology evaluation center, which is the nation's leading source for evaluating the safety and ethics of emerging medical treatments in our society. before joining the blue system, scott was president and ceo of chicago based rush prudential health plans where he led the integration of rush presbyterian st. luke's medical center health plans and the prudential. earlier in his career, scott also created and led the physicians preferred health incorporated, which is a missouri based physician hospital organization.

this is a person who brings real world experience to his position and the association. scott earned a bachelor's degree from purdue university holding a master's degree in health administration and planning from the washington university school of medicine. in addition to providing trusted health care coverage to one in three americans, the blues are leading efforts with physicians, hospitalling, and others -- hospitalling, and others to innovate and create affordable health care systems for all americans. with the congress, politicians, and the courts continuing to discussion the implications of health reform, and with the administration continuing to detail and implement many of its provisions, it's a perfect time to hear from a health care leader. please join me in welcoming scott serota to the stage. [applause]

>> thanks, bruce, and thank you, all, for coming today, and a special thanks to the chamber and to the national chamber foundation for the opportunity to speak with you. i also want to take a second and recognize the chamber for its long history of supporting employer-based health care and continuing collaboration with us at the blue cross-blue shield association on a number of key issues -- [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[chanting] >> to create more conflict for health insurers at the expense of human suffering and preventable deaths. health insurer are not health providers. they deny us necessary medical treatment and charge increasing premium to make more profits because of health insurers and health care dollars goes to marketing, administration profits instead of health care,

$400 billion -- [inaudible] if we had improved medical costs, that money, and the united states money, single payer health system, for all the uninsured, and the underinsured. right now, every day in america because of a lack of health care -- [inaudible] we don't get treatment because we can't afford it.

people have the right to choose to save for health care, are keeping their house, and sending their children to college. we say this situation is not acceptable, -- [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] >> let's keep it in the interest of the 99%.

promised medicare for all. we are the 99%! we are the 99%! [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [applause] >> well, thank you, any questions? [laughter] well, i would like to tell you that we do value our relationship with the chamber, with all the companies large and small who are proud to count as our customers. together with the chamber and other partners, we at the blues are committed to keeping health care coverage affordable for small businesses, for all businesses, and for all americans. to achieve that, we need to fix a system that is fundamentally broken. in my remarks, i'll share a

vision for a new health care system that serves our citizens' medical needs and protects our country's economic health. in doing so, ill show ways in which we must all be involved to realize that vision. forever our own good and well being of our children, our families, our business, and our nation. let me start with a little bit of fact background. our health care system is fragmented today, and it's infirst time. consumers are forced to make important, and in fact, sometimes life influencing decisions with limited information. providers rely far too much on personal experience and individual judgment. the system is fundamentally based on misaligned incentives that yield inconsistent and sometimes very costly results. there's no doubt that fixing the health care system is an economic imperative for the u.s..

medical costs grew 48% over the last decade, nearly twice the consumer inflation rate. health care spending now exceeds $2.5 trillion annually, an average of $8,000 for every man, woman, and child in america, and more than 17% of our nation's gdp is spent on health care. that's far greater than any other nation on earth, and that share continues to grow. now, i'm here to tell you that the amount we're spending is really not the problem. the real problem is we're not getting the value for the dollars that we're spending. what could be more important than our health? why would we be concerned about spending 17% of the gdp if we get that level of value? we're not. life expectancy in the u.s. is just 26% -- or is number 26 in

the world from birth. we're behind countries like japan, greece, the united kingdom, and chile. each year, 98,000 people die from preventable medical errors, 46,000 harmful medication errors occur, and one-third of all people admitted to a hospital suffer an adverse event. an incredible 30% of health care spending goes towards ineffective, redundant, and sometimes harmful care. with all our collective resources, our ingenuity and resolve, we can do better. working together, we can realize a vision of the health care system that simply put keeps people healthy and ensures safe and effective care and sufficient care for people when they are ill. we identified the nation's health care challenge, and we tried to classify our solutions into four elements based on our

more than 80 years experience and leadership in providing coverage to nearly 100 million people in all 50 states, puerto rico, and here in the district. those four categories, the four pillars, if you will, are rewarding safety, doing what works, reenforcing front line care, and inspiring healthier living. these elements reflect a system view of where care delivery is rewarded for safe and effective treatments, where care is based on proven treatments and procedures and well coordinated across the systems touch points, where there's an emphasis on primary care to support people's efforts to stay well and manage chronic conditions so people can live full live, and where people are actively engaged in managing their own care and have the information they need to make smart decisions that improve and

help them sustain their lives. i'm proud to say that blues, as well as other health insurers, are leading the effort to transform care to realize this vision. we're rolling out in nearly every state new care modules that align safety and payment with improved outcomes. a few examples. in pennsylvania and west virginia, the local blue plan and providers are participating in a hospital pay for performance program that focuses on preventing upfections, promoting the use of evidence-based practices, and tieing payment to quality and safety targets. now, that sounds good in theory, but 52%ing hospitals saved 250 lives 234 one year by -- in one year by preventing infections. 250 lives focusing on just that one area in one part of the country. we'll also leveraging data and analytics to speed the adoption of care that works and shed

light on what doesn't work. for example here as well. we have our analysts do work, use data to show a commonly prescribed drug therapy was ineffective at treating pancreatic cancer, gave false hopes, and added more than $40,000 in costs fer case, and it didn't work. we had to find that out to save that money and reinvest it in procedures and protocols that do work. data sharing is also critical. another example here -- michigan hospitals, the success of michigan hospitals at reducing the number of dangerous and expensive hospital acquired infections in intensive care units. they coordinated with the michigan hospital association and participating hospitals and took very few practice call steps like completely draping patients during surgery, using a specific an septic, adhering to

a five-point checklist to ensure procedures are followed. they are simple things, but the results were impressive. over five years, over 1830 lives saved, more than 140,000 days were avoided, and treatments costing $300 million were averted. our commitment to primary care is also evident in the new medical home models which we're rolling out across the country including here in washington and virginia where we created the first of its kind program rewarding physicians for following special care plans for their sickest patients and achieving results that increase quality and reduce costs. more than 3,000 primary care physicians across the region are participating in this program to date. to keep people healthy and in control of chronic conditions, we're educating and engaging consumers, making it easier for

consumers to understand the conditions they have and the treatments required for them including the quality and the cost of alternatives to have productive conversations with their doctors armed with facts, armed with information to be better consumers. we're connecting parties with new online tools so share their experiences and review their interactions with health care payers and health care providers. we're working with physician partners, the american diabetes association, and others to provide chirp and their families easy to understand information about preventing and managing childhood obesity and diabetes. this cannot be realized without collaboration. we have to collaborate with hospitals, physicians, and other care givers, but the business community as well has a role in helping us create this new system. how many of you have changed our expect to change your health benefits to incorporate provider performance objectivings?

how much of you implemented work site wellness or other employee engagement programs? how many of you or your colleagues serve as board members or trustees of local hospitals? businesses are increasingly demanding health benefits giving greater consideration for quality networks and performance based provider compensation aiming to ensure safe and effective and efficient care. one national retailer recently spelled out in an rmp its firm expectation that insurance administrators will develop customized high performing networks and head towards new reimburressment models. another partnered with a local blew to pilot a patient center home targeting employees suffering from chronic physicians that misrepresent that company's medical

expenses. in that model, they worked with nurse case managers who are available on a 24/7 basis. the cost of participants in that program were 20% lower than a control group due to the decrease in emergency room utilization and hospitalization. that was not of the supplemental costs it cost to participate with the nurse practitioner or nurse manager on a 24/7 basis. participants also reported a 14% -- 14.8% increase in physical function and 16% increase in their mental function along with patient reported workdays missed over six months period less than half of what they were previous. good medical care is a good investment. it reduces your direct costs. it reduces your indirect costs. it also gives you a better prepared work force. as employers, you also play a

role in providing resources and incentives to engage your employees in capabilitying healthy believers and assume greater responsibility for their own health. no doubt, you're more familiar than i am with work cite initiatives, but i have a couple examples that stood out for me. blue star energy, a small, fast growing chicago company, no relation to blue cross-blue shield, that participates in a workplace wellness program started by the chicago chamber earlier this year. they offer free screenings, incentives, and education sessions. 46 of the local 90 employees logged more than a thousand hours of exercise, lost weight, and i want proved several health factors. another employer partner with the minnesota plan created evidence based practices. they modified their workplace to encourage healthy lifestyles, put an incentive base the program in to allow employees to buy down on their monthly

premium based upon their achievement of certain health measures, on biometric screening, and a health risk assessment. the employer achieved a 90% participation rate with savings of almost $2 million as a result of the improved health status of the work force. you and your peers also have an important role to play as corporate citizens and influence the way care is delivered in both a safe and effective manner in your communities. as directers or trustees of hospital boards, take leadership roles in understanding and continually improving the safety processes and preference which happen in those institutions. it needs to be an important part of every board meeting and of every agenda. beyond the my dish ri and moral -- myfiduciary and morals, it makes

a difference. 250 # 25*% of meeting time on quality and safety issues and to regularly hear from patients or family members who are harmed while in the hospital's care. you need to know what's going on in those institutions. surgical safety checklists and infection reduction programs in idaho found the greatest success when hospital trustees presents the program to staff and personalized their commitment to safety. blue plans across the country have developed programs to encourage hospital boards to become more engaged. we provide educational programs and financial incentives for them to learn more about quality and safety initiatives. the measures are now the second most commonly reviewed statistics by the boards for quality and safety trailing only those provided by cms. finally, i firmly believe that the private market in2340 vaition is central to

transforming health care systems. as evidenced by the health plan and provider examples i just shared, but the government has a role to play as well. that's why we just released our pathways -- our building tomorrow's health care system, i call it path ways because the first document was the pathway's document, and this is the supplement to it. i believe you have this at your seat. 24 is a call to action, to build upon investments learning and successes that we have to improve health care quality for all americans, to leverage these experiences and best practices to develop a true transformation in health care costs. this report highlights nearly 50 examples of blue cross-blue shield companies of what they're doing across the country, and what we, as a nation, need to be more of. our successing in improving lives of people in every community, in every state has led us to craft this plan of

action with our recommendations to the government as we may see larger scale improvements across all sectors. an economic assessment of this plan concluded that the potential impact, if the government agents on these recommendations could exceed $300 billion over the next ten years. first, we need national and local leadership to reward safety, to eliminate preventable errors, infections, and complications that harms hundreds of thousands of people each year and cost billions of dollars. we recommend that hhs beef up the fda drug safety reviews and aggressively incorporate safety measures and to pay for performance or pay for quality incentives in medicare and medicaid. we also believe it's critical to increase the use of technology such as e-prescribing to prescribe safer care. second, with close to one-third of all health care spending

going guards ineffective care, we need to change the incentives in our system and do what works. as i mentioned, the blues are enlisting models from coast to coast to align incentives and increase accountability so providers paid for quality outcomes rather than the volume of services they provide. in the same vain, we're recommending several proposals to the government expanding value based payment and medicare and medicaid and acting malpractice reform, providing safe harbors to providers who practice evidence-based care. we know these things work in the private sector. we have been doing them for years. we have to incorporate them into the public program to take maximum advantage of those things already tried and true and tested to have successful outcomes. third, we have to reenforce front line care by placing a higher value on primary care and ensuring there's an adequate work force to deliver it.

