is a commonsense solution to adapt to today's needs. this legislation announced -- and it allows people with valid state-issued state concealed arm permits or licenses to carry a concealed firearm in any other state that has essentially the same laws. to be clear, this legislation does not create a national licensing scheme or agency, it does not supersede the laws for firearms use in any other state. the right of self-defense is a fundamental one and has been recognized in law for centuries. the second amendment dictates that the appropriate way to fight crime is to target criminals, not law-abiding gun owners. today we have an opportunity to clearly recognize the right to bear arms for our citizens and to allow law-abiding citizens to exercise freedom without restrictive barriers. let's take that opportunity today. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: thank you, madam

speaker. i'm pleased to recognize the former chair of the constitution subcommittee of the house judiciary committee, jerry nadler of new york, for as much time as he may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. madam speaker, i'm sorry. madam speaker i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 822. what the brady campaign correctly calls the packing heat on your street bill. mr. speaker, america's in dire economic straights. millions of people are out -- straits. millions of people are out of work, people are clam bering for congress to pass legislation to grow the economy and help create jobs. so what does the house of representatives do? this august body is considering gun legislation. the disconnect between the republican house majority and the american people is beyond belief. it's no wonder that the congress approval rating is 13%. not only are we wasting our time on this issue, but what the bill

does should scare every american. this bill as amended by the judiciary committee would let a person with a concealed carry permit issued by one state take his or her weapon to any other state of which they are not a resident, regardless of the laws of that other state. state laws on both gun possession and concealed carry would be overridden. this bill takes away the right of the citizens of each state to set their own gun control policy. for republican house majority that supposedly believes in states rights this bill is shocking. so, for example, some states require firearms training, will require that people be 21 years old to have a concealed carry permit, also trulies would be tossed aside by this new federal mandate. i tried to protect states by filing an amendment with the rules committee that would have provided an exception to the bill, that lets states enforce laws against persons convicted of sex offenses against minors from having concealed weapons. that amendment was not made in order. i guess it was more important to satisfy the gun lobby than it is

to make sure our kids are protected from violent predators. to the extent states want to allow their citizens to enter into other states with concealed weapons, they can do so by entering into reciprocity agreements and many states have done so. but which would wes for those who have not? why would we force them to accept the concealed carry permit of every other state? because any permit would suffice this bill would create a race to the bottom. with whatever state is the most permissive rules setting policy. you wouldn't even have to be a resident in some states. this lowest common denominator approach would only lead to more people carrying hidden weapons packing heat on your street. knowing there are more concealed handguns all around does not make me feel safer. lastly the i want to address the constitutional argument. in heller the supreme court held there's a second amendment right for persons to bear arms. nowhere did the court say, however, that there was an unlimited national right to carry a concealed handgun. in fact, justice scalia

recognized the legality of reasonable limits on the second amendment. i can't imagine a more reasonable restriction for states to impose than those which govern who can carry a concealed firearm in their own states. i ask that members reject this deeply flawed and dangerous bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: madam chairwoman, i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks, who is the chairman of the constitution subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for three minutes. mr. franks: i thank the chairman and, madam chair, h.r. 822 initially introduced by mr. stearns of florida and mr. shuler of north carolina and supported by more than half of my colleagues in the house of representatives would allow people with a valid permit or license to carry a concealed handgun in any other state that permits concealed carry. this is a policy akin to

allowing licensed drivers from one state to drive their car in another state so long as they obey the local laws. madam chair, clearly the constitutional right to defend oneself from one's family shouldn't be limited to when you are at home. criminal have always preferred unarmed victims. conversely, law-abiding citizens cameble of defending themselves and their fellow citizens safe innocent lives. to give one of countless examples, in 2007, a man in colorado wrote online, quote, all i want to do is kill and injury as many christians as i can, closed quote. he then went on a shooting rampage, first killing two young students at a missionary training center outside denver and then at a gathering of over 7,000 people in and around a church, with a rifle and a backpack full of ammunition, murray entered the church and opened fire, killing two sisters. murray was ultimately stopped and killed by a church member

and a voluntary security guard who once worked in law enforcement and who had a concealed carry permit. apart from this armed hero's actions, madam speaker, many more innocent citizens would have died that day. h.r. 822 includes a number of provisions intended to retain the states' ability to regulate firearms use in their own states and increase public safety. nothing in the bill effects a state's ability to set the eligibility requirements for its own residents, nor does it effect any state laws or regulations regarding how, when or whether where concealed firearms can be carried. it also requires people who want to take advantage of the federal grant of reciprocity to be properly permitted or licensed by a state to carry a concealed weapon. and to be able to produce both the permit or license at a government-issued identification document. to reiterate chairman smith's comments, studies have shown that concealed carry laws are very good public policy for our country, madam chair.

the n.r.a. has estimated based on f.b.i. crime report data that right-to-carry laws which widely allow concealed carry have 22% lower violent crime rates, 30% lower murder rates and 46% lower robbery rates than states that prohibit or greatly restrict concealed carry. h.r. 822 will help further this trend. i ask my colleagues to help support this bill and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. 2k -- mr. conyers: i yield to my colleague for one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i thank the gentleman. mr. chairman, for all the talk of states' rights, h.r. 822 obliterates the states to pass their own gun rules and protect

their citizens. in the state of florida, we require those who seek such concealed permits to prove basic competency, to protect those who were convicted of a felony. h.r. 822 denies floridians the right to protect their own families and set their own standards. mr. deutch: if florida would want laws as laxed as those in utah, they would adopt their own. i think that they have you had have a dabe. -- database. with a database opened 24 hours a day with people holding concealed-carry permits, florida would be able to

protect their citizens. mr. smith: i yield three minutes to mr. stearns who is the writer, author, creator of this legislation. make that five minutes. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mr. stearns: i'd say to my colleague i'm from florida. and so i'm supporting this bill. in fact, i'm the proud sponsor of this bill, ladies and gentlemen. i have sponsored this legislation since the 105th congress. that was almost 14 years ago. because i believe it's long overdue that we take action to enhance the fundamental right of self-defense for all law-abiding citizens of this country. i want to thank mr. trent franks of arizona who for his hard work in pushing this through the subcommittee and full committee and chairman lamar smith for his leadership too. my colleagues, the simple right

to defend your loved ones from criminals is fundamental. and it's not extinguished when you simply cross a state border. this bill recognizes this important fact by establishing the interstate recognition of concealed-carry permits in much the same way drivers' license are recognized. now, under this legislation, lawfully issued permits will be recognized in all states that also issue carry permits. there are now 49 states that issue these permits. most of these states also recognize permits issued from at least some other states. while some states recognize all valid permits issued by any state. but herein simply lies the problem. the nonuniformity of the laws regarding reciprocity makes it difficult for law-abiding permit holders to know for sure if they are obeying the law as they travel from state to state. while preserving the power of

the states to set the rules on where concealed firearms can be carried, this bill will establish recognition in the 49 permit-issuing states. so this legislation will simply make it easier for law-abiding permit holders to know that they are simply in compliance with the law when they carry a firearm as they travel this wonderful country. drivers would have to stop at the state line to determine whether their license was valid before proceeding. each state would recognize some licenses but of course not all of them. some states would insist that others had precisely the same requirements for issues of a license before operating reciprocity. and the status of such reciprocity would be constantly changing literally day-to-day.

so that is the reality of the current reciprocity agreements anding on the congress can remedy this -- and only the congress can remedy this interstate muddle. we are proud to be citizens of a nation who need not present papers to cross internal boundaries. but the holders of carry permits must indeed today worry whether their permits are valid before they can safely venture out of their home state while exercising a fundamental right. our system of federalism beckons this body to remedy this disparity and due process an equal treatment under the law. so, mr. chairman, over the past 27 years, 17 states have passed right-to-carry laws and each of these states opponents of firearm ownership have made dire protections of mayhem in the streets if we simply dare

to allow law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm for their own self-defense. but in each case these predictions were proven to be completely false. in fact, during that period violent crime has dropped 51% to a 46-year low. 1991 to 2011, and these are according to the f.b.i. uniform crime reports. statistics don't lie in this case. they're actually showing violent crime has dropped, and this is one of the reasons. mr. chairman, this legislation will not strip states of the ability to prohibit dangerous persons from carrying a firearm. federal law already prohibits a convicted felon or someone shown to be a danger from the mere possession of a gun and the carry regulations set up in each state will apply to all permitholders, both residents and nonresidents. this bill does not set up a

federal carry permit system or establish any federal regulations of concealed-carry permits. that power remains with the states. additionally, this legislation does not include any new federal gun laws nor does it call for additional federal regulation of gun ownership. in fact, it does not allow for new federal regulation for it amends the part of the gun control act that allows only such regulation as are necessary. additional one minute. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i'd like to yield the gentleman an additional one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. stearns: it amends the part of the gun control act that allows only such regulation as are necessary, and in this case none, my colleagues. this legislation simply guarantees citizens constitutional rights as a firm by two supreme court cases, d.c. vs. heller and mcdonald

vs. chicago which simply ruled the second amendment is an individual right. this bill will allow law-abiding citizens who already have valid carry permits to carry firearms when they travel to protect themselves and to protect their families. these people who have proven themselves to be among the most responsible and safe members of our communities and we should not deprive them of this fundamental right when they simply cross a state border. so i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. it's a long time in coming. i'm pleased it's on the floor and i look forward to its passage. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i yield myself 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: i just want to say to my friend from florida, cliff stearns, you can't compare licensing, concealed-carry permits to drivers' licenses, and that's

why this idea of yours, with all due respect, has never been passed by the congress before. the reason is that no state have the same way to automatically check a drivers' license for concealed-carry. i yield myself 15 additional seconds. you cannot compare carrying concealed weapons check with a driver's license because they are checkable. a concealed-carry weapon, there are states that odon't even permit the information to be revealed from their database. so you're making a huge error that i hope can be corrected. and with that, mr. speaker, i'd yield to the distinguished the gentlelady from california --

to the distinguished gentlelady from california, a member of the judiciary committee, one minute. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. chu: this issue could endanger people's lives. it hurts my home state of california which develops laws to protect citizens by developing criteria on those who could carry concealed-carry weapons. with this bill that all goes away. this bill is so bad that it even allows drug dealers convicted of selling drugs to minors to carry a concealed weapon. california would not allow it because such permits can only go to those of good moral character. but under this law we would have to accept the concealed weapon permit for every other state that allows weapons to these drug dealers. i offered an amendment in judiciary committee to stop this, but those on the other side of the aisle voted it down. with this bill, a person who endangers the lives of our children will be allowed to carry a concealed loaded gun nationwide and you would be

powerless to stop it. it is the individual states that are in the best position to determine how to best protect its citizens. i strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on this dangerous bill. mr. smith: i'd like to yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 15 seconds. mr. franks: mr. chairman, i'd suggest to my friend, mr. conyers, that he's correct. one cannot compare this with -- strictly with people and driver's licenses. the fact is driver's license -- driving a car is not a fundamental right to defense as enshrined in our constitution. secondly, cars kill many more people than guns. and third, we don't usually defend ourselves with cars. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to the gentleman from ohio, mr. austria. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

mr. austria: thank you, mr. chairman. as a former chairman in the ohio senate -- of the ohio senate judiciary committee, i helped lead the fight to pass the first concealed-carry law. even with this law and this right and one of thousands of ohioans with a concealed-carry permit, i understand the need to reinforce our second amendment rights by resolving the confusion and the problems that exist when traveling between states. the national right-to-carry reciprocity act does just that, it allows ohioans and those with valid c.c.w. permits issued by their home states to go to 49 states where it is not prohibited. this bill has constituents to comply with their home state rules. the bill simply strengthens and protects our constituents' second amendment rights and that's why i've co-sponsored

this legislation and look forward to its passage. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself just 30 seconds, to mr. scott. when we decide how we're going to cast our vote on this bill to realize you cannot compare a concealed weapon carry permit with a driver's license. but the states do not have the ability, they do not have the automated machinery to do that. many will not even release this information. it's considered a private matter. concealed-carry permit information cannot be revealed in many states, and i now turn

to the former chairman of the subcommittee on crime, the distinguished member of the judiciary committee, bobby scott of virginia, for three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. scott: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank you -- thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. chairman, h.r. 822 will harm public safety. that's why law enforcement organizations, such as the international association of chiefs of police, major cities' chiefs association and many other law enforcement organizations oppose this bill. this bill would allow people to use their concealed weapons permit in any state in the union without regard to the standards and requirements of those other states. this bill even allows people who are ineligible to get a concealed weapons permit in their home state to go out of state and get a permit and use that permit anywhere in the country except their home state.

