>> mr. chairman, i offer as one motion the amendments of number 12 by mr. nadler and/or the number 8 by mr. bishop and i believe the committee members know what they are. and i won't offer any words in support of sail. >> vote occurs on the hastings amendment. those in favor say aye. those against no. clerk will call the roll. mr. sessions, no. ms. fox, no. mr. bishop, no. mr. woodall, no. mr. nugent, no. mr. scott, no. mr. webster, no. ms. slaughter. mr. mcgovern, aye. mr. hastings aye. mr. polis, aye. mr. chairman no. >> and the clerk will report the total. >> three

>> aradhana now a look at the prospects of the deal being reached by the deficit reduction committee to find least $1.2 trillion in deficit savings by the november 23rd deadline. this is about 40 minutes.

>> we're back with senior congressional reporter with politico and this is the front page of your newspaper this morning deficit panel ponders endgame. what is the endgame? >> guest: the $1.2 trillion question i think. these guys who've covered to come up with a $1.000000000000 reduction plan they haven't shown any progress toward that. as we've seen the last couple of weeks the progressive offers are getting further and further apart. people are digging in ideologically. we've seen democrats and republicans have brakes on their own site from each other. the congressman from south carolina who has run this panel said yesterday on fox news that democrats have not coalesced. clearly true republicans as well. so right now i think you've got hope for the deficit panel you are probably on the deficit panel.

>> host: november 23rd but realistically the congressional budget office whenever they come up with when do they have to have that done? >> guest: i do think there has been a little bit of overemphasis on this cbo issue on how long it takes essentially been congress to come back and say this is how much this policy costs or saves or reason revenue and really they are familiar with all of the policies they are looking at and they have scold them in other venues, so i don't think it takes that long and if it comes to a situation you can probably expect congress to make some sort of provision for that if it looks like there is a deal coming together. if not you would expect to see any kind of statute. >> host: if not there is talk of plan b of the deficit reduction committee was on the state of the union sunday and here is what he had to say.

>> if we don't find structural change we will fail on reaching $1.5 trillion of deficit reduction over ten years. but it's important to note that if that goal for some reason we feel under the law there is still a $1.2 trillion of deficit to take place. >> there's lots of people trying to get around that and it's too much sugar to the defense side to do in across-the-board cut. >> it's not expect the across-the-board. it disproportionately impacts national defence in a way that even the secretary of defense says will hollow out the national defence. >> hear me out. what i'm going to do is to commit that it leads to the good least america is the $1.2 trillion of deficit reduction now congress would have 13 months to do it in a smarter fashion. but again what we have to focus on is that we have entitlement spending programs that are

simultaneously disserving their beneficiaries with forms of rationing and driving the country bankrupt and unless we deal with that, frankly we will fail. >> what is he talking about here? >> guest: he is talking about the failure of the super committee and what happens over the next 15 months. there's a trigger that goes into the places they don't get the 1.2 trillion there are automatic cuts between domestic programs and defense programs and what the congressman hensarling says is well we lead this to the congress to figure out over the next 13 months where the automatic cuts go into effect and what a smarter way to the cuts than across-the-board cuts. he's clearly planning for the failure of the super committee. that doesn't mean necessarily thinks it will fail but he's planning for that. >> host: there's the 1.3 trillion there's also the took the deficit reduction committee rights and legislation

that says now the tax committee is in the house and senate and you come up with something that deals with medicare and medicaid how does that work? >> guest: the super committee would come up with a target of revenue for hundred billion, 500 billion a give instructions to the ways and means committee and the house and the commerce committee and the finance and would come back with the idea of the policy that would add up to that. people familiar with the budget process would recognize this almost as a reconciliation process where there is an expedited way to get legislation done that reduces the deficit. not sure if they would have the ability there to try to put forth new expedited procedures the super committee had

corporation launched a move things without interference from the senate filibuster and the super committee would expect it to kryptonite. >> host: if the finance committee house ways and means committee were to do something to deal with the big entitlement programs would congress have to pass that? is it something in the law that says now you have to take this up? >> guest: from the cuts would split evenly between defense and entitlement. >> host: is there any way to get around that from the super kennedy at the end of the day will there be 1.2 trillion in kutz? >> guest: as it stands now, yes but at the end of the day in january 2013 so they give themselves wiggle room to avert the cuts to under the law. with the in this congress and the next congress of its very difficult to get this process and say we know for sure the

cuts are going to happen. whether in fact the cuts will happen. >> host: you mentioned james clyburn on the sunday show and we want to show our viewers what he had to say as well about the prospect of the deficit reduction committee. said mick would you think of the realistic chances you'll compromise within ten days? >> i injury hopeful that we will and comfortable that we will. i'm certain that ten days ago but i think that we can. we've got ten days to do this and i do believe that all of the ingredients for the joint resolution we need to note the well. >> host: jonathan alan so have they been working over the weekend are they going to continue to meet every day? >> guest: certainly not in public. none of it has been done in public.

they've been frustrated enough about the private negotiations that president obama will be the c-span president i would call and congress said they want to open any more transparent way because they talked about that as a hallmark of the speaker and unless it is out of the view of the american public unless they are meeting privately in secret publicizing what they're doing they could actually get -- politico has a poll out today that says america has no idea what the super committee is doing at all. and so, that's been an issue but in terms of whether they are going to meet they have been meeting in sight groups having sidebars, one on one between the various members of the super committee and also in small groups, and i think that will continue. but you heard congressman clyburn say they need to develop the will. that is astounding. a member of this committee

doesn't feel the ability to sit down and crunch numbers but the welcome the desire to get something done. >> host: why is that? does it have to do with the makeup on the committee? >> i think the two sides don't really trust each other and whether the members of the super committee themselves or the party is sort of rick large because of the end of the day this isn't something five years controlled in large part by the leadership and basically that means senate majority leader harry reid and house speaker tom boehner. they haven't been far from the process and anything that gets signed on with a super committee will have their blessing. so this is a tool for the leadership and in terms of cutting a deal but this is not an independent from gentle member body. >> host: this is "the new york times" this morning with the to the deficit reduction committee. president obama, who's kept his distance from the panel, calls the co-chairman on friday and

urged them to reach a deal and said he would not accept legislation overriding the cuts that would occur automatically if the panel failed. can you explain that and the impact? >> guest: . he wouldn't sign off on something that would undo the trigger automatic cuts if the super committee doesn't get the work done. the defense cuts are about to go to places of the 2012 election coming up and what they want to stake their ground on three injured $50 billion particularly the defense secretary is saying that would weaken the country i think we would have to see how that would play out. and of course there are other ways for things to become law we and the present is assigning them including the two-thirds of congress voted for something in a variety of detail or becoming law without. >> host: let's get phone

calls. libya and attended woodstock. >> caller: good morning. thank you. of life watched yesterday on the sunday program and he admitted that he is talking with these members. i've put together a letter that should be published in the paper entitled campaign against globalization and he apparently is now observed even the president press secretary is pleading with congress was in to your constituents. they are signed by candidates, they have no obligation to file it. please come investigate this process. i believe he is a hoax. >> host: referring to the grover norquist, newsmaker this past sunday, and in that interview he said i'm not losing sleep over these proposals from

