my girlfriend was killed that virginia tech. >> i was shot four times at virginia tech and survive. i'm here for the 32 that did not. my name is cam bosley, i'm from chicago, my son was murdered on church grounds. i'm pleading with our leaders to help us. >> my name is nardine jeffries, i'm here on behalf of my daughter, reshelle jones who was murdered on south capitol street, she was 16 years old and my only child with an ak-47

. >> my name is jose, i lost my son seven years ago, thank you. >> my name is kate hinckley, i'm here to give a voice to my baby sister, kirsten, who was killed when she was 15 at charlie square in salt lake city. >> i'm carolyn tuft, my daughter kirsten was killed in salt lake city. and i was also seriously injured in 2007. >> my name is peter reed, i'm here, again, as i was in april, because of my daughter, mary. she was shot and killed in her

french class on the campus of virginia tech on april 16, 2007. >> my name is casey, my little brother, derrek was riddled with bullets on september 8, 2001 new york sacramento, california. -- in sacramento, california. >> my name is paul mauser, i'm the father of paul maus -- of daniel mauser who was killed in the massacre at columbine high school. >> my name is paul wilson. my beautiful wife christy lyn wilson, 26 years, was cowardly shot and killed in california,

onth 12, 2011. -- october 12, 2011. >> i'm andre, i am father of bear. my son miraculously survived the shooting, he was in the line of fire. i am here not to represent the entire town, i am here just on my own accord. >> obviously the town that andre is talking about is newtown, connecticut. before we begin, is there anybody else here who has a story they want to share? i also come to this issue through personal experience. my younger brother was shot in a shooting that happened on the

observation deck of the empire state building and i have some prepared remarks here but before i begin them, i just want to point out today there will be 32 more families that know the pain and horror that you just heard here today. we pay a lot of attention, and appropriately so, to these mass shootings, the one that andre's son miraculously survived, but we also have to be aware that this happens in our nation every day and as you're going to hear today, as a nation, we are better than this. i want to thank you all for coming on what we are confident is a momentous day in the history of this issue. we have people here from all over the country from utah, california, from colorado, and connecticut. we're here because we love our children, our husbands, our wives, our brothers, and our sisters.

we mourn them and we wish they hadn't been shot. we're here as a testament to our love for them and we're here because we love our country. we're here because we know that as a nation we are better than this. we're here from tucson, from aurora, columbine, virginia tech and newtown, connecticut. names that have become iconic in america's bizarre and shameful epidemic of gun violence. we're here because we know that america is greater than those awful moments. we're here because we envision an america that's known as the nation that solves this terrible gun violence epidemic once and for all. we can do this. we can do this. they say friday's horrific mass shooting at sandy hook elementary school changed everything, and it has.

it is a tipping point. reliably pro gun lobby senators have shifted position saying they can no longer bring themselves to oppose gun policies. republican commentator joe scarborough said sandy hook changed everything. president obama said, we can't tolerate this anymore, we must do better than this. so friday changed everything. for me, though, it was a shooting on the observation deck of oh the empire state building when my brother was shot. for others it was a school bus in chicago, or a parking lot in florida. for jim and sara brady, a day in 1981 changed everything, when jim stood behind the most well-trained armed guards with the president yet was still

struck by gun violence that did change everything, it created two leaders of this movement, who rallied to demand the last important pieces of gun safety legislation we have had in this country and yet still, every day in america, everything changes for hundreds of more families. we're here because every year in america, 100,000 americans are shot, 30,000 of them fatally. and there's so much we can do to prevent this carnage. 40% of gun sales take place without a background check. 40%. 40% of gun sales take place without a background check no questions asked. felon the dangerously mentally ill and dangerous abusers can get guns. 70% of n.r.a. members support closing this gaping hole. military style assault weapons and high capacity magazine are

readily available to civilians. we need a sustained, thoughtful national conversation about solutions to our gun violence epidemic. a conversation that's respectful of the second amendment, another thing i'd like to repete, but cognizant of the risks guns pose for families and neighborhoods like in the cases you've heard about today. none of these policies has anything to do with second amendment rights. this is the conversation the american public wants to have. the american people are coming together on this issue from blue states and red states, republicans and democrats, those who own guns, like some of the people behind me, and those who do not. cities, suburbs, small towns. we are speaking out. based on one simple idea expressed by president obama in his powerful remarks on sunday