. some sits have minimum standards for those who may be eligible to carry a concealed weapon. for example, some states require firearms training. others deny permits to those who are under 21 or those with certain convictions for assaulting police officers, selling drugs to kids, sex offenses against children, or domestic violence. standards such as these would be overridden by this bill because permits from states without these standards would have to be recognized. many states already recognize concealed weapons permits from other states. my own state of virginia recognizes many states' concealed weapons permit, but it requires a 24-hour verification. for this reason many states do not enjoy reciprocity with virginia because 24-hour verification is not available. in fact, one state, colorado, didn't even maintain a data base, a statewide data base, so there could be no out-of-state

verification. as it's been indicated a driver's license any time of day you can verify the validity of a driver's license. but the concealed weapons permit many states do not have 24-hour verification. an overriding the ability of states to control the carrying of concealed weapons by nonresidents, this bill would create a situation where the weakest state laws essentially become the national law. we'll be creating a race to the bottom in public safety. in consideration of this legislation has been a challenge because apparently many people in this body believe that if more people carried guns the crime rate would go down. reliable studies, however, point out that the possession of a firearm is much more likely to result in the death of a family member or neighbor than being used to thwart a crime. this bill will undermine public safety. we should let the states decide whether or not or under what conditions to allow people who

are in their state to carry concealed handguns. i urge my colleagues, therefore, to vote against this legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield one minute to the gentleman from indiana. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> rights do not come from the government. we are in the words of the declaration of independence endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. mr. stutzman the right to self-defense goes deep and cannot be taken away. the right to self-defense is a cornerstone for the second amendment. it is also the foundation for concealed carry laws across this country. i'm proud that my home state of indiana has established a responsible process for obtaining a lifetime permit. today, 49 states have some sort of right to carry law. mr. speaker, this bill ensures that permit holders in indiana like myself can exercise our right to self-defense when our families travel across our great

country. if you follow the law, your permit from one state will be honored by another. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield myself 15 seconds, please. ladies and gentlemen, forgive my passion on the discussion of this subject. but almost 300 young people of african-american descent are injured or killed by gunfire from ages 15 to 24 every week. with that i would yield to my colleague, mike quigley, distinguished member of judiciary, from illinois, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. quigley: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to this measure. i, too, offered an amendment

which failed in committee. my amendment would have prevented individuals convicted of assaulting a police officer or impersonating a police officer from carrying concealed loaded guns. several states that allow permits also denied them to those who have assaulted or impersonated cops. the law enforcement officials of these states have decided that that is what's best for their communities. this bill wipes those protections away and will go further. may i remind my friends here who are citing the constitution as their nexus for this law, that the right to keep and bear arms in the interest of self-defense of a person at home is not unlimited. as the justices wrote in the district of columbia vs. heller, quote, the right is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever for whatever purpose, end quote. frankly that's what the national right to carry reciprocity act purports. so for interpreting the 14th amendment, deeming the bill of rights applicable to the states

in this manner as to the right to bear arms, then doesn't that argument also dictate each state interpret other states' desessions on other laws and statutes in the same manner? does this mean the states should acknowledge apportion rights from one state to the next? does this mean that states should acknowledge alcohol laws from one state to the next? does this mean that states should acknowledge marriage licenses from one state to the next? particularly when it comes to same-sex marriage? i have a feeling that many of my friends here today would answer those questions with a simple no. you see my trouble with today's premise then. i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from north carolina, mrs. ellmers. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. ellmers: thank you. i rise today in favor of h.r. 22, the right to bear arms is a stable of our constitution as a basic american right. and we should continue to protect it while making sure our

laws remain efficient. i am one of 268,000 permit holders in north carolina. this is not only a right issue, more importantly it is a safety issue. as millions of american families can attest, there is no greater threat to our families than the ability to protect. we must protect our families and it cannot stop at states' borders. h.r. 822 also does not impact state laws governing how concealed firearms are possessed or carried. again it does not jeopardize the states' rights. i call on my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. mr. conyers: i yield myself 15 seconds. there are, my colleagues, over

65 million handguns in the united states. and in each year nearly 100,000 people in america every year are shot or killed with a firearm. i now yield to our distinguished judiciary colleague, a former magistrate from georgia, hank johnson, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i rise today in opposition to this dangerous bill, the national right to carry reciprocity act. the 10th amendment of the bill of rights of the united states constitution provides as follows. the powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states respectively.

or to the people. mr. speaker, this bill would override the laws of almost every state by forcing them to accept concealed carry gun permits from every other state even if the permit holder would not be allowed to carry a handgun in the state where he or she is traveling. this is ridiculous. each state should decide who may carry a concealed loaded gun within their borders. and the federal government should respect the state's rights to do so. the irony here is that the -- my friends on the tea party republican side of the aisle claim to respect state's rights. but then they rush this legislation to the house floor which tramples over state's

rights. these tea party republicans claim they want to create jobs for the millions of unemployed americans in our nation, but they are not focusing on creating jobs. instead, they are bowing down to the national rifle association by moving this piece of special interest legislation forward. i urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous bill and thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield a minute to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. klein, who is also -- mr. kline, who is also the chairman of the education and work force committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kline: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. chairman, i rise today in strong, strong support of h.r. 822, the national right to carry reciprocity act. this bill provides important protections for gun owners and it's time -- its time is past due. as a retired marine and avid

outdoorsman, i'm an experienced firearms owner and user. i hold a conceal carry pr mitt in the state of minnesota and i believe individuals have the right to keep and bear arms for the protection of their home, property, family, and person. they have that right. unfortunately, there have been a lot of miscarkizations surrounding this legislation. i have heard a lot of it today. to be clear this bill does not create a federal licensing of registration system. it does not create federal standards or infringe on the ability of states to make laws for a carry permit. it does not negatively affect states that have permitless carry systems. mr. chairman, this bill will protect law-abiding gun owners from current confusion caused by the wide array of state laws and preempt the threat of frivolous lawsuits very could face simply by traveling outside their home state. national right to carry reciprocity provides critical recognition that the second amendment rights of our constituents do not end when they cross state lines and this will enhance public safety. i urge my colleagues to stand

for the second amendment, to stand for the rights of responsible gun owners who engage in gun safety, and i urge them to support h.r. 822. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield to our dear friend, jim moran, of virginia, 1 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. moran: mr. speaker, the first reason this bill should be defeated is that it usurps state authority and replaces it with a lowest common denominator federal directive. this is a radical piece of legislation. in fact, today 43 states are not in compliance with this law. 38 states today prevent people from carrying concealed weapons if they have certain dangerous misdemeanor criminal convictions. 35 states require the completion of a gun -- short gun safety program. the commonwealth of virginia has weakened its gun laws over the past two years allowing concealed guns in bars and

renewal of permits by mail. i disagree with these actions, but i would never question the general assembly's authority to make these decisions. but this bill makes our state legislature's judgment irrelevant. this is a federal power grab. coming from a majority that claims to be a defender of states' rights. the second reason that this bill should be defeated is that our law enforcement professionals oppose it. the international association of chiefs of police, the major cities police chief association, the virginia association of chiefs of police all oppose this bill. why? because they know that it will be nearly impossible for police to verify the validity of 49 different carry permits placing officers in potentially life threatening situations. some states don't even keep verifiable data bases of those who have been issued concealed carry permits. law enforcement is trying to curb illegal gun smuggling, but this bill allows traffickers

with concealed carry permits to transport firearms and present an unverifiable permit if stopped by police. this is a blatant lemming overreach presumably because it was next on the n.r.a.'s legislative wish list. we should defeat this bill, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: the gentleman from arkansas, mr. ross. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for one minute. mr. ross: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in strong support of h.r. 822. if you get a driver's license in arkansas, it's recognized in every state in the country. and if you have a conceal carry permit, the same rules should apply. our second amount rights to own and bear arms are universal, and our laws should reflect that as best they can. the national right to carry reciprocity act would allow every american citizen with a valid concealed carry permit to carry a concealed firearm in all

states that allow them for lawful purposes. let me be clear, if your state bans concealed firearms, then this law will not affect that ban. this bill does not change any state laws about when and where you can carry a concealed firearm. this bill does not create a new federal licensing system. it simply reinforces our second amendment rights and makes the laws more fair for law-abiding gun owners. as a strong supporter of the second amendment, i believe we must pass the national right to carry reciprocity act now and i urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the bill. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i yield to the distinguished gentleman from new jersey, bill pascrell, 1 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. . >> thank you, mr. speaker.

the ranking member, mr. chairman. i had to make a choice on this bill. mr. pascrell: where whether i would support a disputable constitutional issue about whether you can by law carry a concealed weapon or move towards the other side to those who oppose this. now, who opposes this legislation? besides me? mayors against illegal guns, the international association of chiefs of police, the major cities chiefs association, and the police foundation oppose this bill. doesn't this mean anything to you at all? doesn't it? or does it? i'll prefer -- i prefer community policing than try to put more guns into the hands of those people who we don't even know who are going to be trained to even use them.

that's my preference. this means my home state of new jersey -- this is not idaho, this is not montana. we're -- in fact, we have the most vastly populated state in the union. there is a different culture. when clinton argued on behalf of gun possession when he was the president of the united states, he always made this point about the cultural differences in different parts of the country. we respect that. i'm not against the second amendment. i support the second amendment. but i don't want those folks in the street who are outarmed -- outarm and outgun our police officers. 12,000 police officers we have in this country. thank you. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pascrell: thank you. 12,000 less police officers in our streets. we should be worried about that as a priority rather than this

as a priority. so i made the decision. the evidence is like this against doing this. we haven't had any legislation which took away one gun in the past 20 years from anybody in this country. not one. so we have made the perception being that we want to take guns away from people. how dare you even say, protect our police, don't vote for this? mr. smith: i yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois, mr. kinsinger. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kinzinger: the right to bear arms is simple. when the guns are heard, it is thought it is criminals. this bill is about the right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms.