we recommend that the government protect primary care from any system payment reductions and redirect training dollars into primary care. we also recommend that the government expand their efforts to manage dual eligible people. people who are eligible both for medicare and medicaid to get them into a managed care or begin to manage their care. fourth, with three quarters of every health care dollar spent on chronic conditions, we need to inspire healthy living. we believe the government should do more to inspire americans to lead healthier lives by supporting healthy activity and healthy nutrition in schools and federal programs. in short, the government needs to take priewfn market innovations and implement them across the entire population. we know what works. we need to do more of it. in closing, the challenge before us is to transform an

underperforming, unsustainable system so that everyone has access to safe, effective, and affordable care. it's a challenge for me. it's a challenge for my fellow insurers because our mission and business model are con ting gent upon us keeping people well. it's a challenge for businesses whose productivity depends on healthy workers and whose benefit dollars deserve a high quality product with a fair return on investment, and it's a challenge for all americans whose prosperity fundamentally rests on a healthy u.s. economy. as a representative of blue cross-blue shield and the broader health insurance industry, i want to assure you we are committed to rising to this challenge. we'll continue to pursue the types of initiatives that i mentioned. we'll continue to innovate and look for solutions to complex problems. we'll continue to partner to look for support of providers, businesses, the community,

public officials, and any other stake holder interested to realize this opportunity to transform a broken system for ourselves and for future generations. thank you very much. [applause] i'm happy to take any questions that you might have. >> let me start up with the first one. >> not from you. [laughter] >> because i suspect it's probably on everybody's mind. as you know, the supreme court announced they're going to hear the mandate case, and while there's a lot of legal issues there, if we go back and come forward, the whole objective of the patient's protection and affordable care act was to have a fully insured market place. many of the changes in that law are predicated on a fully insured marketplace. give us a sense from your perspective of what happens if they pull that one brick out and shoot down the individual mandate, but leave the rest of

the law in place. >> leave it to bruce. [laughter] to ask the tough questions. well, your first opposition is that they will basically roll back the mandate, but leave the insurance reforms in place. i guess i preface it by saying both sides of this legal dispute think that's a bad idea. ..

yahoo!, there is a question over here. >> what. >> thank you very much for your comments.

you provided a number of examples from within the united states where best practices were exported to other areas. two questions. one is what is the extent to which we are looking at other countries which have had much lower costs and better outcomes with germany in that regard where i a understand the costs are $4,000 per patient, per person rather than hours which are about 8,000. the second, to what extent have you embraced or have the various blue cross systems embraced medical tourism either to send somebody for example from d.c. to the clinic elsewhere in this country or overseas to get high-quality outcomes at much lower cost? >> i will take the latter question first. medical tourism, as you define it, that is the ability to seek out the best provider, both from a cost and quality standpoint. something that blue house embraced wholeheartedly.

we have a program that we call surprisingly blue distinction and it is a program where we try to identify those people which are meeting or exceeding the marketplace, and we develop marketing to incentivize people because regardless of the geography. now it is a domestic program. we don't look internationally at the moment for those kinds of providers. there are some organizations that do look internationally. we are not at that level yet to find the best providers. there are organizations and companies that create incentives for people to travel outside of the u.s. for services. we do believe the best quality care still is here in the u.s.. the first question with regard to our their examples we can learn outside the u.s. the answer is yes. there are examples we can learn everywhere whether it is in canada, whether it is in great britain where they do a lot more

evidence of based practice, they do a lot more what some would call prescriptive kinds of medical care to germany and other places, but fundamentally you have a different culture. and it's very difficult to extract cultural differences outside the u.s.. it's hard enough to do it state-by-state within the u.s. than it is to simply import. so you have to look at those things and identify what works which is a pillar of what we believe and then figure out how you can incorporate that culturally into the u.s. system. i really believe health care is very much a local phenomenon. it's delivered in local communities, and reflects the culture of those communities, but we have to create an underpinning of efficiency and value and that is really what we are trying to do as we do our analytics on a nationwide basis to find those truths and communicate those on a nationwide basis. yet there is a question there.

he is coming with a microphone. >> i have two questions. one, how can accountability -- how has accountability helped healthcare, and number two, what are the trends of the health care industry in a growth state does it say or different? >> i'm not sure i got all the details there, but the health care industry because of the aging of the population is the growth. it's very much a growth market. we very much need more employment in the market. we need more primary care providers. we need more people who were able to help our seniors and

others, and as the population continues to expand, i think you will see more growth in the health care delivery side of things. it makes our comparative to get more efficient and add more value, extract more value even higher because as people age and there is greater demand for the system we have to have a way to provide that in a more cost-efficient fashion. i'm not sure i remember the first part of the question. >> accountability. you know, i'd think each american has to assume accountability for their own care and then we as an industry, both providers and ensures and the government need to provide every american and every provider access to data to information that allows them to be accountable because today we are asking people historically we've asked you to assume

accountability. we've asked your providers to assume accountability for care with insufficient data to take that responsibility. we have the data today. we have it in the blue system. we have it on a nationwide basis. we have to get it in the hands of the providers and make it transparent so you can see it, and then you can act on it and manage it in an appropriate fashion. when we align those incentives we do see successful outcomes and reduce costs and better quality. so, we have to do more of it. >> yes. >> could i ask you to project five years into the future under two scenarios. scenario number one is the individual mandate sustained and we go forward with reform what will healthcare look-alike five years from today and the reverse, if it is overturned,

but what health care look like five years off from that scenario? >> i'm not sure that my answer would be different in either scenario because the things that we need to do come as a society, we need to do whether the affordable care act stands or whether it is repealed. we needed to do it before the affordable care act was even introduced. we need to inject accountability into the health care system and a line incentives between providers and payers and consumers so that we are all working toward the same end. we need to provide better information so that people can make better decisions about care. we need to hold people accountable. so, i don't think -- five years may be too short. we can get into this problem in five years but won't get out in five years but if i project health care down the road, i think the delivery underlining the delivery, the way that the care is delivered is going to morph into the fashions and

which i saw your respective of whether the bill was repealed or not. what may change -- what will change certainly is the payment. if the payment -- if the bill was repealed, i think there will be more market based innovation, more market based continuity of employer based care. if the bill stays in place there is give the potential for the government hand. i think both markets will continue to exist in either scenario. if we are effective at transforming the way they deliver i think you will see a greater emphasis one way or the other depending on which outcome you project to a >> line a health economist for the american nursing association. recent research has shown about half of the private health care plans in the united states refused to credential unearthed practitioners and other

registered nurses. and this is despite a finding last year from the institute of medicine in the advanced practice in this debate registered nurses provide high-quality care. can you tell us what are you doing at the association to work with member companies to encourage them to accept advanced practice registered nurses into their private networks, and what if anything you may be doing with state legislatures to convince them to eliminate the barriers to practice of advanced practice nurses? >> i can't speak frankly to the specifics what each of the member companies are doing but i can speak to the philosophy that we have a system which is to enhance frontline care. if we are going to be able to treat the numbers of people we have to treat only going forward basis, we can't possibly train enough physicians fast enough in the primary care environment to do that. we are going to have to look towards nurse practitioners and

other advanced trained professionals to extend the care and extend their reach of primary care and to communities, and if we are successful bringing in the on venture into the insurance marketplace, we are going to have to be more reliant on nurse practitioners and others. my daughter is a nurse, too sali have a vested interest in this as well. but i believe we are -- i believe it is inevitable that we do that. as far as the specifics each company's doing and what we're doing what state legislatures i don't have that at my fingertips. if you get a card to one of our people here we are working that in a number of markets. i would be happy to communicate with you and perhaps partner with you to move it along quicker. one more audience questioned? what ever you pick. >> hello, thank you very much for your remarks. i'm interested in your thoughts

on a national health strategy, and i don't mean the legislation we just sort of past that may be changed but something that looks of the demographics going forward in the country obviously with the aging population and changes go in with which health insurance is restructured to reflect the burden of disease affecting each segment of our population. and within that could you answer the question of whether or not there might be room for disincentive within health insurance premium structure, for the simple, if i am a safe driver, my premium goes down, well if i am a nonsmoker and i maintain a healthy weight and exercise three or four times a week, why not -- be justified as some level to give me some benefit in terms of my premium it seems to me the only differential in premium is the age. could you address the national health strategy looking at our demographics going forward

particularly in light of the burden of chronic diseases? thank you. >> i would say that one of the reasons, not the only reason, but one of the reasons we are where we are with regard to the health care system that america being fundamentally broken as we didn't have a vision. again i'm not talking about a bill i am talking about a collective vision on what we want health care to be in america, and so i would argue that had we had that in the 60's we might have created a different outcome today. we are where we are. i think it's important we get some collective vision of where we want to go and what we want health care to be for all americans to think that's important, not easy, but important. payment is just a piece of that. we tend to confuse and we've

gotten confused over the last ten years about health care payments versus health care. they are separate issues and we've tended to blend it them. i believe healthy behavior ought to be rewarded, people to get differential reimbursement based on their health status. we are not able to do that in a number of instances because of the wall but i think we ought to. and a member of our companies to that and do reward and incentivize health risk assessments and weight loss, they incentivize smoking cessation and healthy lifestyles, bmi reductions and the due reward their participants for that kind of behavior and those that do have better outcomes than those that don't. so we know it works. so we would encourage that that would be part of any vision that if you are going to ask people to be accountable, we ought to create incentives for them assuming that accountability.

there is a gentleman in the middle but has raised his hand from the beginning. he might ask me a really tough question, too so this might be a mistake but this gentleman right here has tried to get in a question from the beginning. can we please just give him a chance. this might be a mistake. i don't know. [laughter] be nice now. >> [inaudible] >> -- in terms of how the medical care is supported. you see it continuing to be basically employer reimbursed or some other? islamic there is an important role for the coverage. i think that creates a sense of community and employers believe that it's part of their responsibility ought. there will be in place to the great place for the coverage as i look forward and we will see a

rise in the individual market as well. more and more people will be purchasing their own care or engaged in purchasing their own care and that's why we've to be successful in creating means and information for people to be able to do that. i don't think it's going away. at least we hope it's not going away. thank you very much for your attention. i appreciate it. [applause] >> thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your participation today. let me end by thanking the sponsors once again the blue cross blue shield association, the diplomatic career and the week for their participation in making today's event possible. thank you very much.