republicans to raise revenue as part of the deal. >> guest: part of that is the thing we've seen so far would raise revenue and cut it elsewhere so the limitation on the deductions and an offsetting decrease in tax rates there's some disagreement as to whether that would raise revenue or perhaps cut revenue and it depends where you cut their rates and on a lot of other issues including economic growth. it's not surprising because he has always said in the recent times and i don't know what he said before he's always said if there's tax reform on the tool and it means well and not raising new taxes and not creating new taxes and then he's interested in that. >> host: if you want a full interview with grover norquist go to a website, c-span.org. you can watch it by pushing the

play button right there you can see the whole interview. in the usa today editorial-page, the newspaper writes the cracks in the gop antitax creed opens hope for the super committee deal. but jim jordan who is the chairman of the republican study committee in the house rights the opposition view that there is no time to raise taxes. i'm wondering about the conservative republican study committee and its influence over any sort of deal that might come out of the deficit reduction committee. >> i think there were some members of congress who might be willing to have taxes as a part of this deficit reduction talk, not just in terms of raising taxes and cutting them but legitimately raise revenue through the increased tax creating new forms of taxation. but as long as the republican study committee is out there talking about how that is they will be less willing because

they feel they will take that study committee and it's very possible with the republican party by and large and grover norquist says this is not he that is powerful it is the idea you will not raise taxes that powerful, so i think that that is seen in the essentially the other members of crossing them publicly and then said to be less than to the party line to the new tax orthodoxy of the republican party. >> host: gary indianan, democratic line. steve, you our next. >> caller: good morning. >> host: good morning. >> caller: i can't understand how grover norquist is a topic of conversation. he's never been elected to anything. he evidently failed third grade

and the top dog in the republican hardee. >> guest: i believe he's a harvard graduate. he definitely got through the third grade. but it is interesting to the topic of conversation i asked house republicans very close to john boehner a couple of weeks ago and i never got this is a little bit just for c-span viewers why is it that grover norquist continues to be so influential why is it brought up and house republican conference meetings there was a reason to do things and not do things and this person answered knowingly and basically he is able to contact a lot of people, a lot of activists in a very short amount of time because for the last 25 years he's been with a list of people that hate taxes and so that is a very effective and efficient means of influencing members of congress to say i'm doing to do with your district and talk to your people about what you're doing and when

you're not doing and where you should be doing. one thing to keep in mind generally speaking mr. norquist group americans for tax reform to the extent they have spent money on the campaign spend money to defeat democrats not the primary republicans so we haven't really seen that yet. >> host: on the other side of the influence of aarp and groups opposed to medicare cuts what is their influence? >> guest: it's also very strong. the basics that for republicans is we are not going to raise taxes. that is the basic orthodoxy. it is we are going to protect entitled social security medicare, medicaid. such a large extent they are to back off those ideologies and in some cases they corner them and the outside groups end up being a powerful enough and influential enough that the members of congress can't get out of their own sort of orthodoxy.

but bottomline thinks they would love to be doing anyway. the constituency they would want to be serving. aarp is definitely influential. its influential of only as an organization for the elderly, not really even elderly but i guess 50 and over but also for as a health insurer, as somebody that plays in the health insurance scheme come so they certainly have a lot. >> host: here is a tweet. the default cuts are not classified. who will decide what aspect of the defense and entitlements will be cut. >> guest: we are talking about across-the-board cuts which means to get trimmed by a certain amount, so we are not talking about specifying those cuts. with the congressman hensarling suggested is they will go back over the next year and say to% from here and 2% from here we are going to take 5% from here and 1% from here and there.

>> host: go ahead. >> caller: when bush took office there was a $5,000 surplus and then when he left office he had dhaka and -- with a debt of $11,000. so he went through 16 trillion, i'm sorry, trillion dollars to read and then by cheney said it doesn't matter and to pass the job bill isn't it a little too late for you all to harp on the debt when you are the one that screw everything up? >> host: referring to condra but what is believed to take the point. >> guest: the solution would be much easier. certainly the country was in surplus and as we look back ten or 11 years and now $15 trillion of debt i think that there are a lot of factors even republicans

would say president bush turned out to be somebody who wanted not only to lower taxes but to increase spending. as a frustration for republicans in the mid 2000's and it is one of the reasons there was a lack of enthusiasm in the base of 2006 when democrats took the house people were frustrated with the amount of spending that they engaged in. but the democratic congress came in with nancy pelosi and harry reid and president obama came and they also spent a tremendous amount of money without raising taxes so you have seen that. things we've allowed them in the two wars necessary, democrats would say look we are on the verge of another depression and had to spend our way out of it. the bottom line is the taxes in the country and spending for the country are so far out of line we have a 15 trillion-dollar

debt basically a dozen years after the surplus. >> host: james had this. no super committee deals get ready for sequestration. what you think the prospect, talk about a little bit. >> guest: in terms of the deficit reduction. >> guest: >> host: by the super committee could it passed the house? >> guest: there is a strong indication it could pass the house we've seen already there is 100 members of the house that came out in favor a big deal for the 4 trillion-dollar deal and in doing so basically said everything needed to be on the table so if there is a deal on the super committee to include everything on the table even if it isn't $4 trillion you could expect to see a lot of the number sign off on that letter that was 60 democrats, 40 republicans basically enough people to ensure one party support of the deal and another one didn't devotee enough support to pass the house to reply also think that with an up or down vote on whether or not to cut the deficit is a very difficult thing for the house to

say no. to never get to that stage it is another thing for those folks to have voted no for the only chance of the deficit reduction and let's remember this is a small amount. 1.2 trillion over ten years and it sounds like a lot of money but in washington terms it is a small fraction of the annual budget. >> host: george, republican of florida. go ahead. >> caller: i think the committee is just looking at the nation when they should be looking at the globalization and how we are going to fit into that new system or doing business internationally it's like a chain saw puzzle everything has been disrupted and the different countries are buying a place in globalization. >> host: would make your point there. how do the global markets react if there is no deal? >> guest: all i can see is the expectation there won't be a

deal so i'm not sure there would be reaction. earlier this summer when s and he was about to downgrade and everyone thought he is going to download the u.s. that it will fall off a cliff and they went up after the downgrade people didn't think they were less credible than the united states. certainly at some point it is going to cause the u.s. and a shoe in the international markets whether that happens on november 23rd or in the future is not clear. >> host: super committee will likely fail and the results will be 600 billion the bush tax cuts expire democrats come out on top. we will keep talking about with the reduction committee is doing but i also want to get your take on this continuing resolution. the current one expires this friday so the congress needs to pass yet another short-term funding to keep the different running. what are the prospects for a

possible shutdown? >> guest: you heard some screaming and yelling from the conservatives who are angry about the deal that got cut earlier this year for the debt limit set the spending for the level of the $1.4 trillion or at least put a cap on it. the conservatives are more interested in one that is the 1.9 trillion over the year and some of the people are still upset about funding the government at those levels, but i think that the disaster funding they are not too thrilled with but what you are likely to see happen is a little bit of the yelling and screaming between the resolution to move forward. there was sort of the point of the debt limit deal earlier this year is at least you would be able to keep the government funded at a relatively stable level the rest of the year because not only does the white house not want to deal with trying to figure out the resolution but i seek house republicans who were -- they

also don't want to be dealing with this all year long. they have agenda items they want to move and work on next year's the five appropriation and i think they found last year they got back up with a lot of these budget issues and the debt limit deal and a sort of had the result of the agenda little bit. >> host: never trader is the deadline for the deficit reduction committee. that's ten days from now. i want to show what senator mark warner had to say democrats virginia. he was a part of the gang of six that came up with 4 trillion of spending cuts. he was also on the state of the union someday show last sunday. here he is. >> we tried the process. we need to let it play itself out. we want a separate committee to be successful but if they are not successful we think that the approach and the gang of six, something that has got the 4 trillion-dollar number that ought to at least get a vote as