illinois we have concealed-carry. there are people killed in chicago very often by guns that are already concealed. but not concealed by law-abiding citizens. illinois' the only state that doesn't allow a form of it legally. i want h.r. 8 2 to be a clear sign to the governor of illinois that now is the time to join the rest of the country in allowing citizens the right to conceal a firearm on their person. we hear so much of the -- if we allow people to carry guns, more people are going to be killed, but that flies in the face of statistics. after 2008, there was a record number of guns purchased, but we saw crime drop almost everywhere. bar none. my point is that in the law-abiding citizens in this country are not the problem. illinois needs to join the rest of the country in supporting concealed-carry for its citizens and i believe this is a sign that it's time to do so now and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield to the distinguished gentlelady from

florida, debbie wasserman schultz, a former member of the judiciary committee, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to h.r. 822, the national right to carry reciprocity act. this ill conceived bill is yet another distraction from what should be the most pressing concern of this congress, putting americans back to work. what's more disturbing is that this bill jeopardizes public safety by mandating that states honor even the most laxed concealed weapons laws of other states. the gentleman from illinois is incorrect. this is about criminals. from my constituents in south florida, gun control is a serious issue. miami-dade county has one of the highest rates of gun violence in the country. and in the entire state of florida, there are 8,000 permits for concealed firearms. florida's process for issuing license is problematic enough

and i would certainly not suggest foisting it on any other state that has stronger safeguards to protect its citizens. but this bill will do exactly that. for states that require age minute mums or safety training before getting a concealed weapon permit or prohibits certain violent offenders from getting a license in the first place, this goes out the window if this bill is passed into law. what we get is the worst of the worst, the lowest common denominator. for example, in just one six-month period in 2006, florida gave concealed license to more than 1,400 individuals who pleaded guilty or no contest to felonies. 216 of them had outstanding warrants. 128 of them had active domestic violence injunctions. under this bill other states will be mandated to honor these permits. they'll be mandated to allow florida self-admitted felons to carry concealed weapons in their states. this is why the law enforcement organizations strongly oppose this bill. it's opposed by more than 600

members of the bipartisan mayors against illegal guns, including many of my local mayors of both parties in south florida. why would this bill be a higher ply or the than creating jobs -- priority than creating jobs? the house majority still has no jobs agenda. regardless of how americans feel about guns, the overwhelming majority would agree that gun policy is not a higher priority than job creation is right now. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill and i urge my friends across the aisle to stop putting american lives at risk and start putting them back to work. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to mr. coble, who is also the chairman of the court subcommittee of the judiciary committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. coble: i thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i rise in support of h.r. 822, concealed-carry permits may be the most scrutinized permits for gun owners to receive. unfortunately, the manner in which these permits are recognized by various states is confusing and inconsistent. h.r. 822 will help resolve this

dilemma, mr. chairman. for example, in my home state of north carolina, concealed-carry permits from south carolina and georgia are recognized, but not permits from new mexico. meanwhile, new mexico readily recognizes concealed-carry permits from north carolina. if enacted there would be no discrepancy over which permits are valid. another reason for supporting h.r. 822 is that it protects states' sovereignty. states are not required to issue concealed-carry permits and state laws regarding the use of ownership of firearms are explicitly preserved. i firmly believe that the second amendment -- individuals to own a firearm, mr. chairman. i also believe that ownership and use of a firearm carries a special level of personal responsibility. this bill promotes both of these ideas and if enacted it will help make america safer which probably explains why

this bill has 245 co-sponsors. i thank the chairman and yield back. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i am pleased to yield to the distinguished gentleman from new jersey, rush holt, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. holt: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, this is another great example of legislation in search of a problem. driven by ideological fervor of its sponsors rather than by any practical approach to safety, h.r. 822 would amend existing federal law to establish a national standard for carrying concealed firearms. as the sponsors well know, these matters have long been the province of the states. it's fascinating how quickly the majority ignores the 10th amendment when the gun lobbying comes calling. why needlessly create a conflict or should i say a shootout between the second and the 10th amendment? passage of the law enforcement officers safety act of 2004, which i voted for and which

permits qualified law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms across states, makes this essentially redundant and unnecessary. the bill before us would have the effect of overriding new jersey's own laws in this area which police officers and hunters and other citizens tell me works well and keeps our citizens safe. ask our law enforcement officers. they'll tell you new jerseyans live well one our -- within our gun safety laws. we don't need other laxed laws. others have said but maybe it's worth repeating. this body should be focusing on creating jobs, not passing ideologically driven special interest legislation that would endanger public safety, subvert the constitutional order and go against the interests and the declared recommendation of law enforcement officers all across

the u.s. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the chair would inform the managers, the gentleman from texas has 9 1/4 minutes remaining. the gentleman from michigan has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. lungren. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lungren: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i strongly support the second amendment for that reason i signed on and the heller case and the mcdonald vs. the city of chicago case, upholding the right to bear arms as an individual constitutional right. i believe that. at the same time as the former attorney general of california, i continue to have a deep and abiding commitment to preserving states' rights in the manner which the founders envisioned, the notion of federalism. and under the 10th amendment it is obvious that the

constitution alindicates what are known generally as police powers to the states to protect public safety and health. that's why i object to some of our legislation to expand the federal role in tort law and in marriage law because you -- it's not just those things you necessarily agree with, but it's tougher when it's those things you may disagree with that are left to the states. some people have talked about licenses here. you don't have a right to take your license to practice medicine or law to the next state. we have not required that. we allow states to do that. and here's the other things. my states are one of the most liberal. we have too liberal a law with respect to concealed weapons but the only way the liberal state legislature in california will follow this is by following illinois bus because it's the only way to get a limit, as they see it, on these sorts of things. would the gentleman give me a little more time? mr. conyers: i give you 15 seconds.

mr. lungren: people in my state might have to worry about it because it will get rid of all concealed weapons permits because unfortunately under this legislation that's the only thing they can do to police the eligibility of those who get concealed weapons permits. so this does coat both ways. i think we ought to understand that states' rights are a legitimate argument here on this floor. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from utah, mr. matheson. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized for one minute. mr. matheson: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to thank my colleague, mr. stearns, for introducing the bill before us today. i support this bipartisan legislation for two reasons. one, i believe that our gun laws should ensure that a responsible law-abiding individual is able to exercise the second amendment right to carry firearms and, two, this bill simplifies what is now a piecemeal system of reciprocal agreements among the states. there are millions of

concealed-carry holders in this nation including those in my state. they can legally carry a weapon for self-defense. by passing this bill we will ensure that when they travel to other states they will exercise their right to self-defense while away from home. this does not ceal a federal licensing system, it does not allow them to carry them to states like illinois. i think this addresses the criticism of this legislation to determine who can carry conceal weapons within the states' borders. they are required to be aware of and abide by that state's rules. as a strong supporter of sect amendment rights, i support this legislation and urge its adoption. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i'll yield one minute to the gentleman from new york, -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i thank the chairman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today in strong support of h.r. 822, the national right-to-carry

reciprocity act. this bill is about freedom. it's about the constitution and our bill of rights. this bill is about the second amendment right. as with all of the amendments contained in the bill of rights, these were borne out of our experiences with king george and a desire to prevent such abuses of power in our republic. indeed, at the outset of hostilities during the revolution, the british army marched unconquered to confiscate our guns and extinguish our freedoms. the founders put the second amendment in the bill of rights to assure our right to keep and bear arms and to safeguard our liberty. mr. gibson: this is a nonpartisan bill, at least in my districts. democrats, republicans hold dear our bill of rights. the premise of the -- the premise of 822 is very simple. if a citizen is permitted to carry a concealed weapon in one state, other states in a have a concealed-carry law will honor and recognize it. supporting and strengthening the second amendment. i urge my colleagues to support

it, and i yield back. . the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. goodlatte: i thank the chairman for yielding and for his leadership on this issue. mr. speaker, i rise today in strong support of h.r. 822, the national right to carry reciprocity act of 2011. this bipartisan bill has 245 co-sponsors and enhances american's right to self-defense by enabling millions of permit holders to exercise their right to self-defense while traveling outside their home states. the second amendment is in the united states constitution and we are all taking an oath in this body to uphold the united states constitution, including rights upped the second amendment. and the 10th amendment is certainly an important right as well, but it does not trump the right or the responsibility of this body to protect rights under the second amendment.

49 states have laws that permit their citizens to carry a concealed firearm in some fashion or another. unlike drivers licenses, however, conceal carry permits in one state are not always authorized to carry their firearms when traveling outside their home state. h.r. 822 remedies this problem by granting concealed carry permit holders reciprocity between states. the firearm owner must abide by all applicable state laws when carrying in a foreign jurisdiction. this bill affirms the second amendment, that's a second amendment, protects the fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms and that the states cannot unreasonably infringe upon that right. in mcdonald vs. chicago, the supreme court concluded that the due process clause of the 14th amendment incorporates the second amendment right recognized by the supreme court in the district of columbia versus heller. this bill does not create any kind of federal bureaucracy that may concern some people.

it simply extends to them their second amendment rights when they travel in other states. h.r. 822 recognizes that right and i urge my colleagues to support this measure. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas has 4 1/4 minutes remaining. the gentleman from michigan has 2 1/4 minutes remaining. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield the balance of our time to the distinguished gentleman from georgia, mr. rob woodall. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/4 minutes. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i love the second amendment. i got my first gun from santa claus when i was years old. first handgun i ever fired, wasn't my dad or my uncle's or grandfather's, it was my mother's. i got my first concealed carry application filled out as a freshman in law school, lived in

a bad neighborhood, needed it for self-protection, i have had it for the last 20 years. i love the second amendment. but if the second amendment protects my rights to carry my concealed weapon from state to state to state, i don't need another federal law to say, yeah, i mean it. it's already protected. and if the second amendment doesn't protect my right to carry a concealed weapon from state to state to state, then the 9th and 10th amendments leave that responsibility to individuals and the states to regulate on their own. i came to congress to protect freedom. i don't believe the second amendment was put in the bill of rights to allow me to shoot targets. i don't believe the second amendment was put in the bill of rights to allow me to hunt for deer and turkey. i think the second amendment was put in the bill of rights so that i could defend my freedom against an overbearing federal government. i don't want the federal

government in any issue of the law where the constitution does not require it. and it does not require it here. don't tell me it's an interstate commerce clause issue. we dismissed that on my side of the aisle regularly. don't tell me it's necessary and proper. we dismiss that on our side of the aisle regularly. and don't tell me it's full faith and credit because we dismiss that on our side of the aisle regularly. the temptation to legislate is great. the temptation is great. i absolutely believe in the intent of this legislation. i want the right to carry from coast to coast, georgia has already orchestrated reciprocity agreements with 25 states. we've got 24 more to go. the second amendment exists. so that we can keep and bear arms to defend ourself against government no matter how well intended.