>> [inaudible conversations]

mali house oral committee meeting on the national right to carry concealed firearms legislation. the bill would allow gun owners with the proper permits to carry firearms across state lines. this is one hour and 40 minutes. >> the rules committee will come to order. we're here for the consideration of h.s. 822, the national right to carry reciprocity act of 2011 and happy to welcome the distinguished chairman of the committee of the judiciary and please come forward, chairmaning

smith. we are also anticipating thatwe. bobby scott will be joining with the table. so let me say that first of all, welcome back to all the members of the rules committee. i hope everyone had a be joinine table. first of all, welcome back to all the members of the rules committee. i hope everyone had a productive week. we have, as i think everyone who has looked at the schedule is aware a very, very busy schedule meeti meeting. tried to convince me we're meeting every day, it will feel like it. today, tomorrow, wednesday. we'll have a very full schedule going into friday. having said that, let me again extend a welcome to my good friend mr. smith and say that without objection any prepared statement you have will be in the record in its entirety and we welcome your summary. >> thank you. i'm going to give a brief statement and of course we'll be happy to answer your questions.

i appreciate the opportunity to testify today regarding hr 822 national right to carry reciprocity act 2011. hr 822 was introduced by mr. sterns of florida and mr. shuler of north carolina. it is co-sponsored by 245 members from both sides of the aisle. the bill allows law abiding gun owners with valid state issued permits or licenses to carry a concealed firemen in any other state that also allows concealed carry. this legislation does not preempt a state's ability to set conceal carry requirements for its own residents. it requires states that currently permit people who carry concealed firearms to recognized other state's valid carry permits much like the states recognize driver's licenses i should by other states. it does not affect state laws governing how firearms are carried or used in the states. a person visiting another state must comply with all laws and regulations governing the

carrying of a concealed firemen in that state. state shows carrying concealed weapons reduces violent crime rates by deterring assailants and allowing law abiding students to defend themselves. a study regarding the effect of conceal carry laws on crime rates estimated, quote, when state concealed handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by more than 7%. rapes and aggravated assaults fell by similar percentages. the study replicated and results confirmed by other scholars, some of whom found the study underestimated the effect of laws on violent crime rates. this bill allows americans who travel to take their second amendment rights with them. congress has previously passed laws to permit certain absentive duty or retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons in other states. hr 822 extends the same ability to all law abiding citizens.

hr 822 was the subject of a hearing by judiciary crime subcommittee and considered and approved by the full committee on object 25th. i requested the rules committee grant and appropriate rule that allows for expeditious consideration of hr 822. >> thank you very much chairman smith and thanks for your hard work on this. i'm impressed with one of the points that you made. there's nothing that imposes on a state that does not have a concealed carry measure any kind of responsibility. i know there's been a lot of talk about that. recognition of states rights is a very important provision you have in this measure. >> this bill actually recognizes states rights in two very substantive and serious ways. first is if a state has voted not to allow individuals to have a concealed carry permit, an individual cannot carry weapons or guns or firearms into that state. the only state that is in that category is the state of illinois, so no one would be able to carry weapons into that state. another way it respects states

rights because if a state, for example, does not allow a concealed carry permit holder in their tate to, say, go into a public building, go into a bar, go to a sporting event with a firemen, an individual coming from out of state cannot do any of those things either. it respects both local and state laws in regard to concealed carry permits. >> thank you very much. we appreciate it. mr. sessions. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. chairman smith, thank you for appearing before the rules committee today. i'm very excited about this bill. this has been talked about since i've been in congress and i'm sure a long time before. i've been a co-sponsor of this effort and strongly support it. the facts that you presented about evidently from mr. john lott, who is an author who speaks about our ability to protect ourself as i think a right we have but with a

profound effect on deterrence to crime. do you have any more information about that? i really do believe we found in texas that at the time we did this literally crime went down. >> crime typically goes down 6 to 7% whenever a state has implementation mentioned a conceal carry, allowed a conceal carry permit. you asked if there was any additional information. there have actually been 18 studies that have shown the crime rate has dropped and dropped precipitously when a concealed carry permit allowed in that state. there have been zero students indicating the crime rate increased. >> this is, once again, an indication to me of how important, as you characterize it being able to carry forth your constitutional rights, especially second amendment where you go. i think the one question which i missed is, if a state does not

have, or washington, d.c. does not have this ability, how does this bill -- >> if a state does not allow an individual -- presently does not allow an individual to have conceal carry, then reciprocity would not hold in those cases and you would be recognizing d.c. rights or states rights. they would not have to allow someone to cross their borders with a concealed carry. >> to me that shows great respect for others, which i think is what this bill is about is respecting everybody's constitutional right, legislative intent where those have been spoken. i'll be in full support of this bill. >> thank you. >> mr. scott, we've already begun the questioning if you would like to offer some commence. >> i would just ask my statement be placed in the record. >> included in the record. >> follow up to this quechlt did i understand him to say if you have an out of state permit going into another state have

you to comply with the regulations in that state even though you're not entitled to a permit in that state? >> no, if a state, for example -- if i may respond. >> absolutely. this is the discussion you and i have. >> there is only one state i'm aware of in addition to the district of columbia where there's been an affirmative decision made not to issue conceal carry permits. under this bill you would not be allowed to take firearms into those jurisdictions, that's correct. >> if you live in one state and are not qualified to get a concealed weapons permit in your state, and want to go to another state to get a concealed weapons permit, you can use that concealed weapons permit anywhere except your home state. you can run around the country. even though you're not entitled to get a permit, and even though the state you go to wouldn't let you get a concealed permit because of convictions you've

got or some other reason. >> mr. chairman, may i respond to that? you have a situation in america today where there are 49 states, obviously, who have and allow conceal carry permit. there are 40 states that allow varying degrees of reciprocity. this bill allows it is a national or federal standard to apply to all those states. to repeat what i just said and get more to the subject at hand, if a state says, for example, to its own residents that you cannot -- if you have a conceal carry permit go into a public place, might be a school, might be a public building or whatever, you are still not allowed to go into those buildings if you're coming from out of state. there are going to be instances where there are slight difference between the states and what their standards are to give or issue a concealed carry. what we have said, if a state has a concealed carry, you're going to be able to go into that state regardless there. again the idea toys have consistency, have a national standard and still respect

states rights and also local jurisdictions rights. you might decide you can't take a firemen, for example, onto school premises. >> let's be clear, if you are not entitled to get a weapon because of convictions, the state has decided people with certain convictions can't get a concealed weapons permit. you can go to another state, get a concealed weapons permit and that concealed weapons permit would have to be accepted anywhere, even though if you're in virginia, go to utah, get a concealed weapons permit, go all over north carolina and with a concealed weapons permit, carrying concealed weapons, where i was not able to get a concealed weapons permit in virginia and north carolina wouldn't allow me to get a concealed permit because of certain convictions or other kinds of problems, that you're going to have one state be a concealed weapons permit state. there's no -- we're not sure whether you even have to show up in person. you order this over the internet

you pay enough fee. get your concealed weapons permit. you're good everywhere but your own state. >> let me address what he said. anyone convicted of a felony is not eligible to get a concealed carry permit. nor are they able to get a concealed carry permit if they have been convicted of miss demeanor. some may be a miss demeanor. those states decide the crime is sufficiently severe and should be felonies as they are in many other states then that eligible would not be allowed to get a concealed carry. that's not a problem with the bill that's a problem with the states not taking this seriously enough. >> some states require to you have some minimum degree of training so if you're carrying a concealed weapons permit, you

know what you're carrying. these var yags, the state ought to decide if you have certain quicks you shouldn't be able to carry a concealed weapon. if you're going to carry a concealed weapon, you should have certain training. and so you have people coming into your state untrained with convictions that would prohibit them from getting a concealed weapons permit in that state. that's why the international association of chiefs of police, major city's chief association, police foundation, national peace officers association, national organization of black law enforcement executives all oppose the legislation. >> thank you mr. chairman. in response to what you just said, mr. lot, when doctor the was killed in church. we did some study with crs to see what most of us had grown up believing was a sanctuary, a religious building is no longer

that. the number of people killed during church services are in religious service were really quite appalling to us. the number of law enforcement, people killed in the line of duty has increased exponentially. i'm not happy to see this bill. it continues. we're absolutely not going to do anything in this house about creating jobs anywhere. but new york -- let me just speak about my own state here for a minute. convicted of sex crimes carrying possession of a gun, this bill would override that? >> i'm sorry? >> new york prohibits people convicted of sex crimes from carrying weapons. does this bill override that? >> depend on the level of the sex crime. if they are felonies, the law would not allow those individuals to get concealed carry. >> if you can get the concealed weapons permit in your home state, you could bring it into new york and the concealed weapons permit is good

notwithstanding the fact that new york had a different idea. >> do i understand from what you said if you live in new york and go to utah, if we use that for an example that you brought up and get a concealed weapon permit, you can go back to new york? >> you can't come back to your home state but any other state with that concealed weapons permit. >> new york denies firearms to person with domestic violence, 14 states require good moral character. this would allow someone with domestic abuse to cross state lines and kill somebody. >> if i may respond. if there's a domestic violence miss demeanor, it is denied. let me go back to a minute ago. i don't remember it a fault of