well. >> host: jonathan allen, the prospect of something from the game at six proposal or the bulls and some proposal getting a vote. >> certainly the prospect getting a vote or zero unless they are brought in the senate procedural vote that has no chance of going anywhere. but in terms of parts of with a suggested those are on the table. they are part and parcel of what the deficit reduction committee looking at domenici rivlin and with the biden group did over the summer and to put this in context of course there are three other sets of people at least have completely failed to get anything done now you've got a super committee trying to get something done. for those who believe congress is dysfunctional, this is like every day. >> host: democratic collar in albuquerque and mexico. >> caller: i just want to indicate i watched yesterday's

program with grover norquist, and indeed he does indeed have to much influence on the process. he indicated a lot by when they were asking certain questions what he said was very telling. and he said he wanted transparency but that he's behind closed doors. even you the host of the show now i don't know your name actually that i think some of the questions you asked also indicated he was advocating for being open and transparent. i think things need to change and congress isn't going to come to a deal if he has that much influence and power. >> host: she's referring to the last part of the interview. he was asked, you know, do you talk to the leadership, do you talk to the super committee members about what they are doing and he indicated i am able to call them up or e-mail or meet with them and talk about what they are doing and that compared to then a meeting

behind closed doors and of having public hearings as the scholar was referring to and just the influence of grover norquist but he does get to talk to these members of congress. are there other lobbyists that to get access? >> guest: it is a limited set of people but you get these guys on the phone on short notice and it's certainly not a one-man step and it's a lot broader than grover norquist. for the stuff and other entities in the leadership of the two parties they are all sorts of people in one way or another and right now nobody has any idea where it is going to go forward. they have no idea of the top wines are, that is to say what it is they are looking for in terms of revenue and what they are looking for in terms of the spending reduction. until they get their their chance of getting particular policies together for people to influence the process are also

somewhat at a loss to do that. this plays a role if somebody wants to find out how he is going to interpret a certain revenue proposal say the senator wants to cap and lower rates on the other end he may want to call and say is this something you're going to come out and jump on me about or including the support and tell of the republicans of this is a good idea is to the extent he has influence it makes sense that they are talking to him at least, you know, it's interesting i will give you one other little anecdote mr. norquist in the interview i had about a week and a half ago said they called jon kyl and said they were not going to increase race. this was way back in may and that was interpreted by some people to say that republicans were open to other forms of tax increases, not rate increases from and norquist said he called john connally and said what did

you say, what did you mean, how we work together i said we wouldn't raise rates and then norquist -- i call connolly and he went down to the floor and gave an explanation of what he really meant so he likes to play both sides. he has a simple plan and it's not really his plan is a people's plan but at the same time likes to talk about how they get the perception their influential which also then makes the more influential. >> host: who among us believes automatic cuts were not plan any way? no one will take the blame and then he writes they all must go to read a little cynicism the automatic cut was the plan all along. >> guest: that is part of the plan and they wanted the deficit reduction committee to work the

scandal would have been bigger. that is to say they wouldn't have just been 35 billion a year for the pentagon and 35 billion a year for domestic programs or whatever the amount is, something along those lines would have been more. there are some who wanted, you know, the cuts to medicare or topped at 2% for the automatic cuts and some at four per cent which would have been more of an incentive for people in the medicare industry to get on board with that but at 2% they get to to cut hair cut we've seen in a lot of these people in the health care industry have been working to prevent this from happening. ..

we have paid enough, the regular workers out here to take all these people's pay, the ceos, the hedge fund managers, congress and the president and deny wages. >> host: congressional pay because that is part of the automatic spending cut. >> guest: congress is not allowed to vote itself a pay cut in the same with congress under the constitution there is an amendment that prevents an increase in likely a cut and it might be open to interpretation.

whether this would actually affect congressional pay or not and perhaps some sort of legal action. the question whether congress may cut its own pay going forward whether there may be an effort to change their pay is another one and i think that is popular right now. the congressional ratings are at 9%. i think people would be less focus on congress' bay of congress is doing a better job and you know i don't want to be in the position of bashing congress as somebody who covers them but certainly there's a reason the public has watch congresses ability to function and we see it on the floor. we see it you know in the hallways. these guys are at best congenial to each other. nobody really has strong across the aisle relationships anymore and to the extent, to the extent even the simplest things to get done are now a major list. we see this casino -- haven't

done their preparations bill on time and you know in proper fashion. in almost 20 years now. so there's a reason that people have gone through this process. >> host: that leads us back to the short-term funding bill the continuing till that expires friday in congress has to pass another one. the appropriations process so far in the senate has been to pass minibuses. can you explain what those are and what that means? >> guest: the term minibuses actually a of the term omnibus which is when they put all of the appropriation bills into one bill and passed at the end of year. is what congress did a lot and the late '90s and early 2002 and they decided they could no longer function in that sort of getting each bill done on its own. at each of the appropriations bill 1, two maybe three departments for the government on its own and sometimes they were wrapped together in groups of eight, nine, 12 and then

called an omnibus. the minibuses and a strategy where they group two or three bills together, little bit smaller than the omnibus but more than a single bill so there is one that is already going through and that is now in negotiations between the house in the and the senate. it is possible if they are able to get that done this week that continuing resolution to fund the government short-term will be stuck in that minibus, and then there is a second one coming up this week. the part that i have been paying attention to what that is the state department and the foreign operations budget for the united states. that is something that is tremendously controversial right now. the government is cutting back on spending domestically and talking about the huge deficit reduction in foreign aid becomes highly controversial. particularly you have seen some reaction to this unesco fod recently where the palestinians were allowed acceptance into

unesco. the united states now has a law in the books that says if they get membership status there, the united states withdraws from unesco so that is funding it so you may see some efforts to change that either to strengthen it or to weaken it. but that state department bill, there's a lot going on there. we have already seemed rick perry and others in the republican presidential debates talk about possibly zero funding pakistan, somebody who we have given money to for a long time and there's controversy over that. i believe congressman bachmann said that would be a bad idea right now so it will be interesting to see what happens with that state department bill which is part of that minibus that includes financial services bill and i'm going to forget the third thing. energy, hey is energy. >> host: the senate returns at 2:00 and shortly after we will pick up the government spending for those three areas that was

talked about, so-called minibus for financial services and foreign operations appropriations bill so look for our coverage today on c-span2. shadyside maryland republican, sarah, your next. >> caller: good morning. i used to think the congress has literally abdicated their responsibility to govern. there are 535 people discussing in making decisions and you have now 12 people in charge. the only people that truly benefit from that is obviously the special interest because instead of having to focus on 535 people and try to influence them, now we only have 12 people that can buy an influence. one other thing, it's obvious that congress is not subject to the same laws as everybody else. they are allowed to do insider trading tips. everybody else goes to jail except our members of congress. that is all i've got to say. >> host: on that issue, insider trading, we recently as

part of our week the magazine segment focused on a piece in the atlantic i make him occurred all about insider trading and studies that looked at whether not congress is guilty of that so if you are interested in that go to c-span.org and plug-in insider trading or megan mcardle and you can watch that interview. >> guest: i think it is easy when you are frustrated with congress to assign bad -- when you don't like the outcome to say oh these guys are bought and paid for. idea with them on a daily basis and the out and out corruption is very limited so the idea these members are being bought by so-and-so or x, y and z is -- i understand where it comes from but i think it is misguided. they are interested in what special interest have to say because the special interests represent other interests whether aarp with all the members they have or somebody else that has a lot of money and

they be not so many members. there is certainly, they're certainly an interest in hearing from all the different stakeholders and the special interests represented people. i would also say in that vein that the members of congress and the supercommittee have dealt with, each of them at some point or another, these are people that wanted to be on the supercommittee. if they didn't want to be in the supercommittee and they weren't looking for an opportunity to get something done at some level they would have run away from it. they would have begged not to be on it. >> host: how can you cut spending when the population is growing? that doesn't happen in a growing family. if you want to send us a tweet go to twitter.come, c-span wj is our handle. go ahead cindy. koh thank you credit for taking my call. kudos to the gentleman from a highlander last caller. mr. allen you did not live in the real world. you live in the political world. first of all social security did not create this deficit.