night. we are better than this. all of us here today are here to make our voices heard, the voices of those impacted by gun violence, the voices of everyone who just want to live in a safer nation. we're going to leave this event and take that message, our message, to the halls of congress and directly to the white house, we are not going away until america's gun policy truly changed and we do everything we can to protect our children, our families and our communities. we have shown that as a nation, we truly are better than this. thank you all for being here, especially thanks to all of you for sharing your stories and having the remarkable courage. now we will hear from tom mauser, who has already introduced himself who is going to share some additional

thoughts. tom? >> thank you, dan. i am here today wearing my son's shoes. they're the shoes he was wearing on april 20, 1999. when he was gunned down at columbine high school. it is amazing we have the same size shoes. soy wear them because he was a member of the debate team at columbine high school. so i now wear his shoes in this great debate. it's a debate that we need to have in this country. we've had that debate in the year 2000, the year after columbine. legislators refused to close the gun show loophole in colorado so we took it to the vote of the people and the people closed that gun show loophole by a vote of 70% to 30%. that same night in oregon, 60%

to 40% system of americans will step up when their elected officials don't and vote for reasonable gun laws. we can't put every measure, we can't put every measure before a vote. we have to be able to count on our elected officials. to do that for us. as we are doing here today. it would be easy to be discoloneled, for me to be discurmed after 13 years of this activity. easy to be discouraged. but i can't be. because i have hope. because these people have hope also. that we can do something to change it. these people here before you because they refuse to be statistics. they want to be the story. the stories of ordinary americans who have been through -- they've been through hell and back.

and they don't want it to happen to the rest of you. they're ordinary people who were thrown into an extraordinary tragedy. they didn't ask to be thrown into that. like so many others dan mentioned. it happens to so many people. we are not here to ask for your pity. we are asking to share our stories with you. these stories could be your stories. it could be any one of you. it could be your story. the people here today are people who have not given up hope despite the terrible tragedy that has befallen them. they still have hope. and they refuse to listen and to accept that message of

hopelessness that we have been hearing so often in america. there's nothing you can do about this. there's always going to be lunatics. you can't keep guns away from criminals. we refuse to accept that hopelessness. that's not what america is about. that's not the america i grew up in. it's one where we can have hope for change. we're not going to accept those excuses like we have in the past. the folks here today are here to ask for that conversation. we need to have a conversation because we know that silence and inaction can be deadly. and in fact, it has been. like most americans, we're saying that enough is enough. we are better than them. it's time to talk and time to act. thank you.

>> thank you, tom. i'm struck by the fact that if you're listening you don't even need to edit ave maria over any of these remarks. i want to point out one thing that tom talked about which is this motion of -- notion of a debate. i think it's important to clarify something. that the conversation that the american public is having and wants to have, we're talking about something that the overwhelming majority of americans already agree on. we're talking about the fact, something like criminal background checks. the only place in this country where this is a heated, partisan political debate despite what contentious appearances in the media might have implied, the only place this is a contentious political debate is in that building behind us. there's a disconnect between what the american public wants

on this issue and what american officials are doing about it and our, more than a hope, we are confident that this tragedy that's happened in newtown, connecticut is going to shine such a stark spotlight on that disconnect that as is already starting to happen, our elected officials are going to do the right thing and they're going to join the conversation. that's what we're asking for today, for our elected officials to join the conversation that the american public is already having. with that, i'd like to bro deuce two of my newer hero, sandy and lonnie phillips. >> good morning. i'm going to talk a little bit about jessica, my gaur -- my daughter, and how she died, today, because i think it's important for all americans to understand that this could have and should have been fixed a long, long time ago. she went to the movies that evening with her best friend who was visiting from texas. they sat down in what should

have been a very relaxed evening and all hell broke loose. when the bullets started flying, her friend brent pushed her to the ground, where she was first hit in the leg. he tried his best, being a paramedic, to stop the flow of blood and protect her when a bullet from an ar-15 went flying through the seat that should have protected her and hit her in her head. that horrendous scene replays in my head over and over and over again as it does for every other member of our aurora family, the other 11 people who were murdered that night. brent, who is with my daughter, was -- who was with my

daughter, was composed enough even though he was wounded that when the bullets stopped flying, he removed himself over to the railing of the theater. took his cell phone, and called me to let me know that my daughter had been murdered. that's a hero. congress, the senate, and our president now have an opportunity to be a hero as well. and stop the bloodshed. it is very sad to all of us here today that it has taken 20 young lives to have this conversation begin in earnest, we hope that there are positive changes come from this. tom mentioned a while ago that this could happen to any of us. and it can. you are not immune. don't fool yourself. when you are no longer safe to

go to a church, go to a grocery store, go to the movies or enter a school, there is something horribly wrong with our society. we need to address it, we need to make sure that this never, ever happens again in our country. thank you. >> thank you. thank you for continuing to have the courage to share your story so that others will know what you've been through. now i'd like to introduce andre to share his story. >> there are two parts to my story.