the legislation that some states have some crimes not serious enough to be a felony. if the state you're from decides some sex crime only can be determined to be a miss demeanor. it if they don't want anyone to come into that state they have to say the crimes are a more serious felony. >> "new york times" had a electy argue going for pages, number of felons throughout the country, many with mental problems and how easy it was to regain their gun permits. i really want to recommend everybody that you look at that i think what bothers me most. i'd like unanimous consent to put that in the record. >> in the record. >> our colleague was grievously wounded 10 months ago, shot in the head. by all amounts a man who was a

superb justice shot to death. a nine-year-old girl who only wanted to go see her congresswoman was killed. federal employees were killed. >> were these individuals killed by those -- >> with gabby gifford. >> i'm sorry? >> gabrielle gifford. >> she was shot. >> but they were not injured or killed or maimed by an individual with a concealed carry permit, i don't believe. >> i'm assuming he did not walk out there with those guns blazing out of the store. >> they are interesting statistics but they are irrelevant to the bill. >> dead is dead. >> that has nothing to do with concealed carry. >> you want everybody to have a gun. >> no, no, that's an inaccurate statement to say that. do not put words into my mouth. i do not want everybody to have a gun. that should be clear from my opening statement. >> but everybody has one. >> not everybody had a gun

either. not everybody has a gun. not everybody should have a gun. >> second amendment rights. >> we're talking about a conceal carry permit. we're not talking about other crimes, violence committed with records. >> this is important to me. i want to say this. the rights given -- frankly i've never agreed with that. i believe a well regulated militia headed up by general daniel morgan in the revolutionary war consisted of people who fought from the prairies and brought their guns and shot and went back home with them, i believe that's what the second amendment is. but in any case, what amendment protects that little girl and that judge and gabby gifford and her staff? what are they supposed to do if the rights of the gun toter are more important than their right to go to the grocery store or go back home, are we supposed to learn to dodge bullets or are we all supposed to wear bulletproof garb. >> with all respect we're here to talk about a conceal carry,

you're entitled to your opinion is all i can tell you. >> i think it's all the same piece, the same package. i'm sure i'm with law enforcement on this. >> you might wan to prohibit all guns. i don't know if you want to prohibit all guns or not. that's the natural result of the policy you're describing. i don't agree with that but that's not why we're here. >> i sure don't. frankly, i don't think it does us any good to have so many citizens killed. i don't like people being killed. >> if you want to prohibit all guns that's up to you. but the subject of gun control goes beyond this bill right here. >> i think anybody to allow anybody to carry concealed weapons into a bar. >> they don't have to. if a jurisdiction prohibits that, a state prohibits that, a city prohibits that, an individual with a conceal permit cannot go into that bar or

public building. >> i still look wyc onto know if we can get ourselves an amendment to the constitution to protect those of us who go about our daily business with some possibility that we could get home from work or that we could go see our congressperson without fear of being shot to death. maybe we ought to really start to work on something like that, see what we can do. obviously i think people who get these gun permits, many of them who commit heinous crimes. >> if you want to reduce crime in america, violent crime, you would support a wider use of concealed crime because demonstrably it reduced crime. eighteen studies show it reduces crime. not a single study shows it increases crime. >> i'm not going to take that on any kind of faith. that doesn't come inside with anything i've seen anywhere.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank chairman smith for his work on the bill and bringing it to the house for its vote. we all took an oath to uphold the constitution. in my opinion the right to carry is an integral part of our upholding the constitution. and frankly i don't think the founders intended for concealed carry to have been carved out as it has been in the past. so i'm very happy to see this bill come forward. i think if there were a definition, a true definition of the term straw dog in the dictionary, it's this last so

soliliquy which as the chairman said had absolutely nothing to do with this legislation. i agree with the chairman that more widespread use of weapons by the law abiding public would do a great deal to bring down the crime rates in this country. and i appreciate very much your bringing this bill to us. i look forward to its passage by a wide margin in a bipartisan fashion. >> thank you very much. just a couple of things. first of all the issue of states rights. my understanding is that if you get a permit to carry concealed weapon in one state, that would allow you to carry a concealed

weapon in another state that may have had a higher standard of what would be required for you to get that license to begin with, that permit to begin w am i correct? some states require -- that is a state's right issue about who gets the permits to begin with. so when you say this doesn't do anything, it does. it says to some states we want a higher standard in place before we get somebody permit. that gets overridden by somebody who gets a permit by somebody in a state that has very little standards. we've got -- mrs. slaughter talked about domestic violence. 38 states that prohibit individuals convicted of certain offenses such as stalking, domestic violence, impersonating a police officer from owning a gun. but this bill would override all that. so this is a state's rights

matter. i sound confused because we have all these debates about how we want to get the federal government off people's backs and let the states decide what they want to do. here we're making a very specific carve out saying except when it comes to this. i'm just curious. >> what i think comes up with the common standard here, the states at least recognize a right for concealed carry permit. there may be different gradations between states. >> that's important. who gets a permit. what it takes to get a permit to begin with. >> they recognize the right. that right is something -- >> in a state that would require somebody to get certain amounts of training before they get it. >> right. >> they may not necessarily -- the person who gets it in one state may not necessarily get it in another state. once he gets it, he can bring it all over the place. >> to some extent that's true. you can go into a state that doesn't have the exact

requirements of another state. >> that's a big deal. >> i hope it's a big deal to you and others to apply to others states. >> that is a big deal, what it takes to get a permit. >> the idea here is reciprocity. let me give you another example. different states have different requirements for driver's licenses. yet other states recognize other state's driver's licenses even though there may be different distinctions as to what it takes to get a driver's license. that idea of reciprocity exists in any number of licenses including a conceal carry license. >> yield to the gentleman for a moment. i wonder if that well articulated reciprocity applies to marriage definitions between the states. >> i suspect it applies to marriage license. >> including some states allow same-sex marriage licenses that would be good as well in other states as reciprocity. >> not always. not always. >> consistent -- >> i think i like my example better, the driver's licenses.

>> in all matters of civil licenses, whether it's permission to drive, marriage, concealed weapon, i think there's a approach you indicated with regard to reciprocity. >> i think there's a lot more in common between a concealed carry an a driver's license than there is between licenses that deal with social behavior to tell you the truth. >> would you care to elaborate? these are, again, a legal recognition of a particular item that's a civil function and generally has more of a state sovereignty issue on those. again, for the convenience of our populous as a country, the argument would be why not have the reciprocity with regard to marriage as well. >> i have a hunch you're going to be making that argument, are you not? >> back to the gentleman from massachusetts. >> again, i think there's a difference between a driver's license and the ability to carry concealed weapon into my state. do you have any comment why all

these police chiefs organizations and police associations are against this bill? >> i'd have to let some of the associations i've heard about not what you might call mainstream law enforcement associations. i'd have to know more about the list and take a look at them. >> would the gentleman -- >> the international association of chiefs of police in major cities chiefs association, which is comprised of police chiefs of 56 major u.s. cities, i've got to say i think we're talking about -- fringe organizations. >> public safety, who carries a concealed weapon within your jurisdiction is more of a question of public safety than who is married and who isn't married. that's not a question of public safety. and so when you're talking about states rights, one of the reasons the police officers have a problem with this is if you find somebody with a concealed weapon, and they pull some paper out of their pocket that

purports to be an out of state concealed weapons permit, they don't know what they are looking at. you get some sheriff in a county in massachusetts, and he's presented with some document that says it's from new mexico, is it valid? most of the states -- most of the states don't have 24-hour verification, so you can't call anybody. one of the reasons that virginia doesn't have reciprocity with several states is they do not have 24-hour verification. you can call some phone number and ascertain whether or not this guy has a concealed weapons permit or not. because they don't have the 24-hour verification, virginia does not have reciprocity with them because they want that ability to verify. that's why the chiefs have a problem with this legislation. >> would the gentleman yield just a minute? let me respond. if all someone had to do was show a concealed carry permit alone, that might raise some

questions. in point of fact you don't just have to show that, you have to show a government id as well. furthermore there's been a development there. you can check to make sure. there's an inlet system that allows law enforcement agencies and other state agencies to check the validity of out of state conceal permits. even if you're in a state that doesn't have the inlet system you can access that from out of state. there is a way to make sure the person who has the permit -- i've just been told it is now available 24 hours. i hope that's accurate. >> that's not what we were told during the hearing. >> mr. do you have any more, mr. scott? >> no, except the verification and you mentioned states rights. this is a big that's the question the state weeks, andapons.

that's a question the state makes and the purpose of this bill is to override that with the lowest common denominator. >> i just have one final comment, we came back from a recess. we all spent a week in our districts. i'm sure you spent a week in your district. i didn't run into a single person who talked about this issue. i ran into people who don't have jobs. i ran into people who were concerned about whether they could afford to send their kids to college. i ran into people who are losing their homes. ran into people struggling small businessmen and women, making a living, saying what are you doing here in congress. we're doing this. i've got to be honest with you. in the scheme of things and with the economic crisis we're dealing with, and i respect the work that gets done on the judiciary committee, we should be jobs every single day of the week. i find it very difficult to look at this as a jobs bill, to be honest with you. so i don't know what we're

thinking here. but this is not what i heard back home. i'm willing to bet this is not what you heard back home either. >> actually i was going to point out there might be a difference between massachusetts and texas because when i brought this up at town meetings they were very interested in it. >> i bet some of the people in texas would also be interested in jobs, too, because we have an economic crisis we're trying to dig ourselves out of and they are looking for help in congress. quite frankly, with respect, this is not a problem to our economic problems in our country. we should begin with jobs bills instead of this, with all due respect. i yield back my time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it is really heartening for me to see this fealty toward federalism my friends on the democrat side have finally found. i assume because this thing is so unique we have extra lights here, the light has found this

room. we'll now be dealing with states rights issues on a whole bunch of issues we've ignored in the past. i'm proud of that concept of federalism. let's hope you hold onto that constitutional concept for the remainder of the session as strongly as you have tonight. i know deep down inside you understand why the founding fathers wrote that concept. without seeing specifically into the document itself. mr. smith, could i ask a question? i don't know if the phrase, the lautenberg amendment is something of which you are familiar. >> yes, to some extent. >> how does this bill impact the lautenberg amendment that was passed in the '80s, '90s, which would deny -- >> when i think of the amendment at least as it's been discussed recently, it has to do with refugees coming from the soviet union. so i don't think that would be related. >> this one dealt well before i