rather than arms, i ask my colleagues to use their voting cards today to defend us. against the overreach of federal government no matter how well intended. i thank the gentleman for yielding. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to the gentleman from alaska, mr. young. the chair: the gentleman from alaska is recognized for one minute. mr. young: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i have listened to this debate. this is a reciprocity vote allows me to carry my weapon as i carried for the last 50 years from one state to another as long as i have a permit and they do also. but more than that, i am a little bit resentful when i hear on the floor this is the will of the n.r.a. i'm a lifetime member since i could vote. i am a member today. i participate in their board meetings and i'm proud of that organization. it's probably one of the leading organizations to cast that in

the form of they are not the people of america is wrong. the greatest strength the n.r.a. has is its members. talk about how strong they are as a lobbying group. the lobbying group is the citizen. the citizen that wants to carry his arm as permitted across state lands as they do with the driver's license. this is a good piece of legislation. i'm glad we are having this discussion. there can be differences of opinion, but don't take it away from myself to go from alaska with my permit and go into the other 38 states that have -- i believe 38 or 40 states that have permits and i can't use my permit. that's wrong. let's vet for this legislation. the chair: the gentleman from texas has 3 1/4 minutes reremaining. mr. shoot: i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from florida. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. miss adam -- mrs. adams: as a former law enforcement officer and state

representative i have dealt with issues relating to our second amendment rights. it's interesting when i hear some of the flurring between gun purchases and a concealed carry permit. i have done both. and as a law enforcement officer i would like to know if someone would tell me hey i have a conceal carry permit and weapon rather than finding it either by accident or having it pointed at me. i stand in great support of this piece of legislation. i do believe it is good legislation. it will not harm the people as i have heard here on the floor. and i have heard that we aren't working on jobs. well, i beg to differ that issue because we have passed over 20 bills sitting in the senate that have not been heard that would relate to jobs. so, yes, we are working on jobs and the economy. and we are also working on other issues that are brought to us from our constituents. i stand in great support of 822. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for 2 1/4 minutes. mr. smith: h.r. 822 is important legislation that recognizes that americans' ability to exercise their fundamental constitutional right should not disappear at their states' -- state's border. the parade of horribles that have been alleged by some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not true. federal law already prohibits felons, domestic abusers, and illegal drug users from possessing a firearm. this legislation does not change that. if a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal law, they cannot carry a concealed weapon under this bill. the arguments we have heard so often today against this legislation are against guns in the hands of violent criminals, generally, not against legally permitted concealed weapons. conceal carry laws have shown that concealed weapons actually lower violent crime rates in a jurisdiction. h.r. 822 simply permits law-abiding americans to take their second amendment rights

with them when they travel. i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan piece of the house went to concealed this. we will bring the that debate later. today aired be joint deficit- reduction committee to work with the package agreement. that is that on c-span. is that he does from fannie mae and freddie mac testified about bonuses. we will have that in about 25 minutes. >> for those who say that we are rushing this issue of civil rights, i say to them "we are 172 years late."

for those who say that the civil rights program is an infringement on states' rights, i say the time has a ride in america. the democratic party needs to get out of the shadows and work forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights. >> hubert humphrey's spoke those words 20 years before the civil- rights bill was brought into law. he was vice-president under lyndon b. johnson and later ran for president in 1968. we will look at his influence in american politics. from the minnesota historical society, by friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> there is a story i was told from the to ministration that when obama was given the first budget there were 6000 air

marks. his instinct was to veto it. he was told by his lobbyists that there's no way you can do it. you cannot cut the ties. had he vetoed it, he would have been the tea party. had he changed the way washington works, he could have continued to rally the reform movement that now breaks out over the world because of the frustration with the current way that democracy does not function. >> lessig on money and the influence in washington. that is sunday night at 8:00 p.m.. >> next lawmakers some members on the joint deficit reduction committee to "go big" with a solution. they want this to be a minimum

of $4 trillion at in deficit savings. this is 20 minutes. >> thank you all for coming. thank you all for coming, we have a bipartisan and bicameral group of legislators that has been dubbed the "go big" coalition. we have been urging the super committee to go big. they need to do that if we are going to stabilize the debt. we want to encourage the super committee, although there is a week left, this is not rocket science, they can do this. they can go big in the they can

help solve this problem. we want them to know there is a bipartisan group of legislators on both sides of the aisle that want to work on this and want to make the tough votes necessary to get a set of the situation we are in. we are going to have a few speakers. >> thank you very much. mike simpson is from idaho. he and i have a relationship, we started a relationship early in his career. not in mine, i had been here some time. [laughter] this is the kind of comment that undermines cooperation in the congress of the united states. [laughter]

mike simpson has been a partner along with others. saxby chambliss is my fraternity brother. we are good friends. the public does not believe we have good friends across the aisle. that is not accurate. we are here to say we must work across the aisle and both houses to get this country on the right track. last year, mcmullen said that, "our national debt is our biggest national security threat hippo that is why we stand here on this podium -- threat," that is why we stand here on this podium. we must do something to pay down its debt. two weeks ago, a number of us from the house, some 100

democrats and republicans did together to send the message we want the joint select committee to send us a deal that is big. about four dollars trillion in deficit reduction, and is accomplished through a mix of reductions in expenditures and revenues. we are returned and joined by senators of parties who share our concern and agree that committee members, for the sake of our country, should recommend a package that cuts revenues and reforms consistent with the gang of six proposal. we have the greatest chance we have seen in a generation to strike a bold agreement that will move us forward on a sustainable fiscal pat and spur economic recovery. to do so, it is not easy.

we recognize the pressures committee members are facing. we want them to know there is a large insignificant number of us -- a large and significant number of us who want a fair deal. that is why we are standing together today, democrats and republicans united. to send a message of urgency and support. more than 100 of us in the house have already sent a letter to that affect. the of us -- none of us want to risk the effects sequestration will bring if the committee fails. sequestration is not a worthwhile option. at risk is more than just the economic impact but also the trust the american people have in their government to solve the most pressing problems we face as a nation.

i want to thank all my colleagues. i want to thank all the house and senate members who have come together to send this message that the seriousness of the debt challenge can only be met with an equally serious and bipartisan determination to do what needs to be done, to do what the american people expect us. i will the yield to my friend saxby chambliss. >> thank you. let me just say to my good friend steny hoyer, how much we appreciate your leadership and willingness to step up and show your support along with all our colleagues in the united states senate who have committed to say to the super committee, the right thing to do is to go big. go big maiming 3 trillion, it may mean four, it may mean five.

if we do not get to that level of deficit reduction, we are not showing to the world marketplace, to americans, and to people around the world who are watching closely, what is happening in the next states congress today and over the next week, that we are serious about this issue. we are not going to send the right message. i am proud to stand here today and say super committee, we have got your back. we support you. we look forward to working with you on whatever course you

decide to take to make sure we do the right thing for the american people as well as to show that america leads the financial free-market and we are going to be there to back you, to make sure that the leadership continues. with that, i will turn it over. >> with this many people i will take the podium when i get the opportunity. incredible work has been done. the house working group, through multiple leaderships of democrats and republicans, the gang of six has been able to work together, look at us. we have a substantial amount, over 150 members that mean that all be here -- that may not all be here. they have come together to say we want to go big. the time is of the essence. we cannot kick the can down the road. that has been going on for a decade. now is the time. they have the support of these members of congress. it is not about their election, what is on the horizon, it is about the american people. this is about the next generation.

we cannot turn our back on the next generation. we must leave this country better than we found it. the way that is going to be done is to working together in a bipartisan way. i will turn it over. >> i will be the briefest of everybody. i want to make sure everybody gets a chance. the it cannot be an option. the rest of the -- failure cannot be an option. the rest of the world is watching. what is happening in europe, we cannot have that here. whether we like it or not this debt and deficit debate has become an effective proxy for whether our institutions are up to the job. i think you are seeing behind us a growing bipartisan group in the house and the senate that want to get the job done. >> the world is watching.

we know that the economic future of our country and of the world rests on decisions that will be made in the next few days. this is a circumstance that requires us to work the other. we know it is tough, we know it has been done. the group of six did it. this group can do it. they need to know if they are bold, brave, if they go big, we will stand with them and the american people will stand with them. >> you have heard the message. there are three critical point. we are here to support the super committee. to make sure they know we have their back and we will come together.

note too, the figure -- number two, the figure is not arbitrary. it is what we must do to achieve the fiscal reform that will keep us the greatest nation and the greatest economy in the world. and to make sure those of the super committee and on congress know that we have the ability to develop a bipartisan solution and we are ready to back it. >> good morning. i am a congressman from lincoln, nebraska. the spread of our current impasse, we are here as a nonpartisan group -- despite our current impasse, we are here as a nonpartisan group. i am convinced it out super committee were able to achieve a substantial reduction in spending this would unleash the power of our economy.

entrepreneurial confidence would increase and the united states would stop standing on the world's doorstep. the president's -- nebraskans are interested in common-sense solutions. it is time to coble, to be big, let's get it done. >> lamar, than some other house members. >> thank you. most americans, if they saw this scene they would say, i did not think that was possible. i did not think you could bring together democrats and republicans to agree on anything, let alone one of the most challenging issues we have ever faced on capitol hill.

it is a fact. men and women in here today have taken a hard look at the challenge that faces the super committee and have said, we stand behind you, we want you to succeed, we will do everything to help you. we encourage you to be bold in your mission. look beyond the $1.20 trillion. going bigger is better in terms of the impact it will have. we get it. we are turning this economy in the right direction so we can grow in a fashion that inspires confidence around the world. it is easier politically. does not sound right. it sounds counterintuitive. when you put enough on the table that los of political, -- on the table that both political parties realize this is worth the risk, if we stand together, we can achieve something that no single individual can achieve. i hope we will keep what we have in mind here moving forward. first, with the super committee.

we wish them well and it beyond that, we take this challenge and except it -- accept it as the challenge of our political generation. this is our chance to make a difference. there may not be another chance. there may not be an issue of such magnitude. this is our moment. let's seize that moment let's succeed for the good of this nation. >> this is about more than money, it is about whether the president in the congress can govern. about whether we can face up to the biggest problem facing our cup -- country. can we solve that problem? we can. we have a laid out for more. we have republicans who have put revenue on the table.

we have democrats who have put entitlements on the table. both need to put more on the table to get a result. we support them. >> there is something in this for everybody. i am a progressive democrat. i believe in the importance of medicare. those who believe in medicare have to take the lead in making sure it is sustainable. this go big effort is the best way, where everything is on the table, we can make the tough decisions. folks who are counting on

medicare, medicaid will have it. social insurance programs around the table, there are sensible reforms we can make and will make by working together. it will be done much more easily if we go big and kobold. -- go bold. >> good morning. for me it comes down to one word, confidence. we are standing here because we want the super committee to have the covenants that we are there to support them. we are there to urge them to do the big things this country expects. it is also about the confidence that america is expecting all of us to work together. we need to instill that confidence that we are not broken. we can work the other. to instill confidence, not only domestically, but rep the world, that we can control our debt. we have answers and solutions. by working together, we have the best and brightest minds. america can still do anything. thank you. >> questions?

>> a question for senator warner. they are struggling to get to $1.20 trillion. lineup together a deficit- reduction package? >> -- why not put together a deficit-reduction package and push it through? >> we need to give them time to finish their work. there is work done that could be a template. let's let them get to the 23. >> the questions seemed to be not whether -- what did they will get any deal at all. -- whether they will get any deal at all. >> the reason you have all of us here is to say, at a time we understand it is a struggle. dick durbin says it best, going big is better.

it is better for both sides. i think this group here is a very impressive group of people who say, we are going to support you so get there. that is the whole purpose of us being here today. >> you have democrats saying they are going as far as they are going to go on taxes. >> i think we are here to understand -- express our support for success. failure is not an option. our country needs us now. that is why we are here in them to succeed. i know what the public comment have been. i am heartened. i have talked to all 12 of the

members. i talked to the speaker yesterday. i believe that all of them feel the importance of this at effort -- the importance of this effort. >> is that something you are considering? >> it has already been done at three times. -- done three times. if they are not successful, one of those plans could get a vote. let's hope that the super committee, leadership of both parties took a courageous that in early august in setting up the super committee. they felt this was a way to reach a resolution. we are not only supportive of the super committee, we are supportive of that effort. we want the leadership to get behind this effort to make sure it gets across the finish line.