second of all when nancy pelosi came into office there was a record number of filibusters and the senate side. i don't know what planet you people in washington are looking at. things like the republican party have taken over c-span. i am so passionate about this because i have 17 grandchildren, soon to be 19. 67 and i had to do bankruptcy when my husband was very sick. you are not listening to the people. these members are bought and paid for by lobbyists. when will you finally do something? >> host: we will get a response from john allen. >> guest: congratulations to having 19 grandchildren. second evolve i wouldn't say social security is responsible

for the deficit, it's not even remotely responsible for the deficit. cells or security hasn't run a surplus and congress is stolen from a surplus to fund other deficit in the past so as a program it has largely worked in terms of having low administrative costs in terms of having been structured in such a away a way that there are enough paying and that the people can take out without putting it into deficit. there probably needs to be some tweaks for the long term but at the moment there not necessary. medicare is the big driver and basically helping our cause more broadly in our economy is the bigger driver of this. as far as numbers being bought, if you have evidence of lobbyists buying members of congress, giving members of congress something in exchange for public policy other than campaign contributions which our system is deemed to be a legal form of transaction that lobbyists can give big contributions or anybody else

can legislate on the things that they care about. if you have specific evidence please bring it and i would be happy to report on it. i think that would be a great story. we deal with these guys all the time and i have not seen evidence of it. i talk to them as much as possible and talk to their staff as much as possible. again i understand the frustration but i'm not sure, i'm not sure that is the motivation. >> host: jonathan allen with politico thank you very much for being here and talking to our viewers about the deficit direction -- eduction committee. >> guest: always my pleasure.

knauer marks from the president and ceo of the blue cross blue shield association, scott serota. he talks about his into shape changing role in health care delivery. also a look at what issues providers consumers and policymakers will 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 the u.s. chamber. it is my pleasure today to introduce our distinguished speaker, scott serota. scott is the president and chief executive officer of blue cross blue shield association. the blue cross blue shield association you should know is a national federation of 39 independent community based and locally operated lacrosse and 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 systems development responsible for new business strategy and a blue technology evaluation center which is the nation's

leading source for evaluating the safety and efficacy 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 positions health inc. which is a missouri-based physician hospital organization. this is a person who brings a real real-world experience to his position in the association. scott earned a bachelor's degree from purdue university and he holds 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 hospitals and others to innovate and creating more effective, accessible and affordable health care systems for all americans. with the congress, politicians and the courts continuing to discuss the implications of health reform and with the administration continuing to detail and implement many of his 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 prison thank you all for coming today. a special thanks to the chamber, the nation will chamber foundation for the opportunity to speak with you. i also want to take a second to 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] [inaudible] >> it is a an example of 1% and health care who testified to congress and influence the house bill to create more promise for health insurers at the expense of human suffering and -- preventable death. health insurers are not health

providers. they restrict necessary medical treatment and charge increasing premiums to make more profits because private health insurers insurers -- health care dollars goes to marketing, administration and profits instead of health care. $400 billion will be saved if we have improved medicare -- single-payer health systems -- [inaudible]

>> for all the uninsured and the underinsured. right now, more than 120 adults are dying every day in america. because of their lack of health care for 45,000 people each year. people with cancer don't get treatment because they can't afford it. people who have to choose to pay for health care or sending their child to college. we think this situation is not acceptable, so we are here to

tell -- scott sirota and other ceos -- [inaudible] stop lobbying against the interest of the 99%. so we can have improved medicare for all. we are the 99%. we are the 99%. we are the 99%. we are the 99%. we are the 99%. we are the 99%.

we are the 99%. we are the 99%. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [applause]

>> 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 that we we we are proud to count as their customers. together with the chamber and other coalition partners, we at the blues are committed to keeping health care coverage of affordable for small businesses, for all businesses and for all americans. to achieve that, we need to fix a system that is fundamentally broke in. in my remarks i will share a vision for a new health care system that serves our citizens medical needs and also protects our country's economic health. in doing so i will illustrate ways in which we all must be involved to room realize that vision. for an good and for the well-being of our children, or families, our businesses and our nation. let me start with a little bit

of fact background. our health care system is fragmented today and it's an efficient. consumers are forced to make important 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 is no doubt that fixing the health care system is an economic imperative for the u.s.. medical costs grew 48 are sent over the last decade, nearly twice the consumer inflation rate. health care spending now exceeds $2.5 trillion annually, an average of $8000 for every man, woman and child in america. and more than 17% of our nation's gdp is spent on health care.

far greater than any other nation on earth and that share continues to grow. i'm here to tell you that the amount we are spending is really not the problem. the real problem is we are not getting the value for the dollars we are spending. what could be more important in our health? why would we be concerned about spending 17% of the gdp if we were getting that level of value? but we are not. life expectancy in the u.s. is just 26%, is number 26 in the world from birth. we are behind such countries as japan, greece, the united kingdom and chile. each year 98,000 people die from preventive medical errors. 400,000 harmful medication not errors occur at a cost of $3.513 billion of all people of data to a suffering adverse event.

an incredible 30% of health care spending goes to our ineffective redundant and sometimes harmful care. with all our collective resources, our ingenuity and our resolve, we can do better. working together we can realize the vision of a health care system that simply put, keeps people healthy and ensure safe and effective care and efficient care for people when they are ill. we have identified the nation's health care challenges and we have tried to classify our solutions into four elements based on our more than 80 years experience in 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 reporting safety, doing what works, reinforcing frontline care and inspiring healthier

living. these elements reflect a system view of where cared delivery is rewarded for safe and effective treatments. where care is based on proven treatments and procedures and is well coordinated across the system's many touch-points, where we have an emphasis on primary care to support people's efforts to stay well and manage chronic conditions of people can live full lives. 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 are rolling out a nearly every state new care modules that align payment with safety, on line payment with quality, on line payment with improved outcomes. i will give you a few examples.

in pennsylvania and west virginia the local blue plan that providers are participating in a paper for warrants program that focus on preventing infections, promoting the use of evidence-based practices and tying payments with quality and safety targets. that sounds good in theory but 52 participating hospitals saved as many as 250 lives in one year by providing -- preventing centralize blood treatment. we are also leveraging our data and analytics to speed the adoption of care the works and shed light on what doesn't work. i will give you an example here as well. we have our analysts do some work. they use data to show a commonly prescribed drug therapy was an effective at treating pancreatic cancer, gave hundreds of patients false hope and added more than $40,000 in costs per case and it did not work.