came here with the ability of someone to have a concealed weapon permit if they were convicted or had been accused of the domestic violence event even if they happen to be a member of the law enforcement community. i realize at the time the law enforcement community was violently opposed to that but congress seemed to pass that amendment anyway. does this bill have some kind of impact on that or would it leave it the same way it is. >> i understand it does not have any impact on that. >> so that effort of the federal government to dictate to states what would be or would not be gun policy, which would not fit with federalism but was accepted by a lot of people who are still here on the other side, that has no impact then. >> that's correct. >> does this have impact on open carry laws? >> not to my knowledge. >> so those still stay the same. if this were not the case, and if i were from the wild west, as people have assumed, and i did

have a concealed weapon permit, and i wanted to drive back here to this bastion of civilization we call washington, d.c., what would i have to do with that perm as i drove from state to state to state, if this bill were not in effect. >> under current law, you would not be able to take that firemen from state to state. >> so i would have to wait and to the first state i got check what their laws were and either put it in the trunk or continue to carry. then i can take it back out the next state i got to. >> correct. under current law, of course, because d.c. has chosen affirmatively not to allow concealed carry, you ultimately would not be able to drive into the district of columbia under those conditions. >> since it would be very difficult for the average gun owner that has a concealed weapon permit to know the intricacies of every state, would it not be a significant disadvantage for them to have to do that, or at least it would be -- let's put it in a positive

way, a significant advantage for them to realize that would not have to be a practice of stopping, hiding it, stopping, unloading it, stopping, hiding it one more time. >> that's correct. >> obviously the chairman, i'll always yield. i'm not a fool. >> that would be the case under the legislation itself. >> that's correct. good point. >> you'd also, as you go from state to state, as the chairman has indicated, you still have to obey the laws of that state. once you've got the permit. >> one of the wonderful things -- >> whether you go into a bar with a concealed weapon, some schools, some colleges. but you'd have to abide by the state law. you'd have to know all those state laws as you go from state to state anyway, whether this bill passes or not. >> probably a good point. i guess the first step is a first step in the right direction. mr. smith, if i could ask a

couple others. john lott who used to be from the university of chicago, was he part of the testifying process for this? would any of his studies added to the record? >> study cited and put into the record. he, himself, did not testify. >> when you said the studies have indicated those states that have a more rational approach to allow people to have concealed weapons permits, rational approach, to be able to defend themselves with guns, have a better record as far as the overall crime rate concerned based on economic work. >> if i may go into detail. based on data from fbi annual crime report, the right to carry states, those that widely allow concealed carry 22% lower total crime rates, 46% lower robbery rates, 12% less aggravated assault rates as compared to the rest of the country. >> mr. chairman even though it looks like that was a setup question, i did not know if you

had dealt with john lott. i do know john lott, have worked with him in the past, read his studies. it was a legitimate question of inquiry. >> he's conducted several studies all with the same results. >> we have -- we've talked in some detail about comparing driver's license, which you do have the ability going with a concealed weapon permit license. is there not at least some distinction between those two? ie, is not a driver's license not privileged covered by any part of the constitution as a constitutional right, vis-a-vis a concealed weapon permit which does deal with a second amendment right in the constitution, which is certainly not a privilege but, indeed, a constitutional right? >> between the two, i think i know where you're headed. the second amendment right to carry an use a firemen certainly would be even stronger than, say, a driver's license which is not necessarily constitutionally

correct. >> in trying to balance this equation, states rights as well as constitutional right of the second amendment, it is a balancing act. i feel somewhat frustrated that people all of a sudden want to use states rights now when they haven't used them in other situations. also feel a significant act a constitutional right should take prosecutes denies in some way, shape, or form over a principle, a privilege, i.e., driver's license, other kinds of license that is may be there, it is frustrating to me that congress in year's past has violated both states rights as well as the constitutional right for the second amendment in things like the lautenberg amendment which tried to trump it and was opposed by the law enforcement agencies at the time. onso we have a history of doing things improperly in the past, which i hope we can change going forward. i also found unique philosophy we heard recently in this meeting dealing with the

militia. that certainly violates what james madison defined at a militia and purpose of a militia as well as what james madison wrote when it deals with whether people should have a gun and know how to use it. i certainly heard some unique concepts here about what we should do to individuals to prohibit a predescribed incident which may or may not happen in the future. i realize we've had unique concepts here as to the difference between a privilege of somebody in a state versus a constitutional right of somebody in a state. since i don't have a concealed weapon permit, i don't have to have a problem of driving and loading and unloading my car within every state boundary i hit. >> that's correct. i think the fundamental point there is a strong constitutional right to bear arms is something that should be respected and guarded.

>> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i would like to point to other organizations, as mr. scott did, that are supportive of this measure not being passed. and just in case of mr. smith doesn't know about those, perhaps he does know about the american bar association and the association of prosecuting attorneys. not public defenders but prosecuting attorneys. >> certainly the american bar association in recent years has become a very liberal organization, so their endorsement is not a surprise or their opposition is not a surprise. >> i find that interesting having served on several committees in that group and didn't find all those liberals that you're talking about.

but i hear you. i want to make it very clear and go a little bit to his point that i imagine lifting from an article today written by frank -- no, in october written by frank brune, it has the title "have glock will travel." imagine how apthey would be if they had to be values, new york, connecticut, honor more per missive gun control regulations from the south and west. as it happens these three northeastern states all perform marriage equality. same-sex marriages, which more conservative states do not, you have to recognize.

so i guess i'll be joining him tomorrow in that argument. let me smack down most immediately the notion that there is newfound attitudes in the democrats offerings that have to do with state's rights. there are many of us that wouldn't be here if all of states rights had been observed in the way that they were put forward. the problem that you have here in my judgment is that the states have put forward a considerable amount of time trying to determine just what is best for their citizenry with reference to safety. last night i was at an event in

fort lauderdale and the sheriff of broward county, one of our colleagues on this committee is a former sheriff. the sheriff of my county is republican and a friend of mine, a.m. alarm berty. when -- when i pointed out, in addition to his being astounded we would be doing this, the exchange we had is why would anybody want to become a police officer with this kind of confusi confusion. if this were to be granted by the senate and president, signed where we would go. i want to ask you, mr. smith, you mention the inlet system. which states do not have the inlet system? >> i will have to check.

17think something around 12 the .. have the inlet system. as i say, you can now call into the database from outside of those states. >> so a police officer at 3:00 a.m. in the morning in one of those states that makes a stop, or mr. scott pointed to that, what is that person's -- >> that is, i think, just a difference -- that is a factual question. it's my understanding you can call in 24 hours a day. mr. scott recalls during our hearing that was not necessarily the case. we'll have to determine what is accurate. >> i gather, then, you don't think police officers have enough to do by stopping people, now we're going to allow for this. >> no, i wouldn't want to have the record reflect that that's my view. i do think protecting the fundamental right to bear arms is worth doing even if it takes

up some time. >> then let's go to an airport and talk about taking up some time. i just got off of an airplane with 240 people on it. and i'm sure many members in here did as well. what happens when 40 of them show up at the airport? and i doubt very seriously if on any given day on any one airplane that would be the case. let me tell you how that might work. let's say somebody was leaving the gun show that just took place in marietta, georgia, and was on their way to the gun show begin -- going to south carolina. forty others are leaving the gun show. how does that work? what do those people do, check

it in at the counter? >> the bill does nothing affirmative to allow someone to carry a firearm on an aircraft. >> i can drive to new york to utah, i wouldn't have had one because new york's laws are restricted but i could go from new york and get me a gun and then drive back to new york and new york under this law would have to observe my carrying concealed weapons prerogative. >> not if it's your hometown. not if it's if i don't go to my hometown. if i go to utah -- >> it's good in 49 other states, not your home state. >> so i go to utah then and i get me a gun permit and i can carry it anywhere i want to except certain states. well, you see, that's crazy, and that's why in this particular instance we're getting ready to get way off the track with

something. this doesn't appear to be particularly relevant, but i have in my hand the gun shows that are established in the united states of america in the month of november alone, and at eve of those gun shows i see the big signs all the time. as a matter of fact, i've been thinking about how to break that up i know the first day that we see a sign saying african-american gun show in harlem in liberty city in mile, there ain't going to be no more gun o >> there's something drastically wrong with reppizing the society. nobody has any problem getting a gun. most states already allow some form of carrying a concealed weapon, but the rub comes when states have stricter provisions and you need then only to read that felons get guns and they

get carrying a concealed weapons permit. the lead column dealt specific live we the number of people that are felons, real felons, not misdemeanors but people that had committed felonies before that got guns and then went somewhere and killed somebody, and it's all right, i gather, if they can pass a less restrictive, like sending it in the way for carrying a concealed weapons permit, it's okay for them to have a gun. you and i know it's not okay, okay? so i find it strange in borrowing from mr. mcgovern's position. coming up on 19 years in this institution. seems to me my friend -- and many of them are my friend -- spend a lot of time concerning

themselves about guns or gay rights and golf. last week i had to be reminded about my faith in god. this week i'm getting ready to anybody just about carry a concealed weapons just about anywhere, and i guess next week we'll get around to equality marriage issues, and we won't have done one single solitary thing to cause an american to have a job. you're going to have all the guns you need. no gay people are going to be around you. your children ain't going to school with no black children, and you ain't going to have no job. i saw him two years ago, and he told me it came true. he doesn't have a job and ain't got one because he is a carpenter, and wanted guns and didn't want black people to go to school with him and didn't

want gay people to have marriage equality. there are those of us that are goal to continuously rail against this, and i think it's absurd that we're spending our taxpayer time, our time, here in this institution, discussing something that, number one, ain't going to become the law, and number two, shouldn't become the law. if we follow this line of roping, and mayor bloomberg and the majors against illegal webs, their web site, www.our laws.org where they say the bills we're considering may very well allow people convicted of assault, domestic abuses, drug addicts, stalkers, people with violent arrest records, people convicted of illegal firearms possession, sex predators, habitual alcohol abuse, people with zero training

who never touched a gun before. if we're going to permit them to have -- carrying concealed weapons, it's absurd to the highest degree. state legislators have intensely debated and ultimately decided their own standards for who can carry a loaded concealed weapon in their community. 38 states do not issue permits to people who have been convicted of certain felonies and violent misdemeanors, like assault of sex crimes. 36 states do not issue permits to people under the age of -- and 35 states have safety training and proof of competence with a firearm. this legislation would eliminate many of those standards, reducing concealed carry permitting or to a lowest common denominator imposed by congress

as a federal mandate. i think it will put police officers at risk in every state, and i think it is -- i gather we're going to hide under the notion that ignorance of the law is no discussion. that would be the only way to reach some of these people, and there's no way in the world that a person that got a gun permit in one state is going to know what the laws are in another state, and i gather they're going to be required to. and how crazy is that? knowing local laws and recognizing when someone is breaking them already keeps our law enforcement busy. and we don't have any real national system to check who can legally carry a concealed weapon. i just think it's absolutely absurd. simply having a concealed carry permit would enable a gun trafficker to bring cars or backpacks full of gun across

state lines and they could simply present their out of state carry permit if they got stopped. i think we have reached the height of absurdity in this institution, and we need to reject this measure, and i hope that we do. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to say to my friend from florida that the issues you raise may be real but there are issues we already confront today. your great state of florida has reciprocity agreements with 35 other states. i have a concealed permit in florida. i it's recognized in 35 other states, and today i am required to understand the rules and regulations of those 35 other jurisdictions. i have permission to carry but i have permission to carry only under the rules of that home state. now, mr. chairman, my understanding is that's exactly what hr822 would do as well. is that correct?