one part is actually happened to my son. he went to school in the morning on the bus, just like he normally does, and then when he was a classroom helper, he was sent from his classroom to turn in attendance sheets to the principal's office. he and another little kid. together they went into hallway and when they were nearing the principal, the principal's office, they heard gunshots that he describes like somebody banging on the door. he says that he saw bullets passing by, he is a kid, what does he know? he cannot see bullets. but the teachers told us that yes, the bullets were there. these two wonderful kids were

saved by the bravery of the wonderful teacher, mrs. clemens, for which we will ever be thankful for and will never be enough. she pulled them in her own classroom and barricaded the door. they were safe. unfortunately for many families in our town, it's not true. i cannot describe what i feel about that. if we could not -- if we could rewind the reality and prevent what happened, i would give anything to do it. now my story. for many years, i watched what

was happening in this country. i am an immigrant. i've been here 22 years. and i -- i held these believes, america has the -- deep history with guns. it's part of american history. gun owners and people who handle guns, they know how to keep them safe and be responsible. our politicians will do whatever they can to make sure our kids are safe. and you know, every time something like columbine, virginia tech, aurora, were happening, i would avert my eyes and i would still think

that something will be done. but all those beliefs were shattered on friday. and now i think we all need to speak up. and i say we all because i know many of you, my friends, relatives, the people who i've talked to, everyone thinks that we need to make the society safer. if not for us, let's make it safer for our kids. so let's unite, let's stop this partisan division. it's not a partisan issue. it's an issue of safety for our children. that's why i decided to step forward. i wasn't asked to do so. i'm not even sure how many members of my own town feel about that.

i received support from people i know in town. i didn't talk to many people right now. i try not to watch tv, not to listen to the radio. but everyone i talked to thinks that the change should be done. and please, let's stop partisan bickering, let's get money out of politics and act in the interest of people. i think we're america, we can do it. let's make it back to the country we lost, safe for kids. >> almost tempted not to say anything else. thank you, andre. one thing i was struck by when you talked about the heroic efforts of mrs. clemens, it almost sounds like a protocol that was in place, this is what you do, like we used to have fire drills.

and it made me think about the one correspondence we got from our school, those of us who have kids that age, in elementary school, probably shared a similar experience. it was a letter telling you how to talk to your kids about this and informing us of the protocol in the event that there's a shooting at our school. think about what that does to our nation's peace of mind and our psyche. if we're not better than that, dealing with this issue in terms of shooting after the shooting has broken out in an elementary school, what are we better than. with that, we're happy to take some questions. >> i think it's probably fair to say a lot of the world is looking at this and wondering how in heaven's name did it get to the point in this country where people are running around with battlefield weapons and there was a representative on

tv the other day saying the answer is to arm educators. i don't need a legalistic education pla nation but could you take a stab at explaining to a foreign audience how it got this far? >> first, to take heart, that politician wasn't speaking on behalf of this conversation. the answer to violence isn't more violence. the answer to guns isn't more guns. there was an assault weapons ban in place that jim and sara brady were instrumental in leading, that president clinton signed into law, that senator feinstein is now reintroducing it, led the charge in congress as well as some other visionary congresspersons. it had a sunset clause and i

don't want to get too legalistic. and that was after 10 years and in 2004 and the well of the american public that doesn't want to walk around on streets with these military style weapons did not manifest itself in congress enough to prevent the -- allowing it, it's a passive action. it was allowed to sunset. so for the last eight years, we haven't had the assault weapons ban in place and we're seeing the carnage that results from these weapons. >> if for instance, the principal had had a gun this could have been stopped and what we need is more gun rights and not less. >> one thing i can tell you first of all is there are -- how many of you here here, there are 40 people behind me