>> [inaudible] >> i would ask one of my senate colleagues. >> each of us have stated our preference for the way we would do it if we are doing it ourselves. the republicans who say they do not believe raising taxes is the right way to approach the solution come from that perspective. what we are here today to say is that we are ready to make the compromises and build these solutions that can help bring all the parties together. if we go big, it becomes easier to put the issues on the table and find the solutions that can

help us move forward. the fact that he may have members that have different ideas about how far they would like to go on taxes or entitlement reform does not mean that they are not ready to stand here and make the decisions that will help us as a nation solve our fiscal crisis. >> this is the guy who supported -- who was a key member of the gang of six. >> i think we will end on that note. thank you very much. >> that was great. >> go that way? [indistinct conversation]

>> a reminder, the joint select committee is charged with issuing recommendations to reduce the federal deficit by $1.50 trillion over the next 10 years. reposal is due next wednesday before the thanksgiving recess. the super committee is tentatively preparing for a public session early next week in which the text of an agreement would be discussed. [indistinct conversation]

>> tomorrow, the tea party that commission will put up its tenure proposal for balancing the federal budget. a number of republican senators will join the beating -- meeting. live coverage at two o'clock p.m. eastern on c-span 3. >> c-span.org is now easier to use. there are 11 video choices, making it easier to watch today's event. there is a section to access our most popular series and programs. we have added a handy channel finder to you can quickly find where to watch or three c-span that works -- so you can quickly find where to watch our three c-span networks around the nation. >> the ceos of fannie mae and freddie mac support executive bonuses.

they testified at an oversight committee hearing. the federal government has given $170 billion to fannie mae and freddie mac. this is almost three hours. >> the mission statement is we exist to secure two fundamental principles. >> the mucker funds are point specific. the better you have that, the better.

appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today. fannie mae has a dedicated team of professionals to work. we have elements responsibilities. it requires expertise. the executive management team is different than the team around the country prior to conservatorship. we are working to achieve the goals. our employees are providing funding to the market, help homeowners and reduced losses on loans. this is the largest source of funding for the u.s. housing market. the company has provided more than $2 trillion of funding to

the market. it has enabled near the 6 million households and to lower costs mortgages. we helped 1.7 million homeowners purchase a home. we provided financing for housing. it to promote sustainable home ownership. the mortgages purchased are guaranteed and since 2009 have strong credit quality and are performing well. the new loans account for almost 50% of the loans guaranteed by fannie mae. of these will be valuable assets that we expect will reduce taxpayer losses. every day, a fannie mae works to mitigate losses on the company's 2005-a 08 books of business. -- 2005-08 books of business. for distressed homeowners, home retention solutions keep families in their homes.

we expect this will reduce fannie mae's credit losses over the long term. since 2009, fannie mae employees have helped approximately 1 million homeowners avoid foreclosure through modifications and other solutions. unfortunately, foreclosures are not always avoidable. when foreclosure resort -- when for closure is the only option, we help to stabilize communities by acquiring the homes and selling them to do families who will give them preference and live in them. we are proud of the work we are doing to serve the housing market. however, there is great uncertainty for the company and its employees. there will be gst reform, but we do not know when or what form it

will take. this uncertainty makes it very difficult to attract and retain employees with highly specialized skills and experience. this is particularly true as other financial institutions can offer a long-term career opportunities, and in many cases, substantially more in salary. if we are to continue to build the stability cannot our housing committee, we must retain and recruit qualified executives and employees. as ceo, i am response both for ensuring that we effectively manage the resources that we have received. to accomplish this, we have employed a talented professionals. these employees to effectively manage 18 billion loans. in 2009, as a j.k. worked with -- as a.j. worked with the

leadership of our board. under this structure, we have spent the rest -- we have substantially reduced conservatorship level. and we have reduced our senior managers at the company by 30%. in closing, i am proud of our team and of their dedication to our important work in serving the nation's housing market. our ability to attract and retain top talent remains a critical priority as we continue to strengthen our business and deliver value to american taxpayers. thank you, and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. mr. roldan? >> chairman, ranking member, and members of this committee, thank you for inviting me to appear today. my name is ed holderman, and i am ceo of freddie mac. i joined freddie mac in august, 2009, almost a year after the company was placed into

conservatorship by the federal housing finance agency. i welcome the opportunity to be here to address your concerns about compensation for our executive team. let me begin by saying i understand why this hearing is necessary. i understand why the american people are as outraged about executive compensation in general. i understand totally why congress and the american people are outraged by executive compensation at companies that have received federal support, including fannie and freddie. we have 9% unemployment in our country and there are millions

of families at risk of losing their homes. i understand the of rage. how then -- the outrage. how then do i reconcile the compensation system and freddie mac and the suffering that so many families are living with? let me see if i can explain the dilemma i face. my number one objective since taking the job in the summer of 2009 was to keep the company functioning. i concluded that there would be more families hurt, and the pain would last longer if there was a break down at freddie mac. my focus was on keeping the machinery functioning while in order to do two things. first, provide the liquidity to the housing market, and second, help to implement programs that would keep more of our struggling families in their homes. with this guiding philosophy, it seems to me that gradual change would be preferable to a radical change in the operations

of the company. here is the strategy that we followed with regard to compensation and overall corporate expenses. first, we eliminated some senior executive positions. for example, we no longer have a chief operating officer, which was the second highest paid position in our company. second, we consolidated some senior executive positions, which allowed us to reduce the number of senior executives. for example, we consolidated the credit and enterprise risc functions of the company. third, when a senior executive leaves the company, we try hard in every instance to bring in a new executive at a lower compensation than their predecessors. as a result, the 15 highest-paid people at our company today receive about the same

compensation that the top 15 received a decade ago. another way to look at the reduction in executive compensation is the reduction from peak levels. the compensation of our senior team is down 40% from peak levels pre-conservatorship. while we have sought to achieve major reductions in executive compensation without disrupting the function to the company, we have put a big emphasis on bringing down overall expenses at our company. our overall general and administrative spending in the last year is down more than $120 million as compared to our spending levels of 2009. let me summarize. i understand the reason for this hearing.

i understand the outrage. we have significantly reduced executive compensation and overall spending at freddie mac. but we have tried to do it in a way that does not risk disrupting the functioning of the company. my belief is that disrupting the functioning of the company would put those families who are suffering at even greater risk of deeper and even more prolonged difficulty. thank you again for this opportunity to testify, and i look forward to addressing your questions. >> thank you. mr. demarco. >> chairman, ranking member, members of the committee, i am pleased to be here today to discuss debt finance oversight in the executive compensation structure for fannie mae and freddie mac, or the enterprises as i will refer to them.

i will explain how the executive compensation support to the mandates of the conservatorship, howard is developed and how it is structured. in a few minutes i have i would like to focus on two matters. at first, fannie mae and freddie mac have been in conservatorship for more than three years. that draws from the treasury now exceed $180 billion, reflecting the losses for mortgages that originated in the years leading up to conserve richer ships. minimizing those losses as much as possible while maximizing opportunities for homeowners is the key component. and since conservatorship, the enterprises have completed 1.9 million foreclosure prevent food -- prevention actions, including 1 million loan modifications. while in conservatorship, we are also seeking to ensure the country has a reliable supply of mortgage finance. the enterprises have guaranteed roughly three out of for mortgages since conservatorship.

while we await congressional action on the future of housing finance, fha has several projects for the future of housing standards. these include mortgage servicing, reconsideration according mortgage servicing, and establishing loan disclosures for mortgage backed securities. i recognize there is concern about executive pay at the it enterprises. i would like to make three observations. first, the executives most responsible for the poor business decisions that led the enterprises into

conservatorship and that led to the taxpayer losses are long gone from the companies. second, the best way to address concerns with executive compensation is action by congress to restructure the nation's housing finance system and to dissolve the conservatorship spirit of the conservatorship is not designed to be a multi-year holding state. third, as conservator, i need to ensure that the people with the skills needed to manage $5 trillion worth of mortgage assets, and $1 trillion of annual new business that the american taxpayer is supporting. others may believe that this sort of talent is easily and quickly hired as compensation for below that of competing private firms, but i do not. bottom line, this is a question of judgment, judgment exercised by balancing the need to limit compensation as much as possible, while ensuring a stable continuing operations at the enterprises in support of

america's housing finance system. it has been at the age f.a.'s judgment that the taxpayers who are fiat -- were providing financial support on their guarantees of $5 trillion of mortgages would not be better off if we provoke a broad turnover of senior management by further slashing compensation. indeed, such pay cuts would increase the risk of higher losses in the future. executive compensation was already reduced by 40% on average when the compensation program was put in place. i would also note that continued employment in the enterprise means that your work is under much higher degree of scrutiny than at other private firms. executives that have spent their career developing reputations risk tarnish to their reputations in a heartbeat -- highly charged environment in which these companies operate today.

this is true regardless of how well they perform their duties or how great financial sacrifice they may have made by forsaking other private-sector opportunities in order to assist the country's housing finance system. there has been intense criticism launched ad corporate executives not even employed by the companies when the bad loans leading to the majority of today's losses were books. people arrive after conservatorship to try to make things better. i am trying to encourage these people to stay and to mitigate losses and to keep the current infrastructure of the country's housing finance system operating. to repeat myself on one thing, the only way to finally resolve this question is for congress to act to end the conservatorship of and chart a new course for the housing finance system. mr. chairman, i thank you again for this opportunity and i look forward to responding to the committee's questions. >> i now ask unanimous consent of the salaries of the various officials going from the president and the vice president down to yourself, mr. demarco, mr. holderman, and mr.

williams be admitted in the record. without objection, so ordered. in addition, i would ask unanimous consent of the article yesterday in "bloomberg news week" be placed in the record. without objection, so order. and last but not least, i would ask that the committee report be placed in the record. without objection, so order. i now recognize myself for the first round of questioning. mr. williams, you are a career employee, right? you came up through the ranks? >> reisch. >> -- right. >> and what did you make in 2002, do you recall? >> what did i make in 2002? i do not know off the top of my head. i would have to follow up with you.

>> give me a year more than five years ago what you made. >> again, i do not have that at -- off the top of my head. >> what was your starting pay? >> i would imagine it was around $115,000. >> could you speak up? >> i would imagine it was around $115,000 when i joined the company over 20 years ago. >> 20 years ago you came to work for an organization that page you $115,000. they paid you more then than they pay congressman. that has not changed. >> i would assume so. >> but less than the presidential. he was still making perhaps the $200,000 back then. you do not remember what you made 10 years ago, but you remember roughly $115,000 when you first started. when did you first make over $1 million? i have the luxury of making it $1 million.

i remember when that happened. i am sure you do. >> i am not sure when that was. >> money is not that important to you? >> money is important to all of us who are here today. >> by your a career government agency -- but you are a career government agency employee. >> i have been an employee at fannie mae for 20 years, serving in a vast array of all roles all the way up to chief operating officer. >> i do not want to beat a dead horse, but you came on at $115,000 at a company backed by the government. did you ever have the inclination that he would make -- you would make the seven figures, but several of them, of 2 $9 million over two years? >> i had hoped to improve my compensation, as we all do.