we had to find that out so we can say that money and reinvest it in procedures and protocols that do work. data-sharing is also critical. another example here. michigan hospitals at reducing the number of dangerous and expensive hospital-acquired infections in intensive care units. blue cross blue shield of michigan coordinate with a michigan hospital association and participating hospitals and they took a very few terry practical steps such as completely draping patients during surgery, using a specific antiseptic, strictly adhering to a five-point checklist to ensure all the procedures are followed. those are simple things but the results were incredibly impressive. over five years more than 1830 lives were saved, more than 140,000 hospital days were avoided and treatments costing $300 billion were averted. our commitment to primary care

is also evident in the new medical home models which we are rolling out across the country including here in washington maryland and northern virginia where care first blue cross blue shield created the first of its kind program. the program here rewards physicians for developing and following special care plans for their sickest patients and achieving results at increased quality and reduced costs. more than 3300 primary care physicians across the region are participating in this program to date. to keep people healthy and in control of chronic conditions, we are educating and engaging consumers taking it easier for consumers to understand the conditions they have in in the treatments required for them including the quality of the costs of alternatives so they can have productive conversations with their doctors, armed with facts, armed with information so they can be better consumers. we are connecting patients with new on line tools so they can share their experiences and review their interactions with health care payers and health

care providers. we are working with physician partners, the american diabetes association and others to provide children and families easy to understand information about preventing and managing childhood obesity and diabetes. this vision cannot be realized without collaboration. we need to collaborate with hospitals, physicians and other caregivers at the business community as well as a role in helping us create this new system. how many of you have changed are expected to change or health benefits to incorporate provider performance objectives? how many of you have implemented worksite 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 they give 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 rfp its firm expectation that insurance administrators will develop customized high-performing networks that innovate towards new reimbursement models. another large manufacturing plant on the west coast partnered with a local blues to pilot a medical home that targets care to employees suffering from chronic conditions which represent a disproportionate share of that particular companies medical expenses. in that model participants worked with nurse case managers who were available in 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 ned of the supplemental fees and cost to participate with nurse practitioner or the

nurse manager on the 24/7 basis. participants also reported a 14.8% increase their physical function in and a 16% increase in their mental function along with patient reported workdays missed over a six-month period less than half of what they were previously. good medical care is a good investment. it reduces your direct costs and reduces your indirect costs and it also gives you are you are a better prepared workforce. as employers who also play a role in providing resources to engage your employees and exhibiting healthy behaviors and to assume greater responsibility for their own health. you are no doubt and more familiar than i am with worksite initiatives but let me give you a couple of examples that stood out to me. blue star energy which the 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 offer free screenings incentives and education sessions. 46 a blue stars local employees have logged more than 1000 hours of exercise lost weight and improved health factors. another employer partnering with our minnesota plan to create a culture of health programs they some evidence-based practices. they modified their workplace to encourage healthy lifestyles. they put an incentive-based program and to allow employees to bite 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 and savings of almost $2 million as a result of improved health status of the workforce. you and your peers also have an important role to play as

corporate citizens and influence the way care is delivered in a safe and effective fashion. there's tears and trustees of hospital courts you need to take leadership roles in continually improving the safety processes and performance which happened in those institutions. it needs to be an important part of every board meeting and of every agenda. beyond the fiduciary and moral responsibilities, engaged board members make a difference. industry best practices for hospital boards is to spend at least 25% on quality and safety issues and to regularly care for patients or family members who were harmed while in the hospital's care. we 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% of the programs to the staff and personalize their commitment to safety. blue plants across the country of develop 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. the measures prescribed their magical plants are now the second-most commonly refute statistics by the boards for quality and safety trailing only those provided by cms. finally, i firmly believe the private market innovation is central to transforming health care system. as evidenced by the health plan and provider examples i just shared, the government has a role to play as well. that is why we have just released our pathways, or are building tomorrow's health care system -- i call it pathways because the first document was our pathways and this is the

supplement to it. this is a call to action to build upon the investments learned and the successes we have to improve health care health care quality for all americans. to leverage these experiences and best practices to develop a church transformation and health care cost. this report highlights nearly 50 examples of blue cross blue shield companies as to what they are doing across the country and what we as a nation need to do more often. our successes in improving the lives of people in every community in every state have led us to craft this plan of action with our recommendations to the government as we see larger scale improvements across all sectors. and economic assessment of this plan included the potential impact, if the government acts on these recommendations, could exceed $300 billion over the next 10 years. first, we need national and

local leadership to report safety, to eliminate preventable errors, infections and confiscations that harm hundreds of thousands of people each year and cost billions of dollars. the recommended hhs be the fda safety reviews and aggressively incorporate safety measures and to pay for quality incentives and medicare and medicaid. we also believe it's critical to increase the use of technology such as e-prescribing to drive safer care. second, with close to one third of all health care spending going toward an effective for duplicative 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 are paying for quality outcomes rather than simply the volume of services they provide. in the same vein we are recommending several proposals

to the government expanding value-based payment of medicare and medicaid and acting not practiced 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 need to rapidly incorporate them into the public grams so they can take maximal advantage of those things that are are already tried and true and tested to have successful outcomes. third we need to reinforce front-line care by placing a higher value on primary care and ensuring there's an adequate workforce to deliver it. we recommend the government protect binary care from any system payment reductions and retract training dollars into primary care. we also recommend the government expand their efforts to managed dual eligible people, people also call for both medicare and medicaid, to get them into a managed care or to 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 physical activity and healthy nutrition in schools and federal programs. in short, the government needs to take the proven market innovations and implement them across the entire population. we know what works and we need to do more of it. in closing, the challenge before us is to transform underperforming, unsustainable systems so that everyone has access to safe, effective and affordable care. it's a challenge for me, to challenge for my fellow insurers because our mission and business model are contingent upon is keeping people well. it's a challenge for businesses whose productivity depends on healthy workers and his benefit dollars to deserve a

high-quality product and a fair return on investment. it's a challenge for all americans whose prosperity fundamentally rests on a healthy u.s. economy. as a representative of blue cross and blue shield and the broader health insurance industry, i want to assure you that we are committed to rising to this challenge. we will continue to pursue the types of initiatives i mentioned. we will continue to innovate and look for solutions to complex problems and we will continue to partner, to look for supportive providers, businesses, the community, public officials and any other stakeholder interested to realize this opportunity to transform a broken system for ourselves and for future generations. thank you very much. [applause] i am happy to take any questions

that you might have. >> let me start with the first one because i suspect it is probably on everybody's mind. as you know the supreme court announced they are going to hear the mandate case and while there is a lot of legal issues there, if we go back and come forward the whole objective is patient protection and affordable care act to shirley -- insure the marketplace. many changes on the lower predicated on the fully insured marketplace. give me a sense of what happens if they pull that one break out and shoot down the individual mandate that leaves the rest of the law in place? >> leave it to bruce. to ask the tough question. well, your first supposition is that they will basically roll back the mandate but leave the insurance reforms in place. i guess i prefaced it by saying both the size of this legal dispute think that's a bad idea.