who would love to answer that question. i will feel their spirit and do it on behalf of them. that is insane. my brother was shot in a chaotic shooting on the observation deck of the empire state building and everyone who was there would say with certainty that having more weapons would have only resulted in more carnage to people -- the people at virginia tech would tell you the same thing, the people there in the confusion and smoke of the movie at the for the aurora would say the same thing. it's important not to get dragged into a debate over that because it's not the vision of the american people. think about what that's saying. that's saying the only answer we have to violence is more violence and that the only answer we have to guns is more guns. and think about where that vision leaves us. that's not the vision of the american public. so you know, i would hope that the representative is ultimately held accountable for irresponsible state --

statements like that that only undermine our public health and safety rather than solving the problem that these people so desperately want solved and that our entire nation wants solved. >> the problem with the assault weapons ban, it did not classify calibers of weapons, it listed a series of nine types of weapons including the ar-15 but no bush master 225, no 5.56, do you want to push to get rid of them altogether? >> i don't think we're at the point of talking specifics like that we haven't had the opportunity to sit down with senator feinstein's staff yet and analyze the statistics. another important element, it was an important part of the assault weapons ban. i think when we do have conversations like that, it's important to remember president obama's remarks he made at the

vigil in newtown that there isn't going to be one answer to solve all the problems, one answer to prevent every tragedy in the world but his words were, couldn't dream of saying it better, that is not an excuse for inaction. so once we get into, you know, the i wantry kacies of pieces of legislation, let's -- the i wantry kacies of pieces -- the intricacies of legislation until we then. >> the momentum will be lost and it will be harder to pass legislation. do you have any numbers that would tell us anything about this type of massacre before the ban and after the ban?

>> right. so i think the important thing to point out is the mass shootings are the exception to gun violence. every day 32 more people are murdered. every year 30,000 people die from guns. we need to have the conversation in that context. look at it almost in terms of ep deemology. what can duo to prevent the most of those deaths possible without infringing on the second amendment as it's been clearly defined now by the supreme court. so we need to have the conversation not in terms of, you know, just what's going to prevent any one massacre. that can lead you down the wrong path and -- or it can lead you down at least not the most productive path. in terms of going away, though, that's what we mean when we say this time is different. that's why we're here today. that's why we have this letter. we, our pledge to you and our pledge to the american people is that we are not going to let this go away. we are going to seize this moment, the moment created by

this unthinkable horror, to make sure that we ereas the disconnect between the american public wants and what our elected officials are doing about it. >> i know your message today is not focused on them specifically but everyone is waiting for them to say something, do anything. is there anything you'd like to say to them? >> there's something i'd like to say. again, my name is peter reed, my daughter, mary, was killed in her french class on april 16, 2007, at virginia tech. by someone who should not have had access to the weapon he is had access to. my daughter, who had not yet turned 20, loved christmas. she was the girl that wanted the local radio station to start playing christmas carols before thanksgiving.

god forgive us as a country if it takes a literal slaughter of innocents in a holy season to wake us up. i'm speaking as a father. we are all here because of losses that are incomprehensible on a personal level to most americans. god bless andre for coming forward in a time i don't think i was even capable of moving or talking very well. we came together with dan and brady and some of us with mayor bloomberg yesterday because the nation is crying out for a change. we all know in our hearts and in our guts what martin luther king jr. meant when he said themore arc of the universe is long but it bends toward justice. when i was here in april i asked, if not us, who? if not now, when?

god willing, maybe this is the when. maybe this is the time. we are blessed to have people like dan and brady and mayors against illegal guns and so many others who will be able to delve into the policy details that need to be delved into but this day is a day to ask our country to be better. to be more than we have been. and that's what i have to say. >> thank you, peter. important words. i want to answer the n.r.a. question. i think it's an important opportunity to point out the chasm that exists between the membership of the n.r.a., a lot of very decent, law-abiding americans, who may have a love of hunt or sport or collecting weapons, certainly respect their second amendment rights and believe in their second amendment rights, and the leadership of the n.r.a. acting as the gun lobby in the interest of the gun lobby, actively trying to stifle the

conversation that you're hearing today, so i want to use your question as an invitation to n.r.a. members, sandy has been an n.r.a. member, and you know, if ever there was an example of a decent, law-abiding person, here you have it. i want to use this opportunity as an invitation to anyone who loves to hunt, who owns guns for any lawful purpose, to join us in having this national conversation to make this the better nation we need to be. >> thank you very much. i know some of you want to speak with family members individually, some of them agreed to make themselves available. thank you. >> dan gross ened that briefing talking about the national rifle association. the group this afternoon released their first statement on the newtown shootings, indicating they plan to hold a major news conference in the washington area this friday. we'll keep you posted on that. conversation from this morning's "washington journal"