>> that's correct. and i'm not aware of any state that allows an individual convicted of a felony to get a concealed carry permit. >> i'd be happy to yield to my friend. >> did i hear you say you're required if you get that carrying conceal weapons permit in florida, to know the laws in the other states? >> required to obey the laws in the other states. >> obey the laws. how about knowing them? ignorance of the law is no excuse as i say to my friends. >> which i absolutely, absolutely agree with. >> mr. chairman, i struggle with this, too. i'm going to raise the state's rights issue but not a red herring. i'm going to raise it because i'm genuinely concerned about it. i hope as my friend m-bishop does that next time we come around to a states rights issue we'll have the same chorus of voices supporting individual states. today in georgia we have reciprocity agreements with 24 other states. i'd like for that number be higher.

generally does hinge on training requirements and other issues of that nature. what would you think about an amendment to this language that left the 24 agreements that georgia already has in place, in place, and then made this federal language the floor for those states with whom georgia does not have reciprocity agreements? >> i would not look favorably on such an idea because it really runs counter to one of the goals of the bill, which is to have a national uniform standard that would allow any state to recognize and offer reciprocity to another state that had a concealed carry permit. i know how you feel. but in the two ways i just mentioned, this bill does recognize and respects state laws as well as local jurisdictions. >> you said 35 states? the state of florida made that

decision. which 35 states had laws that they wanted to abide by, and 15 states they did not agree with. and did not want to have reciprocity with them. that's a decision the state made. one of the things that -- i think in this whole debate over the research done by dr. lot, where the basis of the core -- is that if more people carried firearms, the crime rate would go down. i would join the gentle lady from new york saying i don't take that research on faith. in fact it's been challenged, and there are a lot of questions about it. if you believe that more people carrying firearms will lower the crime rate, then you'd have one view of the legislation, and if you believe, is a do that more people carrying firearms is not helpful to the crime rate, then you have a different --

>> it's absolutely true, mr. scott, my view of having the ratio of licensed firearms carriers to unlicensed carriers, the high are number of licensed firearms, i feel safer walking the streets of georgia than i do walking the streets of injure dingses that do not allow that same privilege. when you stand in line -- you may not be a concealed permit holder. i encourage you to good down to a jurisdiction, whether it's the probate judge or county sheriff, and look at the folks in line to get the permits. what it says to me is, there are plenty of guns on the street as my colleague on the other side suggested. the question is, are you licensed to carry it? have you been looked over? the background check in georgia is extensive. the renewal processes extensive. and the permit is expensive. >> you mention renewal. you can -- the state can revoke a concealed weapons permit and

in fact can revoke rest -- reciprocity but this bill will force you to accept the out of state license given by a state whose standard you think the home state thinks are too lax. >> let me ask, mr. chairman, when i got into this bill, i was surprised to learn there were more states that offered concealed carry permits than states that allowed for open carry. when i think of the second amendment i think of open carry being the most real -- the best realization of the second amendment i think cob sealed carry is more dangerous for police officers, public safety officers, than open carry. what led to the bill coming out of committee with a a concealed carry focus? >> i think, mr. wood y'all, --

woodal, you have 49 states with concealed carry so that's the most common type of permit allowed, the most common way for an individual to possess firearms and ways other than what is usually allowed by law. you have 40 states already that offer some type of former reciprocity. when you're looking at the figures, 40-49, you might as well have something that fits everybody and have a consistent standard. >> i think about my friends in illinois who do not have the right to carry, but you go to indiana, you have a business there you can get an out office state permit. iowa allows for a nonresident permit. how does this legislation deal with holders of nonresidence permit? if i'm a holder of a florida nonresident permit, is that florida nonresident permit then recognized in the other

jurisdictions, just not my home jurisdiction? >> in the case of illinois, illinois has chosen not to issued concealed carry so you cannot go into that state. states that have taken no position are allowed to have individuals enter those states with con keeled carry unless they affirmatively -- the bill treats out of state permits the same as one from your own state. >> okay. >> except you can't use the out-of-state permit in your home state. you can use them in all the other states but not your home state. you can't get an in-state permit by going out of state, bit if you go out of state, you can use that permit anywhere else and some were -- we had testimony -- it's not clear if you have to be physically present to get a permit. you may be able to buy these things over the internet, and

the way this is going, goetz to be a revenue enhancement, you charge enough money and peep over the internet get a concealed weapons permit they're not entitled to get in their state. >> having been through the licensing process i trust those straights to do a quality job as they're can do today, and i say to the chairman, this bill has been knocking around these chambers for a long time. it's always been wildly cosponsored and supported and does not make it to the floor. i agree with the speaker boehner, the house works best when the house works its will, and you have a bill with wide bipartisan support and you've brought it to the floor. >> i'm interested, the gentleman had indicated -- i don't know whether it's true or not -- you can go on the internet and get a concealed carry license. is that true? >> in the state of georgia -- we're a must-issue state so i argue we're as liberal as you're

likely to find. that's absolutely not true. you must show tub probate judge, be fingerprinted, pay for your background check, you must go on -- in many states provide certification of some level of training. it's a thorough process and doesn't happen instantly. even in a must-issue state like georgia, it takes weeks, if not months, for the process to finish because, again, you have two choices, unlicensed gun owners or licensed gun carrier, and i prefer every day i'm standing beside someone that has been certified. >> gentleman yield. >> in a must-issue state, is that the term you used? >> that's right. >> does that mean you must issue it to them no matter what their background is? >> you raise on interesting question. that's right. must-issue is the most permissive issue ago category, and the answer of your question

is, absolutely not. >> then why would someone come before this committee and offer testimony that you can get it on the internet? >> because that's -- in georgia, that's the requirement in georgia. the testimony that we heard in the committee was there's nothing in the bill that requires the physical presence to get the permit. >> but the gentleman is from georgia. >> georgia. >> and you said it is a requirement that internet -- >> in georgia. >> that's not correct. >> in a m must-issue state like georgia, must issue means if someone applies and they qualify, it must be issued, and that qualification process is extensive. >> but it's not a over the internet in georgia. >> it is in person. again, with fingerprint cards through the judge's office. the probate judge. >> so if someone suggested you could gain that in georgia, in testimony before this commitee,

you would tell them that not cent? >> i say to my friend, and he has been here a year or two longer than i have. >> with respect. >> with respect. it's one of my great frustrations 11 months in that these are serious issues, licensing of handguns is a serious issue, concealed carry is a serious issue, and states rights and the ninth and tenth amendment are serious issues and, yes, when you walk into a hearing lining this and see the red herrings thrown out one after the other, it cheapens the entire debate. the amendments are important. it's a great frustration to me that when telling with issues of that gravity -- >> engaging with me. >> if the gentleman would point where in the bill you're required to have a physical presence if you get the -- not in georgia but in utah or montana or a prohibition against them changing the laws to allow

it over the internet, then maybe we should have that amendment to prohibit internet -- obtaining permits over the internet and require physical presence in front of a judicial officer. maybe we should have that. but it's not in the bill. >> if the gentleman will yield, i'm not aware of a sickle -- single state where you don't have to get your transports -- >> the testimony was not clear. >> i think every state requires physical presence. >> and this bill, if they change it and not require a physical presence -- >> we're not changing it. >> that's exactly what we're doing. if they change it to not require physical presence, that internet concealed weapons permit is good -- >> suggesting a federal licensing procedure that we adopt the georgia standards on a federal level so we can all

carry? that would certainly solve the issue that the gentleman is complaining about. >> that would be better than this bill. >> i look forward to working with the gentleman and i yield back. >> thank you. like to submit this for the record, and i'll hand -- this is the map courtesy of the rockey mountain gun owners association. it shows reciprocal agreements in colorado. it seems like a solution in search of a problem. a colorado gun owner, easy to get a concealed gun permit. we have a must-issue. it's not good in nevada, and the question, why is that not a matter between the sovereign state of colorado and the sovereign state of nevada, approaching their legislators and governors to work out? why does this require federal intervention and bureaucrats in washington deciding this rather than the states? >> i think there's value in

having a consistent standard that's not cop fusing and don't have 50 different typed of variation of of the fundamental right to bear arms. the fact that different states might have different standards to acquire a conceal to carry, we need to allow reciprocity and allow states to recognize the rights of those in other states across state lines with a concealed carry permit. and it's just a difference of opinion. this bill does respect states rights in two ways. if a state like illinois has affirmatively said you cannot have a concealed carry, you're not allowed to go in that state from another state, and if local just disks or states themselves have decided that one should not under a concealed carry permit, carry a firearm into a public facility or church or bar or sports event, those instances will be recognized under this

bill. >> do you believe that -- i think illinois has been brought up. i believe there was in reference to them not having a concealed carry regime. you said illinois does not allow -- do you believe it's a constitutional right of a state if they choose to not have a way to have concealed carry or do you believe under the second amendment a state is required to have a version on concealed carry laws? >> i did not hear. >> imhas been brought up a up in or times and it's my understanding illinois does not have a concealed permit system. so, my question is, do you feel that not having a concealed permit system is contrary to the second amendment and states actually have to have a way to have a cop sealed permit in their state? no in that case it's up to the state to decide that -- i don't think the second amendment requires states to all have