>> but last year you made $9 million, while the president makes $400,000. and you think that is ok? >> i have been asked to lead a management team that can help achieve the joke -- achieve the goals of conservatorship. >> but you are still losing money. you take in $90 billion a year and you get $9 million a year. bloomberg and other organizations were concerned when you came on board because you do not come with a background like mr. williams does. basically, you are not qualified to run the organization if one were to look at your historic resonate -- resume. what did you make last year? >> i do not recall. >> did you make more than $1

million? >> yes, i did. >> was your compensation tied tightly to performance? >> yes, i was. >> was a tide tightly -- was it tied tightly to performance in that you could look at the yields and see what your bonus would be? >> it was tied to the funds and the economic performance of the company and i had equity participation as well. >> equity participation always assumes that the stock goes up, right? >> it does not always. >> your options were worthless if your stock went down. >> that would be correct. >> i freddie mac, has your stock gone up? >> in my tenure it has not. >> $7.8 million in the last two years is based on a company that is not worth more today. just for the record, if i were to look at the net profits for fannie mae from 2003 through 2010 i would find the net profits were an $11 billion loss.

at freddie mac, i would find a $72 billion net loss over the same time frame of nearly a decade. including the time when you came in in which the books were effectively being cooked by taking in bad debt and there were paper profits of $4 billion and $5 billion, but your organization that lost $14 billion in 2010 is going to lose equal about this year. >> yes, we have lost money due to loans that were put on the books during the timeframe of 2005 through -- >> my time has expired. i just want one more thing for the record. mr. demarco, from what i can tell, your $230,000 salary is all you get, right?

>> yes, i all i get is my salary. >> and you do stay with the company even though you could get more somewhere else? >> i am still here, mr. chairman. >> mr. altman and mr. williams, you come from a different world -- mr. haldeman and mr. williams, you come home a different world than the one i come from. if i had made $1 million i would remember when i did. you said in your testimony that part of the compensation that these executives receive is based on their performance. but with all due respect, their performance and joerres has been deficient, especially in the area of -- their performance and yours has been deficient, especially in the area of helping homeowners. congress passed the emergency economic stabilization act and the president signed it on october 3, 2008.

it states clearly that fhfa, freddie mac and fannie mae cannot shout implement a plan that seeks to maximize assistance -- fhfa, freddie mac, and fannie mae will implement a plan that seeks to maximize assistance to homeowners. i have not seen that. what i have seen is dried out work by the congress. the home loan modification program was supposed to help 3 million to 4 million homeowners modify their loans. so far, it has helped 800,000, correct? >> i believe that is correct. >> with regard to the horror -- the home affordable refinance program, harp, that was supposed to help of 2 5 million

homeowners refinance. so far, it has helped fuel than 900,000 refinance, correct? >> with the changes that we have made with the program recently we are expecting an uptick in that. >> of course we are, but we are talking about what we have done today. these gentlemen are making their money out. i'm talking about today. i'm looking at performance now. mr. demarco, it was not until president obama made an address to congress on this topic that you started to revamp this program in a serious way. let's look at fhfa -- >> for the record, i actually

directed both companies to work with fhfa on a thorough re- examination of via harp program several weeks before the president's address. >> by you could have said that earlier, could you not? >> we tried it last winter and we made some changes and i regret -- well, i do not regret anything. i would say that we redouble our efforts in august. >> mr. demarco, while you may not have any regrets, i have regrets. i have regrets for the people who are being put out of their houses. and we would like for the goals that were stated to be manifested. ofnderstand you're like regrets and i'm sorry to hear you have no regrets -- your lack of progress and i'm sorry to

hear you have no regrets. >> please do not take my words out of context. i did not say that with regard to american homeowners. i believe that myself and the gentlemen to my right have been working very hard to provide assistance to american homeowners. and with regard to the statute that you cited, it is quite right. i actually cited by itself frequently. but the full implementation requires that we bring this to the homeowners in full consideration of the nad value to the taxpayers, and that makes what we are doing in terms of providing relief to homeowners and the mandate as conservator to minimize further losses to the taxpayer. >> and it demanded that you will implement a plan that seeks to maximize assistance for homeowners, and the use its authority to encourage the servicers of the underlying mortgages, and considering net present value of the taxpayer, to take advantage of the homeowners program. is that not correct?

>> that is it, sir. you raise an excellent point. it is one of the key accomplishments that we have had. this summer with the servicing alignment initiative that fha manage with fannie mae and freddie mac to provide uniform standards so that servicers would know how to effectively, efficiently, and timely response to troubled borrowers. i think we learned from the difficulties in the last few years and we put in place an identical set of requirements that fannie mae and freddie mac both have. the servicers now have clear instructions and -- and positive incentives to make early and robust contact with borrowers to find out what the difficulty is. we're placing the emphasis on getting immediate contact with the bar work and try to find a solution to the difficulty. we have learned that the faster we do that, the greater the

likelihood of success. >> i will ask unanimous consent that you have an extra minute. >> thank you. as i listen to your defense, and i do not considered a defense -- -- and i do consider it a defense, and rightly so. i say to you, do not mistake a comma for a period. that is what troubles me, and many members of congress. i'm not trying to hurt your feelings or anything like that, but i've got to tell you, i am talking about some people who are in pain, i mean, big time. i beg you, do not mistake a comma for a period. >> i appreciate that and i have benefited from our discussions in the last couple of months and i remain committed to making sure that fannie mae and

freddie mac in conservatorship are doing all robust things to help american homeowners in their troubled mortgages. i am taking into consideration all of the things that you have told me, sir, and i do believe we share a deep concern for the american households that are troubled, and we share a desire to provide appropriate assistance to them, and we will continue to improve our efforts, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i now ask unanimous consent that the entirety of the act, hr 3221, be placed in the record. and i would cite the powers of the conservatorship may take

such actions as necessary to carry out the business of the regulated entity and to conserve the assets and properties of the regulated entity. i believe that is what the gentleman was referring to. with that, we recognize the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i thank you, gentlemen, for being here. i heard you state that you appreciated as inviting you. thanks for your use of words here. i could not have said that myself. however, this is a duty that we have to do. mr. demarco, $12.9 million in bonus pay for executives we are discussing today, bonuses that you approved was four -- was for providing "liquidity and stability to the housing market.

-- to the housing market." in light of that, what benchmarks are fannie and freddie meeting that would allow such bonuses to kick in, especially in light of the taxpayer losses of approximately $170 billion? >> it is detailed in the filings of the two companies, but i have provided in my written statement, these losses that happened were pre- conservatorship. one of the focal point for the executive compensation for fannie and freddie were their efforts to try to minimize losses on that book of businesses.

they cannot undo mortgages that are made. but they can take aggressive actions to litigate those losses through loan modifications and other foreclosure prevention activities. our report monthly to the house financial services committee and the senate banking committee on the efforts that have been undertaken to that end, and the array of efforts to ensure there is ongoing liquidity in the market, and to be working with us on things such as the servicing improvements that i talked about. >> but in light of all that continues on and in light of what mr. cummins mentioned about his people, likewise in my state of michigan, you stated your opposition yesterday to be on par with a federal pay scale, a position that you continue to suggest today in comments, i believe. a legislative proposal that was passed out of a house financial services yesterday to do just that, why do you oppose that? or do you oppose that?

and do you believe the federal agencies cannot perform their duties because they do not offer wall street-sized paychecks?

.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> we are ensuring we are doing everything we can to manage credit losses and all the activities related to our financial results that we control, and then also making sure that we continue to address all the -- improve the operational and risk areas of the country. >> and mortgage modification is a part of that scorecard? >> yes, they are a part of that. >> is hamp a part of that as well? >> administering the program is part of the program. >> thank you. that is much more forthcoming

than the last exchange we had, and i appreciate that. mr. demarco you outline corporate scorecards. back in march the i.g. said the faha didn't have a written policy on how to handle that. with your testimony today it sounds like that is -- that critique you have incorporated, and now there are some solid policies by which to judge these scorecards. >> to clarify, i committed to the idea that this will be done by the end of this calendar year. the work is actively going on now. >> thank you. thank you for clarifing. i appreciate that. the additional question will be, will you make public that policy? >> i certainly could.

>> you will or will not? >> i will make it public. >> it is a written procedure about how we would go about the internal review. >> will you make your scorecard public for your institution? >> i can see no reason why -- >> it has to be reported in the 10-k's anyway. these are publicly disclosed. >> right, but in a user friendly format. we have three broad goals. i have now lost it in my stack of paper. here it is. it is very unclear in the couple of pages in the 10-k. would you make this -- >> if i may, i will work to make sure we have greater transparancy with regard to the scorecard. >> i appreciate my intention is

not for you to throw yourself in front of this questioning. we want to be able to understand at the beginning of the year how you will be judged and what skest success looks like. >> it is a reasonable request. i am happy to do it subject to the request of our regulator. we are regulated per our organization, and i like to check with most things before the regulator. >> nicely done. who says there is just politics on the hill. >> we disclose in accordance with s.e.c. rules how individuals have performed, provide the scorecard and how mr. demarco would like to handle

it going forward. >> mr. demarco would like to see housing finance reform, and so would i. the administration has not taken the lead. the president has not taken the lead. two large entities where he could have a larger and direct say. he tends to make speeches rather than actual consultations. >> their discussions about fanny and freddie's losses going forward. mr. williams at what point will your institution be able to pay the taxpayers for this extraordinary support? >> congressman, i do not venture a time frame in which we would do that. we are very focused on our credit losses. as you have seen from the conservators report. the activities we have undertaken are reducing future

expectations around this area. we will continue to focus on this. bear in mind, much of what we are dealing with is also driven by the state of the economy, unemployment, and declining home prices. >> mr. alderman. >> as you know, we pay a 10% preferred dividend on our outstanding draw which for freddie mack is now $70 billion, so our annual dividend is $7 billion. i think the best place to go to get a better answer to your question is detailed signal siss put out by faha which makes a projeck as to the amount of draw that will be required going forward. >> so you don't have any planning purposes in your institution to outline when this would happen? >> we do. our number is -- our numbers in planning were submitted to faha and were made part of the documents you put out. >> so you are not willing to say

which year it is? >> i can't recall from the document. >> mr. williams, what year will fanny have repaid the treasury? >> congressman, as you know, with a 10% dividend on the amount that's drawn, we will never fully be able to pay back the amount that's due to the treasury. this is why the director has highlighted the need to move forward. >> mr. demarco what year will the gse's be able to repay the taxpayers for this support. >> i do not believe they will repay the taxpayer in full. >> ever? >> well, unless we keep this conservatorship going to my children and beyond, no. i would hope the conservatorships end before then. >> at what point will freddie be able to repay the extraordinary

support. >> mr. chairman, i don't believe either company will repay the support in full. i have said that before. i look at the current financials of the company, the fact that we are shrinking the retained portfolios of the company, looking at the expenses which are there, including the dividend, which is paid to the treasury department for that which is already borrowed, and i don't have a timeline looking forward that i can point to and say by this year this will be repaid. and i do hope that we have moved beyond the conservatorships in the relatively near future. i do not think we will get them repaid before then. >> if we left this currently structured, we could be back here having the same hearing in five years? >> no, i think it will look quite different in five years, and i believe the book of business we have been taking on since conservatorship is a

profitable book for the taxpayer. and i believe as we finish washing through these bad mortgages that were originated in the 2005 and 2008 period, that we will move past that, and the new book of business will be profitable to the company. i believe that's one of our fundamental obligations is to ensure the new business we are doing is profitable. but that's not going profitable enough to be repaying this amount of money in the near future. >> what year do you think that will be. >> it is going to depend upon house prices and a lot of different things. we believe that by the end of next year we have moved through a good chunk of what's left with the previous book. >> i appreciate your willingness to answer questions today. mr. demarco, i have referred to you as a human shield. as i said on the financial services committee, you have been forthright.

we understand the difficult situation that's been thrust upon you? we appreciate your career of service to the federal government. mr. halderman and mr. williams, we appreciate your willingness to head up challenging institutions. we do. the concern here today is the extraordinary taxpayer support and the fact in essence we have two national iced -- nationalized entities. we have a.i.g., for instance. but we have two nationalized entities here, and that is where your compensation becomes a question of -- for the taxpayers. otherwise, if you have had -- were private institutions. that is not the proper per view for me as a taxpayer judiciary. however, because of the nature of your entity, that is where this concern comes. we understand you are patriotic

americans. we are not questioning your patriotism by any means. but we are questioning whether or not this is an appropriate type of compensation, level compensation with two nationalized entities. thank you for k here today. i appreciate your willingness and your time. with that, this committee stands adjourned.