next, as we wait for the house to gavel in around 6:00 p.m. eastern for a series of four votes on the issues of the connecticut shooting and gun control from this morning. host: what do you make of that? guest: we've been this way before. in 1994, president clinton signed an assault weapons ban into law. it expired in 2004. so we have 10 years of experience of what that ban did. and frankly, a university of pennsylvania study that looked comprehensively at all of that said that while there was some slight decrease in the use of assault weapons, it did nothing

for overall gun violence. assault weapons, semiautomatics, used between 2% and 8% of crimes and instead the gun ban did nothing to reduce the overall level of gun violence in this country. look, i mean, this is a very tragic situation. it's a very emotional one. at least an emotional issue -- emotional an issue as the death penalty or abortion. we have a deeply divide control. we have a large chunk of the country that wants to focus on the instrument for these evil deed. the gun. and other people who want to focus on the criminally insane or criminal minds that are behind these horrific incidents. i think we have to look at both sides of that coin. i think we have to look both at the gun issue, but we also have to look at the mental health issue and the extent to which gun control laws are oort effective or not effective. host: "the new york times" this morning, the editorial page.

host: what do you make of the idea of finding compromise between the two sides? guest: one thing i think that is very much on the debating table is the gun show loophole. i mean, if you're going to have background checks, it seems to me it's at least legitimate to debate the fact of whether or not you sell a gun at a gun show, you shouldn't have at least as effective a background check as uh if you sell it at a gun store. having said that, i don't think that's what the main debate will be about. that's not what senator feinstein or senator schumer are talking about. they're talking about returning to the same assault weapons ban we had experience with between

1994 and 2004. that's old ground and i'll be honest with you, the cities with the toughest gun control laws in the country, chicago, are horrific places filled with violence, filled with murders that are escalating. i think it's too simplistic an approach. we should look at the gun laws but also the mental health laws. connecticut has the fifth strictest gun control laws in the country. 44 states have tougher -- have looser -- have looser gun control laws, 44 states. at the same time, connecticut was one of only six states that didn't have an assisted patient treatment program which says if you're showing real signs of being a danger to yourself or others in your community, the state can't take you into custody and force you to take your medication. the extremely mentally ill are no more dangerous in the community than anyone else if

they take their medication but if you don't take your medication, if you're not treated you don't have incidents like this. i think the bill before the legislateture by various doctors that said we need to be one of the states that allows involuntary mitigation and treatment. it was rejected by the acl -- aclu because of privacy concerns. what it could do is look at mental health laws which i think are woefully inadequate when compared to the other 44 states that have such laws. host: this is the baltimore sun this morning.

host: it's military use. host: is this kind of gun, do you think, ok to have outside of military use and by police departments? >> again we have an -- we had an assault weapons ban between 1994 and 2004. a whole bunch of models were declared illegal. one of the unfortunate facts, i wish it weren't the case, we have over $230 million -- we have over 230 million privately owned firearms, millions of

those are semiautomatic weapons. banning them doesn't mean they go away, it means they go into the criminal underground market. you can steal one, buy one on the street. unfortunately, i know places in los angeles in california where i'm from where you can probably find one on the street corner in 15 minutes. again, they make that feel good , it may not be the most efficacious things we can do to prevent further tragedies. if we didn't already have 230 million firearms in this country, it would be a different situation. but we do. we have a lot of people with mental health problems that should be addressed. one third of homeless people on the streets are mentally ill, 2/3 of women on the streets are mentally ill. this is a tragedy. we probably have to have contract join other states with

involuntary treatment laws which are not used very much. we should look at what's worked in the past and what hasn't worked in the past. getting people their medications and forcing them, if necessary, to take it, does help. we should be sensitive to privacy concerns. as the pennsylvania study concluded, it did nothing to alleviate the level of gun violence. 98% of the incidents don't involve those kind of weapons. host: you posted online, the facts about mass shootings and you talk about gun free zones, what point are you making here? >> one of the responses we've had in recent years to these horrific crimes has been to say we should try to make ourselves safe by creating gun free zones. that means no one, even those who are allowed to carry a weapon, almost every state allows concealed carry permits