the government believes if the mandate goes, the insurance reforms need to go also and so do the people challenging that bill. be that as it may there is still a possibility that they might drop the mandate and leave the reforms in place and i think you have a system that is going to have, face ever-increasing costs because people only buy insurance when they need it. it is the same argument that we made before and there will no longer be insurance. there'll be health care reimbursement because if you buy in the ambulance on the way to the hospital and cancel it in the discharge room. so it is not sustainable in that fashion so we will have to come up with other alternatives in order to create an incentive for people to purchase insurance and maintain that insurance in place. whether it is like the medicare system where there is an enrollment period or a host of other kinds of financial

incentives to get people in, the challenge will be to keep those young and healthy people and the marketplace that we can have a real marketplace. but absent a mandate with guaranteed issue at the community rating, you really have the struggles of the marketplace at all. there was a question over here. >> thank you very much for your very -- comments. you provided a number of examples from within the united states where best practices were exported to other areas. i have 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, let's say germany net regard for a understand the cost of $4000 per patient, per person, rather than hours which are 8000. the second, to what extent have

you embraced or had the various blue cross systems embrace medical to send somebody for example from d.c. to the clairborne clinic elsewhere in this country or overseas to get high-quality outcomes at much lower costs? >> 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 a quality standpoint, something that the blues have embraced wholeheartedly. we have a program 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 programs to and send people to go there regardless of the geography. 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. there are organizations, there are companies that create incentives for people to travel outside the u.s. for services. we do believe the best quality care still is here in the u.s.. now the first question with regard who are there examples that we can learn outside the u.s.? the answer is yes. there examples we can learn everywhere whether in canada, whether great britain where they do a lot more evidence-based practice, they do a lot more of 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

come 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 of. it is delivered in local communities and it 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 the nationwide races, to find those truths and communicate those truths on the nationwide aces. there is a question there. he is coming with the microphone. >> i have two questions. one, how will accountability, how has accountability helps health care and number two, what are the trends of the health care industry in an industry

or -- [inaudible] >> i am not sure i got all of the details there, but the health care industry, because of the aging of our population, is very much a growth market. we very much need more employment of this market. we need more primary care providers. we need more people who are 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 imperative to get more efficient and add more value, extract more value even higher because as people age and as there is greater demand for the systems we have to have a way to provide that care any more cost efficient fashion. i'm not sure i remember the

first part of the question. accountability. you know i think each american has to assume more accountability for their own care and then we need, we as an industry both providers and insurers and the government needs to provide every american and every provider access to data, to information that allows them to be accountable, because today we are asking people is starkly, we have asked you to assume accountability. we have astor providers to assume accountability for care with insufficient data to really 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, get in your hands 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 we do see reduce costs and better quality so we have to do more of it. >> could i ask you to project five years into the future under two scenarios. scenario number one, the individual mandate is sustained it and we go forward with reform, what will health care look like five years from today? and the reverse if it's overturned, what would health care look like five years out under that scenario? >> you no i am not sure that my answer will be different in either scenario because the things that we need to do 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. we need need to align incentives between providers and payers and consumers so we are all working toward the same in. you to provide better information so 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 didn't get into this problem in four year so we probably won't get out that if i could project down the road i think the underlying delivery and the way care is delivered as going to morph in the fashions which i saw irrespective of whether the bill is repealed or not. what may change, what will change certainly is payment. it is the payment method. if the bill is repealed, think there will be more market raised innovation, more market-based, greater continuity of

employer-based care. if the bill stays in place there is the potential for greater government. i think those markets will continue to exist in either scenario if we are effective in transforming. i think you will see a greater effort one where they the other depending on which outcome we are projecting. ci and dr. -- for the american nurses association. recent research has shown about half of the private health plans of the united states refuse to credential nurse practitioners and other registered nurses and this is despite a finding last year from the institute of medicine that registered nurses provide high-quality primary 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 various advanced practice nurses? >> i can't speak frankly to the specifics of what each of our member companies are doing but i can speak to the philosophy we have is a system which is to enhance frontline care. if we are going to be able to treat the numbers of people that we need to treat going forward, we can't possibly train enough physicians fast enough in the primary care environment to do that. we are going to have to look toward nurse practitioners and other advanced train professionals to extend the care and extend the reach of primary care and to communities and if we are successful in bringing in the uninsured into the insured marketplace we are going to have to be more reliable on nurse practitioners and others. my daughter is a nurse so i have a vested interest in this as well but i believe we, i believe

it is inevitable that we do that. as far as the specifics of what each member company is doing and what we are doing with state legislators, i don't have that at my fingertips. if you give a car to one of our people though, we are working on that issue in a number of markets and i would be happy to communicate with you and perhaps partner with you to move it along quicker. one more audience question. wherever you pick. >> hello, thank you very much for your marks. i'm interested in your thoughts on national health strategies and i don't mean the legislation that we just sort of past. that maybe change the something that looks at the demographics going forward in our country obviously with the aging population and changes in the way in which health insurance is structured through 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 incentives within health insurance premium structures. for example if i am a safe driver, my premium goes down. if i'm a non-smoker and maintain a healthy weight, and i exercise three or four times a week, would i not, would it not be justified at some level to give me some benefit in terms of my premium? it seems to me the only differential and premium is age. could you address those national health strategies looking for demographics going for particularly in light of the burden of the cost of these? thank you. >> yeah. i would say that one of the reasons, not the only reasons, but one of the reasons we are where we are with regard to the health care system in america being fundamentally broken is we didn't have a vision.

again i am talking about a vision, collective vision on what we want health care to be in america. so i would argue that had we had that in the 60s we might have created a different outcome today. we are where we are. i think it is important to get some collective vision on where we want to go and what we want health care to be for all americans. i think that's important. it's not easy but it's important. payment is just a piece of that. we tend to confuse and we have gotten confused over the last two years about health care payments versus health care. they are two separate issues and we tends to blend them. we believe, i believe exactly what you said, healthy behaviors ought to be rewarded. people ought to get differential reimbursement based on their health status. we are not able to do that in a number of instances because of the law but i think we ought to and a number of our companies do

that and to reward and incense health risk assessments. they incense weight loss and smoking cessation and they incense healthy lifestyles. and they do reward their participants for that kind of behavior and those that do it have better outcomes than those that don't so we know it works. so we would encourage that be part of an efficient if you are going to ask people to be accountable, we ought to be created incentives for them assuming that accountability. >> there's a gentleman the middle who has raised his hand from the beginning. he may ask a tough question too so it might be my mistake. this gentleman has tried to give -- get a question from the beginning. this might be a mistake. be nice now. [laughter]

[inaudible] >> in terms of who or how the medical care is supported. do you see it continuing to be based on employer reimbursed or some other way? >> i continue to believe there is important love for employer-based coverage. i think it creates a sense of community and i think employers believe that is part of their responsibility, so i continue to think that there will be a place for employer-based coverage as i look forward. i do think you will see a rise in the individual market as well. i think more and more people will be purchasing their own care or be engaged in purchasing their own care and that is why think we have to be successful at creating means and information for people to be able to do that, so i don't think is going away, at least we hope it's not going away. thank you very much for your attention. i appreciate it.