>> now a discussion on europe and the global economy. we'll hear from white house economic advisor. this is 30 minutes.

>> i am very pleased to interview alan krueger. i thought, alan, what would be good with is to start with the item on top of ordinary americans agenda, which is jobs. we lost over eight million jobs for the recession. we have gotten a little over two million of them back. at the pace that the economy is growing, we'll be years and years away from full employment. >> why aren't we getting more hiring now? >> there is no question. the when the president said, it is all going to be about jobs going forward. i think if you want to understand our current problems, you need to look introspective

and go back in time. even before the -- 009 the u.s. economy was not creating jobs the way it had been. the population never returned to the level it reached in 1999. there was an upswing in the economy until 2007. part of that i think is related to structural problems in terms of skills of the u.s. work force. part of that i think was related to weaker growth before the recession that we had say in the past decade. as you look at the current situation, obviously the deep recession gave us a tremendous hole. when the president took office we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. the recession ended in the middle of 2009. job growth started eight months later, which is actually quicker than in the past two recoveries. the pace of job growth has not been as fast as one would like. i think that is mainly because

commict growth overall has been so close to friend in the 2.5% range each quarter. we need faster growth to get faster job growth. on top of that, once the recovery act support started to phase out local governments, we started to see fairly large cutbacks at the state and local levels. especially the local level. a lot of teachers were losing their jobs. that's a head wind for job creation. we have been losing 25,000, 30,000 state and local government jobs every month. the private sector has been growing. it is not far off the pace once job growth returned in the early 1990's. the think the important thing is that we keep this going, that we quicken the pace of growth, that will quicken job growth. >> it may be the same number of

jobs that we created after the recession. this one is much deeper, so we're in a deeper hole. businesses including the ones represented here, the profits are pretty good. many of them are making business investment and equipment and computers and so forth is strong. yet, there doesn't seem to be much hiring. as you know, there are a lot of people who think that the amount, the scope, and the scale of regulation is part of the problem. now, i understand if we had more demand, business would hire more workers. with that said, do you think regulation is slowing hiring? >> actually, i heard you comment on this on npr this morning, and i quote you back j this is dangerous. >> and i thought you spoke quite intelligently on the issue. i think businesses are concerned about regulation. i think the pace of regulation

changes. if not, then there will be a restraint on job growth. i think we need job regulation. what the president said, we need no more regulation than is required to see that the health and safety of the american people is ensured. we are looking back at regulations to say what is no longer necessary. but i don't think that a burst of regulations or change in regular industry stan stance is what had created the problems that we're seeing for job growth. i think those are connected to the causes of the crisis that we saw. fundamentally, weak demand. but i do think it makes sense to look at regulation to see what's sensible, what's not sensible,

and do what makes sense. >> we have a lot of stuff in health care. there are prospects of doing something on energy some day. the tax code is very uncertain. isn't there a possibility that you add up all these things and it creates so much uncertainty that the typical business person says i think i would rather wait six months before hiring? >> i am concerned about that perception. what points in the opposite direction, investment has been impressive given the pace of growth. so it's hard to square that with fear of uncertainty about regulation and so on. i think the fundamental problems are related to the cause of the crisis, to relatively weak consumer demand that we've seen in this economy. particularly weak residential construction. ordinarily residential construction fuels economy. because of the housing bubble and because of concerns about

what's going on in the housing market, we have seen many fewer families purchasing homes. i think those are more fundamental to the weak job growth. >> you mentioned housing. to what extent do you think the housing problem -- we can do more to speed the recovery of the housing market and to what extent do we just have to live with this? >> the president has said that he regrets that we haven't done more, and he has urged us to look at other policies. certainly we've done some things in the housing sector to try to help the mortgage modification programs. just a week or so ago the president announced new changes. i think they will be announce pd more specifically for refinancing. >> to purchase the properties and g.s.e.'s had a call for

proposals that were being reviewed. the unemployment forebarnse program for people to be able to stay in their homes and adjust. >> given that you think the president did not do enough early on, should we expect more efforts on housing to try to fix this? >> all i can say is we're going to look at every sensible step that can be done. we continually look at options. particularly options where we think they can have the most effect on the economy. this is one. that process continues. >> one of the things that we know is important is the creation of new businesses, particularly the small trep neural businesses that grow and innovate and are responsible for so much of the grob growth overtime. i think there is some concern that something has gone wrong and we are not seeing many of those businesses created whether because of financial regulation

or other reasons. do you think this is a serious problem going forward? >> i think it is a serious problem. i have been concerned that the u.s. economy is becoming less dynamic. it is a little related to the aging of our work force. if you look at companies, growth flows, workers coming in, going out. if you look at start-ups even before 2007, we saw a slowdown in start-up. i think capital constraints are a serious issue there. the number of economists had written the following financial chrisies, the small business sector suffers. they are bank dependent. the number one form of clal collateral is probably an individual entrepreneur's home. and that's an area also where we tried to support small businesses to get started with s.b.a. programs, with the new small business lending funds to encourage banks to lend more to

small businesses. i think that has been one of the head winds through the economy. the large corporate sector started growing earlier than the job growth overall. i think a lot of the growth and investment that you highlighted on n.p.r. is coming from the corporate sector, not from small businesses. so i think that -- and the other thing i would add, the last point i would make, it is a little sectorial. small businesses tend to be in the sectors hard hit by the resession, and because of the aftermath of the recession. that construction such as retail. >> the other thing, and i heard some of this last night at the dinner table, we have 14 million unemployed people and millions more who are on the sidelines with the workforce, yet particularly for manufacturers, i hear over and over again, we can't hire. i'm having trouble figuring out how both of these things can be true at the same time. you spent your career as an commiment economist looking at labor markets. is there a skill shortage in the

u.s.? is there something different now or is this just a (yell problem of businesses being -- perrenial problem of businesses being unable to find workers? >> i think we have had a problem being able to build for a long time in our education and trading system not producing workers for the wide range of skills that the u.s. economy requires. and i think in manufacturing as paul volcker has said it would be useful if we had more civil engineerses and mechanical engineers then financial engineers. but if you look at the beverage curve as a relationship between job vacancies and unemployment, it is not unusual at the beginning of a recovery to see vacancies. to see where we get back on the old relationship. it is not clear to me that we're

seeing something all that different from the ordinary dynamic, it is just that we haven't had such a sharp recession where we have had these kinds of data. >> are you on a path to get to full employment in my lifetime? >> well, you told me over the weekend that you called your mother to celebrate her 86th birthday, so i think that says something about your genes. i think we need to be folk yussed on both the short -- focused on both the short run and the long run. the president proposed the jobs act. i think if we look at the problems coming from europe and how that might affect demand for american product, the jobs act is the right medicine for the economy to support demand and continue the payroll tax cut to extend support for unemployment insurance. infrastructure. i think that makes a great deal of sense.

we have high unemployment. as you said at the outset, it is a very deep hole. it is going to take a while to get out of it. what's important is that we continue on that path. hopefully that will push us back toward using all of our resources. >> i'm glad you mentioned europe. how big a threat do you think europe is. >> i think if you were were going to list of the top issues in europe,, that would be a threat at the top of everybody's list. some things we haven't thought of are natural disasters. but clearly europe is a

tremendous concern. i think the europeans have the capacity to solve their problems . >> they have designed the frame work which seems sufficient to deal with the program. they just need to fill in the deals and do it as quickly as possible. >> can we continue to grow 2.5% a year, 150,000 jobs? do we have enough domestic and chinese demand to keep going?

>> 20% goes to europe, 50% to the euro zone. i think clearly the best medicine is to provide insurance against weakening demand. payroll tax. >> c.b.o.. >> the emergency unemployment insurance. we'll get the headline for benefits. those would come back as the unemployment benefits vary.

>> in addition, the president proposed a broader set of reforms for unemployment insurance, which would include allowing an idea i think that came from georgia, allowing companies to take people on unemployment insurance. they could use some of the funds for unemployment funds. that would make up some of the wage loss as a bridge back to work.

that would support demand >> what happens if we get to the end of the year and congress doesn't do the unemployment benefit extension, doesn't do the payroll tax cut? >> well, first of all, from the perspective of families, if they don't extend the payroll tax cut, it will be a tax increase of around $1,000 for the median family. from the perspective of the economy, that would be a drag on growth. for the very reasons that i said that the jobs act is the right medicine to support demand in case we have a weakening in demand coming from overseas, and also i think it is the right medicine even if that weren't occurring in order to strengthen our growth and put more people back to work. we would have a grag going forward if the jobs act did not

pass. >> let me close on this. you worked at the labor department, you worked at the trase treasury, then you went back to princeton, and now you are working directly for the president. what do you do every day? what's the job like? [laughter] >> well, it is a great honor. each of the opportunities i have had to take a leave from princeton and work in the government has been a great privilege. i learned a tremendous amount. i think i went back as a better teacher and a better researcher. and each of those jobs was different. my day starts early. i get in at 7:30. i go to a staff meeting. we look at various options and policies that we're trying to improve the economy, trying to carry out the president's priorities. i interact with a whole economics team. one of the reasons i came back, i have tremendous respect for secretary geithner who i worked

with closely the first couple years of the administration. james and i go way back. enormous respect for jack, who you will have later as well as secretary geithner. the job of chairman of the council is really a great job. one of the things i learned, i spoke to many of the past chairmen and many associated with the c.b.a. and they all have tremendous respect for the institution. the c.b.a. is probably unique in the government in that it is staffed primarily by academicics that come in for a year. they provide the best judgment. the president said when he nominated me that he wants unvarnished objective advice from the council. that's what he expects. that's what he has received. that's what he wants to receive going forward. it is very wide ranging from macro-economics, microeconomics, domestic economics. and we work very closely with our staff through the process.