to be issued to people who pass their test and certain qualifications. we say it's illegal to carry your gun even if you're an honest, law-abiding citizen. i don't know if that's worked as well as we've hoped. believe it or not, 1950, which is -- covers about 60 of these massive killings by deranged people, since 1950, with the exception of the gabrielle giffords shooting in tucson last year, and my brother was a deputy sheriff for many years in tucson, he's familiar with that case, with the exception of that case, every single mass killing has taken place in a gun-free zone where private sit ren -- citizens weren't allowed to carry a weapon. clearly saying a school should be gun free, or a shopping mall should be gun free, doesn't solve the problem. the aurora batman killer was obsessed with batman, he was going to do his crime at a place where the movie was being shown. there were a bunch of theaters

around his home showing it. he didn't pick the one closest to his home, he picked the only one in denver that posted a sign saying, it is against our law -- it is against the law as our rights as a private property owner to carry a gun here in this theater. every other theater allowed concealed carry gun into the theater. now i have to tell you, i have no idea if the killer knew about that but there was a large sign there. and he picked the one theater where he could be absolutely certain that if people were obeying the law they wouldn't have a gun there, couldn't stop him. we've seen this time and time again. pearl river, tennessee, the lady in texas, people stopped a killer either in mid mayhem or just before they were going to commit mayhem, by having a gun of their own, either a gun in a parked car or a gun on their person. i'm not saying the solution for everything, but declaring something to be a gun-free zone doesn't mean you end gun violence. sometimes it means you've

disarmed everyone in the community who might be able to stop that person. that brave principal, the woman who lunged at the killer trying to stop him, i admire her courage but lunging at him without a weapon wasn't going to help matters, she just got killed. i'm not saying she could've stopped him but we made sure everyone in the school was unarmed. >> should we arm school officials? guest: the police chief of st. louis said we should put it on the table. let's at least say that just like pilots, pilots can be armed. we had a long battle about that. should pilots be able to carry weapons on a plane that's pressurized and you know, where you could do all kinds of damage to the plane's fuselage. we ultimately agreed that pilots should have the right to carry a weapon on a plane. if that's the case, maybe we should at least consider allowing some people at a school to have the option of having if they have a concealed

carry permit, to keep a gun at the school. now, you can control that, limit who it applies to, we can make it optional, don't have to require it, but at least the killers and by the way, the killers, as crazy as they may be, me lick lousely plan these operations. they know everything about the area they're about to commit mayhem in. maybe at least the killer would understand there's a chance someone at the school or shopping mall would have a gun and might be able to stop them. >> ezra kline writes in his column this morning that the killer's mother had access to guns, he was a gun enthusiast, he was trained to use guns, that didn't help her though. >> no. and she obviously did not lock the weapons up as someone should have locked them up. the one thing that i think you have a responsibility to do is if you own guns, keep them locked up. always keep them locked up. not just because of children but because of what, cow know, people who break into the house could do with them.

at least locking them up slows down these potential burglars. yes, i believe there's an issue of personal responsibility here. she clearly was not acting within her personal responsibility. she frankly had a responsibility not to take the kid out of school in the 10th grade and leave him at home for four years, but she had a responsibility if he was really troubled to take him to seek treatment. she obviously failed in that task and stayed at home, he brooded and god only knows. host: let's go to phone calls. steve, democratic caller. welcome to the conversation. caller: thank you. chunk for -- thank you for c-span. my suggestion is two-fold. one, is that each owner of a gun or each gun rather should have a trigger lock where the lock actually prevents the

trigger from being fired and it should be an expensive one not like the kind that's $20 where it doesn't work properly but a certified trigger lock. my second suggestion is that each owner of a gun every two or three years should meet with a psychiatrist or psychologist that would certify that this owner understands the importance of that trigger lock and has to, you know, understand that it should be on every time the owner is not using the gun. guest: having a psychiatrist or psychologist lecture on the importance of a trigger lock may not be the right area for their expertise. my brother was a deputy chief of police for many years, would

probably say if someone should do that, it should be law enforcement who probably can send a, shall we say, more effective authority message than a psychologist. look, i'm not an expert on trigger locks. i do know that guns should be locked up but you don't want to lock them up to such an extent it makes it difficult to get to them if there's a particular or someone invading the home who is dangerous. host: california, independent caller, sara, you're on the air. caller: good morning. first of all, that school was my elementary school and my sister's. we're all absolutely stunned. but i don't believe that having guns in the school is going to make that big a difference. during world war ii, the country called for citizens to donate their dogs for protection training of the