[applause] speeds god, thank you. ladies and gentlemen thank you for your participation. i want to and liked thinking our sponsors, the blue cross blue shield association, the diplomatic courier and the week for their participation in making today's event also bowl. thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] ..

test test

now a house rules committee and the national right to carry concealed firearms legislation. the bill will allow gun owners with the proper permits to carry firearms across state lines. this is an hour and 40 minutes the rules committee will come to order.

we are here for the consideration of h.r. 820 to the national right to carry reciprocity act of 2011 and happy to welcome the distinguished chairman of the committee on the judiciary, and please come forward, transnet.to we are also anticipating thatns. bobby scott will be joining you at the table so let me say that first of all welcome back to all the members of the rules committee i hope everyone had ag productive week 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 deal whether or not people with certain backgrounds ought to be carrying concealed weapons. 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. i think something around 12 to 17 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 shows. we will stop giving permits at that time. but there is something drastically wrong with weaponizing a society the way that we are doing it. nobody has any problem getting a

gun. most states already allow for some form of carrying a concealed weapon. but the rub comes when certain states have more strict provisions and you need, then, only to read that felons do get guns and i gather that they get carrying concealed weapon permits. "new york times'" lead article today dealt specifically with the number of people who are felons, real felons, not misdemeanors, but people that had committ eted felonies befor that got guns and went somewhere and killed somebody, and it's all right i gather if they can pass a less-restrictive -- like send it had in the mail or carr a concealed weapon withes provisipr provisions, it's okay for them to have a gun. well, you and i know it's not okay, okay? so i find it passing strange and

borrowing from mr. mcgovern's provision and mr. polar. coming up on 19 years in this institution. it seems to me that my friends and many of them are my friends spend a lot of time concerning themselves about guns, gay rights, and god. last week i had to be reminded about my faith in god. this week i'm getting ready to let anybody just about carry a concealed weapon 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. i said to a friend once, you go have all the guns you need, no gay people are going to be around you, your children ain't going to go to school with no black people, and you ain't going to have no job.

i saw him about two years ago, and he told me it came true. he doesn't have a job and he ain't got one because he's a carpenter that wanted guns and didn't want black people to go to school with him and didn't want gay people to have marriage equality. you all can spend your time on this stuff if you want, but there are those of us who are going to continuously rail against it and i think it's absurd that we are spending taxpayer time, our time here in this institution, discussing something, number one, that ain't going to about become the law and, number two, shouldn't become the law. if we follow this line of reasoning -- mayor bloomberg and the mayors against illegal guns, at their web with site, www.com our lives our laws.org, provide a summary of this legislation where they say that the bill that we are considering may very

well allow people convicted of assault, domestic abusers, drug addicts, stalkers, people with violent arrest records, people convicted of illegal firearms possession, self prx predators, habitual alcohol abusers, people with zero training who ining wh never touched a gun before. if we are going to permit them to carry a conceal weapon, it's absurd to the highest degree. state legislatures 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 committed of certain felonies and violent misdemeanors, like assault or sex crime. 36 states do not issue permits to people under the age of 21, and 35 states require gun safety

training, often including live fire drills or other proof of competency with a fire alarl. this legislation would eliminate many of those standards reducing concealed carry permitting 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 excuse thaf. that would being the only reach some of this. 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 won't 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 sl to check who can legally carry a concealed weapon wi. i just think it's absolutely absurd. simply having a conceal and carry permit would enable a gun trafficker to bring cars or backpacks full of guns across state line. and they could simply present their out-of-state carry permit if they he got stopped. i think that 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 those issues that you raise may be real, but they're issues that we already confront today. your great state of florida has reciprocity agree thes with 35 other states. i have a concealviccealed carry in florida and it's recognized

in 35 states and today i'm required to understand the rulz 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. mr. chairman, my understanding is exactly what hr-822 would do as well, is that right? >> that is correct. also, i'm not aware of any state that allows an individual convicted of a felony to get a concealed carry permit. >> did i hear you say you're required if you get that carry and conceal weapon permit in florida to know the laws in the other state? >> required to obey the laws in the other state. >> obey the laws. how about knowing them? >> ignorance of the law is no excuse, i say to my friend. >> back where we started. >> i absolutely agree with that. mr. chairman, i struggle with this, too. i'll going to raise the states rights issue but not as a red perfect h

herring. i'm genuinely concerned about it. i hope as my friend mr. bishop does the next time we come around with states' rights issue we'll have the same chorus of voices supporting individual states. but today in georgia we have recessiprocity with 24 other states. i'd like for that number to be higher. it 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 an idea because it really runs counter to one of the goals of this 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 conceal carry prlt. i know how strongly you feel. >> i'm grateful to you for that. >> in the two ways i just mentioned, this bill does recognize and respect 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. did not want reciprocity with them. that is a decision the state made. one of the things that i think in this whole debate is over the research done by dr. lott where the basis of the core finding is if more people carried firearms the crime rate would go down. i would join the gentlelady from new york in that 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 would lower the crime rate, you'd have probably one view of this legislation. and if you believe that, as i do, more people carrying firearms is not helpful to the crime rate, then you probably have a different -- >> it is absolutely true, mr. scott, my view is having the ratio of licensed firearms carriers to unlicensed carriers, having the higher ratio of licensed carrier, i feel safer walking the streets of georgia than i do walking the streets of jurisdictions that do not allow that same privilege. when you go and stand in line -- you may not be a conceal to carry permit holder -- i encourage you to go down to the jurisdiction, whether it's the probate judge or county sheriff, look at the folks in line to get those permits. what it says to me is, there are plenty of guns out on the streets as my colleagues on the other side suggested.

the question is, are you licensed to carry it? have you been looked over, background track they do on us in georgia is extensive. the renewal process is extensive and the permit is expensive. >> you mentioned renewal. a state can revoke a concealed weapon withes permit and in fact can revoke reciprocity if they find another state is issuing permits, you can revoke the reciprocity. but this bill will force you to accept the validity of an out-of-state license given by a state whose standards you think the home state are too lax. >> let me ask, mr. chairman, when with i got into this bill i was surprised to learn there were more states that covered conceal carry prlts than states that allow for open carry. when i think of the second amendment, i think of the open carry being the most rebest

realization of the second amendment. i think conceal carry is a little more dangerous for officers than open carry. what led to this bill coming out of committee with a conceal carry focus instead of carry? >> i think there was one situation where we know where -- we believe we know where country is going. 49 states have conceal carry so clearly that's the most common type of permit allowed, most essmon way for idividual to .. firearms in ways other than what is usually allowed by law. you have 40 states who offer some type or form of reciprocity, 40, 49, you look at the numbers you may as well have something that fits everyone and you have a consistent standard. >> i think about my friends in illinois who don't have the roit to carry and i feel for them, but i know you can go over the border in indiana, if you have a business there you can get an out-of-state permit in indiana,

iowa, allows for nonresident permits. how does this legislation deal with holders of nonresident permits? if i'll an illinois resident, holder of a florida nonresident permit, is that florida nonresident permit then recognized in the other 49 jurisdictions just not my home jurisdiction? >> in the case of illinois, illinois has affirmatively chose be not to issue can seonceal ca. states that take no position are allowed to have individuals enter those states with a conceal carry unless they've affirmatively denied it because the constitutional right to bear arms. the bill treats out-of-state permits the same as one from your own state. >> okay. fantastic. >> except that you can't use the out-of-state permit in your home state. you can use it in all of the other states, not just your hole state.

you can't get an in-state permit by going out of state. but if you do go out of state, you can use that permit anywhere else. and we had testimony -- it's not clear that you actually have to be physically present to get a permit. you may be able to buy these things over the internet. and the way this thing is going, this is going to be a revenue enhancement where you just charge enough money and people just over internet get their little concealed weapons permit that they were not entitled to get this in their home state. >> having gone through the licensing process, i trust the local jurisdictions to do a quality job. i'd say to the chairman, this is a bill that's been knocking around these kmaim betters for a long, long time. it's always been widely co-sponsored, supported, but just does not make it to the floor. i just want to tell you how much i appreciate -- i agree with speaker boehner. the house works well best when it works its will.

grateful. >> i would -- i'm interested -- the gentleman had indicated -- i don't know whether it's true or not -- that you can just go on the internet and get a conceal carry license. is that true? >> in the state of georgia, we're a must-issue state, i would argue that we're as aliberal as you're likely to find, that is absolutely not true. you must show up at the probate judge. you must be fingerprinted. you must pay for your background check. you must go on as many states to provide certification of some level of training, as the gentleman indicated in virginia. it's a very thorough process and it doesn't happen instantly. even in a must-issue state like georgia, it takes weeks if not months for that process to finish because, again, you have two choices. you can have unlicensed gun owners or you can have licensed gun carriers. i prefer every day that i'm standing beside someone who's been certified.