>> what surprised you in the first 10 days on the job? >> i have been pleased to learning about the economy all the way down. i have tried because you get inundated with the day-to-day news to put things in a bigger perspective. i think we are dealing with historical forces which make the recovery much more difficult. the president likes to say, we get into this messover night, it is going to take a while to get out of it. i put together a slide about what it means to get into this mess, what it took. decades of rising inequality. inadequate education systems. inadequate regulation of the

financial sector. the excess leverage that took place. partly because of weak growth. that's part of the data we would see every day to have more of a narrative. that for me was very rewarding to see how work that we do as economists can get into the policy process and provide a broader expective. >> i think some of it, our faith has been shaken. a couple of interesting questions here. the first one, a somewhat skeptical question. do you really believe the suspension of the payroll tax causes anyone noo in this room to make a hiring decision. it is nice, but it is a relatively small amount of dollars.

>> i think the main amount of the payroll taxes is to give families more after-tax income so they can go out and buy the products that people in this room are producing. by increasing demand in that way, it helps support the economy, it will support economic growth and job creation. it is not because of the lower conversation but because of the aggregate demand. i will say a proponent would cut taxes on the opponent's side. that is targeted more to small employers. as has been mentioned, and i agree, i think one of the areas of weakness has been small businesses and targeting more tax relief to small businesses to help them expand i think makes sense. it helps with some of the credit restraints that they face. it will reduce payroll taxes. i think both have an affect.

i think the payroll tax that we've cut after the lame duck session i think would help demand. >> if the administration's focus is really creating jobs, how do you explain the day -- delay in the keystone pipeline which would provide energy supply to the u.s.. >> by can't comment on that. that's being done by the state department. i think it has greatly reduced the price of natural gas, which has helped the economy. i can't comment on that prlt review process.

>> there is a controversial -- we're in the advertising marketing services. we see a wide variety. >> i'm sorry? >> they are investing in the new markets, the g-8, et cetera, and that strategy will remain in place. i think the measures that you talked about, whether they get implemented are or not are not going to change that fundamental behavior.

so no capacity in the u.s. investing in capacity and behind the brands. i remain optimistic. whether president obama is re-elected or not, the president will have to deal with the deficit. what impact will that have on jobs and capacity expansion in the longer term? so net, net i can't see what you are suggesting is going to alter the behavior that we see clients embarking on or continuing. so what do you think will have the impact on jobs and deficit reduction? >> on the first question, i think we need to see the recovery to continue to build.

right now, with excess capacity, i think you are right, companies have been reluctant yapt, because we have excess capacity in the u.s. with high unemployment still, and growth of around 2.5%. i think what we'll see, if we do sustain the economy, that will cause an increase in demand. we're seeing some of that in equipment and software. one area i would highlight, when i look at how this area compares to recent recoveries, one area that has been weak is consumption of services.

services account for half of g.d.p. and over half of jobs. particularly discretionary services. particularly things like job repair and growth. where we see growth in consumption of services, i think we'll see a stronger jobs growth. that will help with confidence overall as well. i think we need to stress in the economy in the short run and we need to get on a fiscally sustainable path in the long run. i think that's a difficult message, because it sounds like you want to spend and you want

to cut back. but our problems are greatly magnified if the recovery weakens. i think it is important that we maintain the recovery. it is equally important that we get on a fiscally secure path. if we can creditably get on a fiscally sustainable path. now what will that do for the economy? let's suppose we do have what looks like to a macro-economist the optimal path? certainly the government would be cutting back. the business sector is relatively healthy. it is conceiveable that the business sector can help to fuel a much stronger recovery if they

feel confidence is coming back on the part of consumers, if they feel demand will be there. then in the mid term and the longer term, when the government is moving to a suss spin tainable paths, what would be required is for the private sector to fill in. >> he's asking if the incremental development will be in china and other emerging markets and not the u.s. >> i think we're going to see emerging markets continue to grow. on the other hand, the u.s.

economy remains the largest economy by far in the world. in spite of the fact that other countries have been catching up to us. in some respects, they are passing us in terms of their skills. we have an extremely highly skilled work force. we have skilled entrepreneurs. we have -- you are right we will see expansion abroad. i think you will see expansion domestically, particularly in the services. >> allan krueger, thank you very much. you have a tough job ahead of you, clearly. [applause] >> today on capitol the tea party -- tea party debt reduction proposal. a number of people will join the meeting. live coverage at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3.

>> there is a story i was told that when obama was given the first budget and there were 6,000 or 7,000 earmarks in it, his first instinct was to veto that budget. but he was told by his audience for capitol hill, he said, there is no way you can do that. you can't cut ties with the democrats. i think had he vetoed that, he would have been the tea party. had he signaled his fundamental desire to change the system and to change the way washington works, he could have continued to rally the reform movement that now breaks out all over the world because of its frustration with the current way that democracy doesn't function. >> harvard law professor lawrence lessig on money and its influence on washington sunday on c-span's "f & a." >> on this morning's "washington journal" a discussion on the

debt. "washington journal" each morning at 7:00 a.m. p >> yesterday the house approved legislation to make it easier for people with a concealed firearms permit in one state to take their weapons into another. the mostly partyline vote, 272 -154 did have some democratic support. here's some of that house debate. recognized. >> this landmark legislation makes it easier for people with concealed weapons to travel to

other states. 49 states now allow concealed carry permits. 40 of these states extend some degree of recess profit to holders of hoo states. this bill simply applies to state's resip cal agreements nationwide. this requires states that currently allow people to carry concealeded fire arms to recognize other state's valid concealed permits. much like states recognize driver's licenses from other states. they require residency requirements. state laws and regulations regarding how, when, and where a concealed firearm can be carried will apply equally to a nonresident. for example, many states bar individuals from carrying fire arms in a bar, at a sporting event, or in a state park. all of these restrictions will apply to nonresidents as well.

hr 822 also expresses concerns regarding the ability of law enforcement agencies to confirm the validity of an out-of-state conceal carry permit. the state requires the person to show both a valid identification document such as a license or passport and a slalied concealed carry license or permit. state law enforcement agencies can vofe the validity of an out-of-state concealed permit through the implet nles system. inless is available to all 24 hours a day, seven days a week. those that widely allow concealed carry have 22% lower violent crime rates 30% lower murder rates, 30% lower robbery rates, and 12% lower aggravated assault rates as compared to the rest of the country.

opponents have noted some states would be required to recognize conceal and carry permits. however, 40 states already grant recess profits, including states -- reciprocity. the second amendment is a fundamental right to bear arms that should not be constrained by state boundary lines. opposition to this legislation comes from those who leave conceal carry permit holders often commit violent crimes, which is false, or from those that want to restrict the rights of law-awiding citizens to bear arms. this legislation enhances the public safety and protects the right to bear arms under the second amendment. i urge my colleagues to support hr-822. madam chairman, i reserve tal -- the balance of my time.

>> gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. >> madam speaker, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> members of the house. the mex maids that we have -- the measure that we have under consideration today is a very curious one in that there is some misunderstanding of what the constitutional right to carry loaded, hidden kns guns in -- carry loaded, hidden guns in public is really all about. i would begin a discussion to point out that the proposal

before us a concealed firearm permit issued by any state would be valid in every state that allows a concealed carry provision. and so for example a visitor to my home state of michigan would be allowed to carry a loaded, hidden weapon in public, even if he has not met the minimum requirements to do so mandated by our state law. different states have enacted different requirements for carrying concealed weapons in their poureders. and although federal law prohibits individuals with federal convictions from possessing a weapon, 38 of our

states have chosen to deny concealed carry licenses to individuals with convictions for certain misdemeanor offenses. so i would like to start our discussion off with the fact that there are so many members of law enforcement, so many members of the government, so many members of our editorals. please consider with me, my

colleagues in the house, that every major law enforcement organization in the united states of america opposes the measure that is on the floor today, h.r. 822. every singing organization. the shaul international association ever chiefs of police -- of chiefs of police, the major city chief's association, which includes the 56 largest cities in the united states of america, the police foundation e. the national latino's peace officer's association, the national organization of black law enforcement executives .

we have letters from 600 mayors of the cities in the united states. the national network to end domestic violence has sent us letters. the editorals in "th "the washin post," the "st. petersburg times" have all submitted letters and so i conclusion my opening remarks by observing that there is no constitutional right to carry loaded, hidden guns in public.

and one of the things i hope we will be able to persuade you on is that the supreme court case of 2008 entitled district of columbia vs. heller is the case that the majority of the court ruled and justice scalia wrote this decision, that while the second amendment protects the right of law-abiding citizens to use arms in defense of their oklahoma -- defense of their home, but that it bans on carrying in public were presumpively lawful. it wept on to say -- it went on to say that the question held

that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the second amendment, that the prohibitions were lawful and justice scalia's majority decision in that landmark case rendered three years ago stated the second amendment is not unlimited and not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever or for whatever purpose. i cite the supreme court decision 1282783 of 2008, the district of columbia vs. heller.

and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: madam chairwoman, i yield one minute to the gentleman from ohio, mr. chabet, who is a senior member of the judiciary committee. mr. chabot: i thank the chairman for yielding. mr. speaker, the second amendment to the united states constitution states, and i quote, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unquote. in this modern age, when it's very common for people to travel to work or for pleasure, it's really become routine. the national right to carry act is a commonsense solution to adapt to today's needs. this legislation announced -- and it allows people with valid state-issued state concealed arm permits or licenses to carry a concealed firearm in any other state that has essentially the same laws. to be clear, this legislation does not create a national licensing scheme or agency, it does not supersede the laws for

firearms use in any other state. the right of self-defense is a fundamental one and has been recognized in law for centuries. the second amendment dictates that the appropriate way to fight crime is to target criminals, not law-abiding gun owners. today we have an opportunity to clearly recognize the right to bear arms for our citizens and to allow law-abiding citizens to exercise freedom without restrictive barriers. let's take that opportunity today. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: thank you, madam speaker. i'm pleased to recognize the former chair of the constitution subcommittee of the house judiciary committee, jerry nadler of new york, for as much time as he may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: thank you, mr.

speaker. madam speaker, i'm sorry. madam speaker i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 822. what the brady campaign correctly calls the packing heat on your street bill. mr. speaker, america's in dire economic straights. millions of people are out -- straits. millions of people are out of work, people are clam bering for congress to pass legislation to grow the economy and help create jobs. so what does the house of representatives do? this august body is considering gun legislation. the disconnect between the republican house majority and the american people is beyond belief. it's no wonder that the congress approval rating is 13%. not only are we wasting our time on this issue, but what the bill does should scare every american. this bill as amended by the judiciary committee would let a person with a concealed carry permit issued by one state take his or her weapon to any other state of which they are not a resident, regardless of the laws of that other state. state laws on both gun possession and concealed carry would be overridden. this bill takes away the right of the citizens of each state to

set their own gun control policy. for republican house majority that supposedly believes in states rights this bill is shocking. so, for example, some states require firearms training, will require that people be 21 years old to have a concealed carry permit, also trulies would be tossed aside by this new federal mandate. i tried to protect states by filing an amendment with the rules committee that would have provided an exception to the bill, that lets states enforce laws against persons convicted of sex offenses against minors from having concealed weapons. that amendment was not made in order. i guess it was more important to satisfy the is to make sure our kids are protected from violent predators. to the extent states want to allow their citizens to enter into other states with concealed weapons, they can do so by entering into reciprocity agreements and many states have done so. but which would wes for those who have not? why would we force them to