conceal carry permit. it's a protected right, not a required right. >> just to be clear. i don't think you're arguing this particular proposal, which has it meritses and flaws, kind of weighing the second amendment vs. the ninth and tenth amendments -- do you believe this is constitutionally required to protect the second amendment or is it optional and just good policy? >> the problem here is that quite frankly states don't have constitutional rights, individual do. and so i do think an individual has a constitutional right to, for example, if we deem it to carry a weapon or firearm into another state that recognizes concealed carry permit. >> sure. again, i have this particular group, rocky mountain gun owners has been calling my office against this particular bill. they're worried about the federal overreach. the foot in the door for a lot of what could come with federal bureaucrats making decisions and having a federal database about who has and it who doesn't. i think this would be a larger issue for me and my

constituents, if we didn't have these reciprocity agreements. generally my constituents are content with them, and to the extent they're not i direct their attention to our governor and our state legislator, both of whom are receptive to negotiating more. but given that many of the calls from the gun owners groups in my states have been against this, i am far from convinced it's needed given the many reciprocity agreements that exist, and if the people of illinois need one or want one, they need to write the governor rather than deferring to washington. >> you're take about consistent standards. at least the lowe's common denominator standards. if you want a consistent standard, you can have standards everybody will agree -- we agree that georgia's standards are the standards. this says whoever has the lowest standards, dealing them out without any kind of requirement,

no training, no nothing, you got to honor that permit, too. so it's not consistent standard. it's lowest standard. >> let me ask a question. this group says you must abide by the laws of the straight you're traveling. many differ from those of colorado. under this federal law would you have to abide by the laws of the state you're in as well. is that correct? >> that's right. >> okay. so this is a -- encrops the state's sovereignty somewhat but does require that they also fill that. again, not an issue to my -- . >> you cannot be eligible -- you might not be old enough -- >> you might not be eligible in a state because of age or prior conviction, some psychological -- if.

>> if you have the permit you have to abite by -- abide by the rules. >> i represent state with many, many concealed gun permit holders. i don't have to be one. many of my friend are. this is simply not a solution in search of a problem. i've not been hearing this from them, and maybe this can provide a renewed focus for all of us to encourage states to enter more reciprocity agreements rather than take this power to washington. i yield back the balance of my time to the chairman. >> i have a little experience in illinois because i was born and raised and was a police officer in illinois for 12 years. and one of the things that always struck me was that we had to have a gun owners i.d. card. is that still in effect in illinois? >> i don't know but i can find out. >> it just always struck me as a

police officer that legal folks had to have a gun owners i.d. card but those that were committing vast majority of the crimes that i dealt with never had a gun owners i.d. card, and what i've seen in my years experience in florida, is that those that did have a concealed weapons permit -- i don't recall an occasion of arresting them for committing a homicide or an armed robbery. the bad guys can care less been legal folks and the able to get concealed weapons permit. they're going to carry a gun because they can. ... illinois or those states. i do know we can look at florida as a case example. in the case of florida, i think it's 0.03% of concealed carry permit holders have had to give

up those licenses. i mean, that's, what, 3 out of 1,000 or something like that. by far the great majority concealed carry permit holders are law abiding. they may actually prevent crimes from occurring and certainly they can feel better about defending themselves in their own home. >> i've actually seen that in regards to preventing crime where a done sealed weapon holder was coming by and assisted a deputy. >> across the united states i believe it's between 2 million and 2.5 million incidents occur every year where an individual uses a firearm to prevent a crime from occurring. >> you know one of the thing it's, when you it talk about consistency and what you don't want to do is make someone who is a law-abiding legal firearms in regards to having a permit a criminal because they happen to cross a state line. you know, it wasn't that many years ago in law enforcement, as an officer, there were certain

states i couldn't carry my weapon in. and i had to know that before we traveled. they gave us a sheet like this with all exceptions across what states a certified law enforcement officer could carry a concealed weapon in. you know, this body came across and allowed active law enforcement and retired, which i am, the ability to carry in every state if i have a legal -- or if i have the ability to do that because of my agency or state allows me to do that. it just seems that when you can make it accessible to folks that legally have done -- crossed all the t s and dotted the is to do the right thing, we don't want to make criminals out of them because they happen to go to georgia from florida. whether or not they currently have reciprocity agreements, but more likely this just i think

levels the playing feeltd in regards to folks understanding their rights, particularly constitutional right. what's -- you know, i've heard a lot of negatives and we've heard about this from some of the folks saying that this is an overreach by the federal government in regards to collecting names and addresses of those that currently have a permit. is that true? >> federal government has very little to do with it. it's a matter of reciprocity as we talked about today coming up with a uniform measure that applies equally to all states and recognizing the fundamental right to bear arms. >> so the -- dofederal governme does not have access to my concealed weapons permit. >> that's correct. >> and this legislation does not give them that right, is that

correct? >> it does not, that's correct. >> let me just say that if you believe that more people having concealed weapons will reduce crime -- a crime, this is probably a good bill. if you believe more people carrying firearms is more likely to create mayhem and cause more crime, then it's a bad bill. i mean, it i think this is basically where with we're ending up. if you believe that professor lott's research that says the more people carrying -- more people carrying guns will reduce crime, i think a lot of us just don't believe in that research. >> would the gentleman from florida yield? >> absolutely. >> i think it's a significant question the gentleman from virginia gives on whether more guns creates more crime or fewer guns creates more crime. what i thought you heard is the distinction in that number so that number is simply not an absolute. the sheriff in my largest county

once told me that it's not the legal guns that are going to get him, it's the illegal guns that are going to get hill. >> absolutely. >> so if we take the matrix that representative scott was talking about, should that not be subdivided then between if more legal guns are on there versus more illegal guns and that should be the matrix in which we discuss? >> you know, most of the deaths i've seen is because they were legally possessed to start with. you know, they commit a crime with the handgun. that's -- i mean, the law is clear, you can't shoot somebody, rob somebody, use a handgun in the commission of a crime. and does that still occur? does it occur in illinois? >> well, let me just say that the evidence i've seen shows that if you have a gun you're more likely to kill somebody that's innocent than preventing a crime. >> well, i'll tell you the first h homicide i ever investigated as a rookie cop did not involve a handgun. it involved an iron pipe that

bludgeoned somebody. so it wasn't a handgun. any tool can be utilized to kill, whether it's a kitchen knife, a handgun, a pipe, whether it's a bottle. so, you know, if someone is going to legally go through the process to get fingerprinted to receive a concealed weapons permit, i don't quite draw the linkages that they're going to commit a kriecrime. the evidence shows that they don't. is that true? >> like i said, the evidence i've seen shows the more handguns you have the more people, including innocent people, will die. >> well, that's -- >> and, you know, if you believe that more handguns -- more people carrying handguns will reduce crime, then that's where we disagree. >> i'm just thinking that if i legally possess a concealed weapons permit, what i want to make sure is that the person

that has -- that has gone through the steps to get a legal concealed weapons permit happens to stray across the state line, that they're not now committing a crime. i mean, that's my point of this. it's not about allowing people to carry more guns. >> you've started with the assumption that you're going to go through some georgia-like process and not sign up over the internet and get it mailed to you. >> well, currently, is there any state you can do that in? >> the evidence during the testimony at the hearing was unclear, but there's certainly nothing in the bill that prohibits a state from dealing them out over the internet. >> but there's no state currently allowing that, is that correct? >> it was unclear during the hearing. it was unclear. i'm not sure. >> sheriff, would you yield again? >> i absolutely will.

>> the assumption i'm going to ask you, as you've looked at this bill, this bill deals with reciprocity not necessarily the minimum standard for gaining a permit in the first place. nor do i know -- in fact, utah was one of the other states somebody mentioned might be able to do it by permit. we call it shall permit, not must. no, you cannot do that. but the question i actually had goes back to what your testimony was. the issue here was, as the gentleman was saying, the more guns you have the more crime will take place. i thought what i heard you say is the distinction, the more illegal gubs you may have we do a fast and furious program in the united states, the more illegal guns you may have, that may have the result. but the more legal guns -- this was the result of dr. lott's study -- you have does not increase the crime rate. it's only the illegal guns. as i think one of the other thing that's was pointed out in his work that you just mentioned there, it's actually more people are killed by knives than they are by guns. if you want to use the analogy

that was just given out, we should take away all the butter knives in america and that will make us all safer. there is a difference between a legal gun and an illegal gun, and this bill is dealing with legal weaponry. i'm asking you, as an expert witness as a sheriff, am i wrong with that? >> no, i'm not. you know, the issue is the action that you utilize when you have, whether it's a handgun, a shotgun, a butter knife or whatever, it's the actions that you take that commits the crime. it's not the handgun. it doesn't act on its own. it's the person that has it. so to take your assumption, i guess, is to say that you want to eliminate all weapons -- any shotgun, any rifle, any pistol in america. that's the next leap. >> no. i just said that increasing the number of firearms, in my

judgment, will not reduce the crime rate. >> does this increase -- my question then is, does this increase the number of firearms manufactured in the united states? >> it inreeses the number of people that can be carrying them from all over the country. >> well, if they already have a permit in florida or georgia, how does that increase it? >> if they could not get a permit in their home state. you could have a situation where you were ineligible because of your criminal record or other behavior, you didn't get any training, ineligible to get a permit in your home state. you can go to some other state, utah, and get a permit, and that permit is good everywhere except your home state. so you can wander all over the country with that permit. and if you think that's going to reduce crime, fine. i don't think so. >> would the gentleman yield?