>> i appreciate continuing this conversation can. but in a must-issue state, the term you use? >> that's right. >> does that mean you must issue it to them no matter what the background is? >> you raise an interesting question. must-issue is the most permissible category. to answer your question, absolutely not. >> then why would someone come before this committee and offer testimony that you could get it on the internet? why would someone -- >> 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. >> appreciate it, gentleman. but the gentleman is from georgia, and you said it is a requirement that internet -- >> in georgia. he said that is not correct. >> in a must-issue state like georgia, must-issue means, if

someone applies and they qualify, a permit must be issued. th that qualification process is deta detailed. it's in person with fingerprint cards through the probate judge's office. >> so if someone suggested you could gain that in georgia in testimony before this committee, you would tell them that's not correct. >> well, i will say to my friend -- and he has been here a year or two longer than i have. >> with respect. >> with respect, it is 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 of the ninth and tenth amendment are seriouses issues. and, yes, when with you walk into a hearing like this and you see the red herrings throwing out one after another, it cheapens the entire debate. the second, ninth and tenth amendments are important. it's a great frustration to me

that when dealing with issues of that gravity -- >> i thank the gentleman for engaging with me and the time extended. >> if the gentleman would point in the bill where you're required to have a physical presence if you get 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 these permits overt internet and require a physical presence in front of a judicial officer. maybe we should have that. but it's not in the bill. >> i'm -- if the gentleman will yield, i'm not aware of a single state where you don't have to physically go get your fingerprints. >> well, the testimony in the committee was not clear as to whether or not in -- >> let me clarify for the record. i think every state requires physical presence for fingerprints, minimum. >> and this bill, if they change -- >> we're not changing that.

it's in existence in all 50 states. >> that's exactly what we're doing. if they change it to not require physical presence, that internet concealed weapons permit is good all over the country. >> is the gentleman 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 concerned about. >> that would be better than this bill. >> well, i look forward to working with the gentleman. >> i yield back. >> i'd like to submit this for the record. this is a map courtesy of rocky mountain gun owners association. it shows colorado's reciprocal agree thes. agreements. i think we have about 30. it seems like a solution in search of a problem. colorado gun owner, very easy to get a concealed permit, we have a must issue as well. you can drive to any of our neighboring states it's still

good. it's not good in nevada, the question is why is that not a matter between the sovereign state of colorado and the sovereign state of nevada, approach their state legislators and governors to work out? why does this require federal intervention and bureaucrats in washington deciding this rather than in our states? >> as i mentioned a while ago, i think there's value in having a consistent standard that is not confusing where you don't have 50 different types of variations respecting the fundamental right to bear arms. the fact that different states might have different standards to acquire a concealed carry is not as important in my judgment as the fact that we need to allow reciprocity and allow states to recognize the rietzs of those in other states across state lines with the concealed carry permit. as i mentioned again and it's just a difference of opinion, this bill does respect states rights in two fundamental ways. if a state like illinois has affirmatively said you cannot have a concealed carry, you're not allowed to go into that

state with a concealed carry with another state. second of all, if either local jurisdictions or the states themselves have decided that one should not under a concealed carry permit carry a firearm into a public facility or a church or a bar or sports event, those instances will be recognized under this bill. >> do you believe that -- i think illinois has been brought up a number of times. and i believe it was in reference to them not having a concealed carry regime. is that -- you said illinois does not allow concealed carry? >> illinois to my knowledge -- >> do you believe it's the constitutional right of a state if they choose to not have a way to have concealed carry, or do you believe he under the second amendment the state is required to have a version of concealed carry laws? >> i did not hear. let me ask you to repeat the question. >> illinois has been brought p up a number of times. based on this, 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 convicted sealed permit in their state in. >> no. i think it's up to the state to decide -- i don't think the amendment requires states to all have concealed carry prlts. i think it is a protected right, not a required right. >> just to be clear, i don't think you're arguing this particular proposal which has its merits and flaws, weighing the second amendment versus the ninth and tenth, do you believe this is constitutionally required to protect the second amendment or is it optional and just good policy you're advancing? >> the problem here is quite frankly states don't have constitutional rights, individuals do. so i do think an individual has a constitutional right to, for example, if we deem it, to carry a weapon or fire arl into another state that recognizes concealed carry permits.

>> sure. i have rocky mountain gun owners calling my office against this particular bill. they're worried about the federal overreach. they're worried this is 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 it and who doesn't. i think this would be a larger issue for me and my constituents, many of whom have concealed weapons permits. if we didn't have these reciprocity agree thes. i think my constituents are quite cob tent with them. i would direct their attention to our governor and state legislature both of whom i think are receptive to negotiating more. but given that many of the calls from the gun owners groups in my state have been against this, you know, i'm far from convinced it's needed, given the many reciprocity agreements that exist. if the people of illinois need one or want one, they need to elect a governor it would seem that would do that rather than come crying to washington. >> just very briefly, you're

talking -- you keep talking about consistent standards. these are not consistent standards. these are lowest common denominator standards. if you want consistent standards, maybe everybody will agree that georgia standards would be the standard. but this says whoever's got the lowest standard, dealing them out without any kind of requirement, no training, no nothing, you've got to honor that permit, too. so it's not consistent standard, it's lowest standard. >> let me ask a legal question. at the boflt the map from this gun advocacy group, it says, please be aware you must abide by the laws from the state you're traveling. under this federal law, you would have to abide by the law off the state you were in as well. >> that's correct. >> so it encroaches the state's sovereignty somewhat but it does require that they also fill that -- again, not an issue that my constituents have been -- >> you cannot be eligible to get a permit in that state, you may not be old enough.

>> you might not have to -- in effect you may not be eligible in a state because of age or a prior conviction, perhaps misdemeanor, because of some psychological -- >> lack of training. >> interesting. >> you may not be aiblg do get a permit, but if you have a permit you have to abide by the rules in in terms of whether you can carry it into a bar or school or -- >> and i represent a district and state with many, many concealed gun permit older holders. i don't happen to be one myself. many of my friends are. but this is simply -- it's a solution in search of a problem. maybe this can provide a newed focus on all of us for states to enter more reciprocity agreements rather than take this argue the to washington. i yield back the balance of my time to the chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. aloft discussion particularly about illinois. and i have a little experience

there because i was born and raised and was a police officer in illinois for 12 years. one of the things that always struck me was that we had to have gun owner's 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 owner's i.d. card but those that were committing the vast majority of the crimes that i dealt with never had a gun owner's i.d. card. and what i've seen in my years and 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. you know, the bad guys could care less about legal folks and the ability to get a concealed weapons permit. they're going to carry a gun because they can. >> mr. nugent, i don't know about 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 har