troops for smelling out mines an enemy people and it was a successful thing. i think that we need to look at putting trained police dogs in the schools with trained handlers for the security. people can be fooled by somebody. an i.d. doesn't mean anything at all. but a dog knows absolutely instantly when -- instantly. when we lived in germany -- germany, my father was working there, all the police had trained doings on the place and there were no robberies, there were no assaults because people knew that that dog would get them and obviously the security is not working. and children need to be protected. adults need to be protected. and it would be much less expensive and much safer to have a trained dog in every school and the malls and big theater complexes. host: ok, sara, we got your point.

john? guest: i'm not sure if it would be less expensive to have a handler and a dog at every school rather than allowing one person to possess a gun they probably own pivetly, having said that, it's an unfortunate fact i grew up much of my early years in europe and you know, i understand that they had strict gun control laws there. until last friday, the newtown shoot, the top three, in terms of fatality, school shootings in the world were in britain and germany. those were done with assault weapons. just because you have strict gun controls doesn't mean people can't get access to these weapons. they can. if you're criminal and criminally insane, you don't care about the law. host: from twitter:

host: "the washington post" had graphics showing the federal and state laws. host: what do you make of some of these, like the mental health requirement? and waiting periods? what about tightening those laws? guest: i think those are going to be on the table. i certainly think that the fact that 20 states don't require reporting to the f.b.i. for mental background check is probably a loophole in the system. i think those states should revisit that issue. but again, on the concealed carry issue, look, i'm not a

gun enthusiast, i don't own a gun, but i know this. most people, almost all people who have concealed carry gun permits use them responsibly. by the way, illinois is the 50th state where that law has been declared unconstitutional by the court of appeals. so we'll have concealed carry in all 50 states. it turns out that as a percentage of the population, the police officers who are trained and supposed to be there to protect us, are convicted of firearms violations at the same rate as individual citizens who have concealed carry permits. i don't think it's necessarily more unsafe to have private citizens protect us than it is to have the police protect us if the police can get there in time. remember, this mass mayhem, it doesn't take more than five minutes to shoot 20 people. most of these incidents take place in an instant.

you can't get the police there in time. at some point you have to ask yourself, is somebody having a gun in a parked car even, you don't have to bring it into a school. it could save lives because somebody could go out as they have in previous cases, gotten the gun and prevented the killer from proceeding further. this won't solve everything. we have to ask ourselves, have we made our mental health laws loose, too much tilted toward privacy. have we made the gun laws so extreme that people can't have a weapon and any killer who enters a school know he is won't meet any resistance. host: we have a tweet for you. guest: that may be true but the supreme court has ruled, it's a

decision that's not going to be overturned any time in our recent history that we know about. saying this is an individual right to self-protection. your interpretation is one way to look at it he supreme court has spoken here. host: thomas, aurora, colorado, go ahead. caller: i'm a 70-year-old gentleman, spent nine years in the air force. i was on a job at the state capitol in colorado and you can't get in the door unless you're searched by the guard or you put in a code. if that school would have had bullet proof glass on the front door and a scanner for weapons it would have solved the problem because the office would have known about it, the cops would have got there before it happened. we've got to do a better job

protecting the kids from people getting into buildings in the first place. host: can you give us an idea how much something like that would cost for an individual school? and who should pick up the tab for that? caller: i guess the best way to answer that question, how much do you think it's going to cost the people who just died, the families an the cities they're in over that? what it comes down to, it would be expensive maybe but if you look at it in the long run, you can't get into state buildings or city buildings without that or even on a plane. we have the technology now, we should use it. guest: we lose between 100 and 140 people every year to mass shooters. that's horrific. and you know, the value of the lives are incalculable, we cannot have -- we want to turn

every school into a fortress. there may be other things we can do. maybe we should tighten the mental health laws first and see how that works. maybe we should examine the gun-free school zone law and see if it can be loosened slightly to see allow a principal trained in the use of firearms to carry a gun to school. if you have a big enough weapon, you can pretty much blast open any door you want. host: what's your take on the headlines today about the n.r.a. mum on the happening in connecticut. they have not put out a statement. do you think they need to? guest: they will eventually because it's going to be a debate. the n.r.a. realizes that emotions are running high and they're the whipping boy for