>> yes. >> to be clear, mr. scott, that is the law of the land today. if you leave illinois and you go to florida and get a nonresident permit in florida, you can carry that handgun anywhere aacross the country today that florida has reciprocity. >> yes, if they have reciprocity. but that is a decision florida makes as to who they have reciprocity with. if a state doesn't kol up to their standards -- >> absolutely. the nonsit zin of florida, florida has the right today to give -- have the ability to give -- >> and they also have the right not to recognize concealed weapons permits from states that they do not believe come up to their standards. if they don't want people untrained wandering around with concealed weapons, they don't have to recognize that permit by not giving recess sreciprocity. that's the law today, but this would override it. >> i yield back. >> mr. webster. gentlemen, thank you both for being here. i appreciate your time and testimony. next we'd like to take a panel

consisting of the members we have here in the room, mr. natler, ms. jackson lee, mr. hastings, mr. johnson and ms. maloney. please come forward and please pull a chair up. mr. smith and mr. scott, mr. johnson, do you wish to testify? please take the chair up and we'll -- we're asking you to join this panel. so please pull your chair forward to the table. you can pull your chair right up to the table. does that cover everyone? let's begin with mr. nadler, then ms. jackson-lee, then mr. hastings, mr. johnson and ms. maloney. mr. nadler, let me say i see a beautifully prepared statement. >> with considerable changes. >> i know since you made the changes, i'd like to say without objection that entire statement

is going to appear in the statement and we'd welcome your summary. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'll oe i'll omit the first part of the statement which basically describes why the bill is a terrible bill. but let me just address the p t part -- the amendment. with respect to guns, the concerns of more urbanized states like new york are different from like more rural states like alaska. within reason there are strong reasons to allow each state to tailor its own gun laws. that has been our general policy for hundreds of years. anyone who talks about states' rights ought to adhere to that. under this bill that would all change. anyone with a permit to carry a concealed handgun could bring their gun into a state of which they're not a resident regardless of whether or not they would even be allowed to possess a firearm if they were resident of the latter state.

rules that the norn resident state might have prohibiting criminals, cloalcoholics, et cetera, would be overridden. anybody with a permit from another state would conceal a handgun in any state regardless whether they've met that state's ruled and requirements. i'm here to stand up for the rights of my state of new york and states across the country. right now for example new york and california prohibit persons convict of certain misdemeanor sex offenses against minors even possessing a firearm. also some states like utah prohibit persons with misdemeanor self convictions from getting a concealed carry permit. my first amendment would enable a state to enforce its own concealed carry laws regarding people convicted of a misdemeanor sex offense against minors. without my amendment, the underlying bill would force states to allow dangerous people with guns in their midst. i don't think the chairman's home state of california would

appreciate that, neither would my state of new york. to repeat, this amendment would say, regardless of the bill, a state could enforce a law against allowing someone convicted of a misdemeanor sex offense against a minor from having a convict -- from using a concealed carry permit in that state. if you had a concealed carry permit from arizona and you were convicted sex offender against a minor, new york can enforce its law against letting you use a concealed carry permit in new york. that's the aelt. the goal of the second amendment is to combine a national security -- combat a national security threat known as a terror gap. i'll keenly aware of the harm terrorists can do to our country. that is why this whole national security concerns me. the terror gap refers to the loophole in national gun laws that allows known or suspected terrorists to buy guns in the

united states. the reasoning as to why we have sufficient a policy is beyond me. this is a gap we no is exploited. according to t gao, of the 1453 people found to be on the terrorist list trying to buy guns between 2004 and 2010, 1321 were allowed to proceed with the purchase. that's a success rate of 91% of known terrorists purchasing guns. the result of this gap in security have been serious and deadly. we all remember the tragedy with major nadal hassan. he had been investigated but he was not stopped from buying a weapon. and the fact of the purchase was never shared with the fbi. my colleague from new york representative peter king, the chairman of the home land security committee has introduced legislation to close the terror gap and i am proud to be a co-sponsor of his bill. my second amendment is modeleded in his proposal and would empower the attorney general to deny the ability of a known or suspected terrorist, someone on

the terrorist watch list, for example, who possesses a firearm, deny him the ability to use hr-822 to authorize concealed carry into another state. i would humbly suggest that preventing terrorists from carrying weapons across state line sz a worthwhile goal. i think the bill is a serious mistake, but if we are to consider it on the houts floor, at least i believe members should be able to make improvements. these two amendments provide such improvements. i ask they be made -- >> thank you. >> let me thank the members of the rules committee for their indulgence. quickly i'll just move to my facts one, two and three, number two having been revised. 38 states do not issue permits to people convicted of certain violent misdemeanors, 36 states

require gun stavety training including fire drills and competency with a fire arls that shows distinct differences among states. however, hr-822 calls for one that applies to residents of a state and in a less restrictive standard that applies to visitors from out of states. many many states will be impacted but colorado, california, virginia my state of texas new york massachusetts south carolina florida among those who will be impacted by the differences in this law. i know that many of us have heard the phrase "people kill guns don't". but people used guns to kill and the ultimate result is that people are dead. my first amendment is a simple process to aid our law enforcement officers who all of us have been citing as who we would like to protect along with

our citizens. my amendment ensures that a comprehensive database il mrelted providing a list of individuals from each state with permits and licenses to possess and carry concealed weapons be available to all law enforce the officers at all times. we don't know the mental conditions or the occurrences that happen to people who legitimately have a concealed weapon. if an officer discovered a gun, they'd have to terrible if the state permit is valid. that is of course if the officer stops the car and asks the person for a weapon. this is a nearly impossible task in a tense situation. some state permits look as simple as a library card that would be easy to forge. reciprocity could also -- the

merit including my amendment, amendment number one. amendment number two deals with the issue of providing notice to the designated state agency that an individual is coming into that state and carrying a gun. states must retain their ability to know which individuals are allowed under this newly proposed bill to possess and carry concealed weapons within their borders. this measure would require an individual to notify out-of-state law enforcement 24 hours in advance their intention to possess or carry a weapon into the borders of those state in which those individuals are not licensed. again, it would be the des naitded state agency that would be notified and that is amendment number two. in my home state, we are mourning the death of mrs. cruz-rojas, a mother of

three whose security employed officer, as a security officer. we've heard of the mall cop. that was a friendly person. but this is one of the security officers. came to her dental assistant job, pointed a gun through the glass, fired three shots, jumped over the counter, and then fired more shots at her then-fallen body. three children are orphaned. i make the point because i'm also apologetic for my state. court records show mr. sousa was charged with beating ms ms. cruz-rojas in february 2009, but the misdemeanor assault charge was dropped after he completed domestic abuse class. i'm appalled at that. but he was still carrying a gun. he still had a job and was able to kill a mother of three children. my third amendment simply says, even though texas has a robust handgun concealed carry law, i would ask that this measure enforce a minimum standard for

gun possession. that would be a standard to include that you could not have a concealed weapon if you were convicted of stalking or electronic surveillance. this may be a bipartisan bill with a number of supporters. there obviously is disagreement. many of us do believe that the enhanced number of guns can contribute to the death of innocent individuals. mr. sojas left and stole a boat. i think my amendments are common sense and ask that they be included. >> thank you very much. without objection, mr. hastings' statement will be included in the record. thank you. mr. deutsche's statement without objection will be included if in the record. mr. johnson and then ms ms. maloney.

without objection, it will be included in the record. would you take the microphone there. >> amendments have remained an issue that needs to be addressed. more than likely we'll have support of this. nra supports it. illinois is the only state in the union that would be uncovered by this bill. this clarifies that illinois will be covered by this bill. i think it's a simple, rights and privileges of our state, which unfortunately, i'll apologize for my state, we don't have a law. nonetheless this puts us in a situation as any other state, provides for uniform laws. i think it's extraordinarily important to buttress the bill with this amendment and ask for its adoption. >> let me say for the record i don't like everything that's done there, but i never apologize for california. ms. maloney. >> only in the limited context of failure to act do i apologize

for my great state of illinois. >> mr. chairman and members of the committee, i request a unanimous consent he to place my full -- >> included in the record. >> i specifically want to point out one of my amendments that would prohibit an individual convicted of a felony whose gun rights have been restored in his or her state of residence from getting reciprocity in another state. on the front page of today's "new york times" they highlight the ease with which felons are able to regain gun rights in certain states, and it points out that in some cases it has led to violent repeat actions that have hurt people. and we simply cannot allow violent criminals to travel freely between states with concealed weapons. so i respectfully request that this aemendment be placed in order, and i say that the people of my home state of new york have every reason to believe

that our gun laws work considerably better for us than those of other states. and i go back to the statement of mrs. slaughter earlier on arizona, which has some of the most permissive gun laws in the country. according to one report, there were 15 gun deaths per 100,000 people in arizona while in new york there are only 5 gun deaths per 100,000 persons. that's a pretty stark difference. so my state and certainly other states may not want felons that have a record of violence he, of murder, of killing, of other felony actions to be able to come into our state. i think that's a reasonable request. i also as one who represents families that lost 500 loved ones on 9/11 speak in support of mr. nadler's amendment which would prevent known or issed

terr -- suspected terrorists from carrying concealed firearms across state lines. we should not let known terrorists carry firearms across state lines. to have that checked with the central area is very important. and i want to point out that earlier when we passed the 9/11 terrorist attacks screening bill, the one that provided health care and monitoring to those who are sick and dying because of 9/11, there was an amendment that said that all of these survivors and victims should be checked against the 9/11 terrorist attacks list. so if you're going to check the police and fire who went in to protect each other, to protect our citizens against the terrorist attack list, let's check other known terrorists against the terrorist attack list and not let them freely walk across state lines where they are known to have danger and harm to american citizens.

>> thank you very much. >> i have others that really talk to the need to hire more police officers. if you're going to be having people coming in with concealed weapons it that can be terrorists, that can be felons, we will need more police officers on the street. and other amendments address that and the fact that we need to really look at the unemployment problems we confront. >> thank you very much, ms. maloney. are there any questions of the witness wies here? if not, thank you all for being here. >> can i enter this article in the paper? >> yes he. the article will be included in the record. that will conclude the hearing for consideration hr-822. and the chair will be in receipt of a motion. excuse us, if our clerk could get to the desk here, mr. nadler, ms. jackson lee. thank you both for being here. >> mr. chairman, i move the committee report a structure rule for hr-822, the national

right to carry reciprocity act of 2011. rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the company shall be considered as original text with the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read. rule waives all points against committee's amendment -- the rule in the rulz committee report. each such amendment may only be offered in the order printed and the report may only be offered by a member des naited in the report and shall be considered as read. shall be debatable if in the time specified, opponent shall not be subject to amendment, shall not be subject to demand or division of the question. rule waives -- finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without -- >> you've heard the motion in general.

obviously as we've seen today, this is an issue that brings out strongly held beliefs. we this rule, we are proposing to make an order ten amendments, eight amendments offered by democrats, two amendments offered by republicans. >> thank you very much. the vote occurs on the mcgovern amendment, those in favor aye, those against no. >> mr. woodall no. mr. nugent, no. mr. scott, no. mr. webster, no. ms. slaughter. mr. mcgovern, aye. mr. hastings aye. mr. pole is aye. mr. hair i