everyone who wants to curtail gun rights. i'm not a gun enthusiast, i don't own a gun but this is a time for grieving. and i find it rather sad that the cable television news shows are filled with people wanting to exploit this issue or make their point on one side or the other side. i'm happy that we have this rational, calm debate on c-span. it's a pleasant contrast to what we often get on television. host: sandra in alabama, republican caller, go ahead. caller: yes, thank you for having me, i've got two points, one son the mental health guide. i had to go to a hospital, my potassium electrolyte had dipped way down they thought i had to be put on the psych ward. i -- my daughter checked me out and took me to another hospital that night. it affects your mental capabilities. once they got that up, i was

fine. they make mistakes all the time on mental health. you have to be careful on that. on guns, i hope and pray they don't ban guns over this. it's not the guns, it's what's being taught to these kids. they are being taught from so small that life means nothing. the video games they play, my grandkids had some, i had to put them out of the house, they will knife people on those over and over, they get guns an shoot over and over. it does something to their minds. i've had one child i had to have put into the detention place because of,, my grandson, because of behavior and right away they wanted to put him on medications and stuff. he didn't need that he needed the discipline. finally he -- he's been in there six months, he's made a complete turnabout. sometimes it takes discipline, not medication. guest: well, of course, and you know, laws that require medication for extremely

violent or disruptive mentally ill but the aclu's concerns about privacy and abuse are genuine. we can go too far. i think we all can agree we'd probably institutionalized -- deinstitutionalize too many people and put them on the streets. too many sad figures i see on the street are mentally ill. we need to find some way to take care of them and convince them to take their medication. if they take their medication, they're unlikely to be violent and a danger to society or themselves. all of this is about drawing lines. you can err on either side of the line. we have erred too much on the side of leniency in allowing the mental ill to slip away and we've made it too easy for people to not get treatment. the privacy laws, especially

privacy laws regarding students are so tight if you try to blame someone as mentally ill and say, this person needs treatment, you can be sued. if you're sued, that can be a cost of thousands of dollars. we're creating a situation in many areas where people are afraid to intervene. they become what i call absentminded bistanders, they pretend no not see what's going on around them. they don't report someone. they believe the responsibility has to go to authorities. if someone is acting in a disruptive way and over 2/3 of the mass killers we have had in recent years exhibited signs that were observed an noted. the guy in aurora, colorado, is such an example. the guy in connecticut is not. but 2/3 showed signs of serious, debilitating mental illness. maybe we should examine the laws that allow us to reach those people and treat them.

host: caller, you're on the air. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think we need to go that one more step because just like a lady said a couple of minutes ago, how about these videos and games. i know, i have a 12-year-old grandson that loves a video game that plays violently. his dad, my son, allows him to watch these movies, violent movies, and play these violent, violent video games. and he thinks that's ok. i told him, that's not parenting. so even if your child is not mentally ill, or have a problem, what are they

watching? guest: that's a good point. i would note that almost all the people calling for gun control, those same people make no mention of any restrictions on our first amendment rights. which are free speech and freedom. look, i don't want to control hollywood. i don't want to control video games. but i do note that quentin tarantino has a new film out in which, you know, set in the precivil war era, a bunch of white people get massacred because they're owning slaves or because there are no slave owners. i notice he canceled his los angeles premiere of his film out of courtesy to the victims of newtown, connecticut. i think self-restraint is in order in hollywood. i don't believe gratuitous violence and quentin tarantino apparently thinks he might be on the edge of that, by canceling his premier. i don't want to daughter till

-- curtail overallly our first amendment rights or our second amendment rights in the institution -- in the constitution. host: buyer of alcohol, tobacco and explosives, division of the justice department is supposed to regulate the nation's gun industry but many say it is the industry that dominates the agency. for decades, the national rifle association has lobbied to block all attempts to computerize records of gun sales. and despite the growth of the gun industry, a.t.f. has fewer agents today than four decades ago. does that need to be looked at as well? guest: four decades ago, we had much more of a country that restricted alcohol. we almost have no dry counties

left and that's one of the reasons why we have fewer agents. secondly, canada, which has much stricter gun control laws, they tried to register firearms and dropped it a couple years ago and dropped it fairly with large majority in parliament. that didn't work out. i'm not saying we shouldn't keep better records. the f.b.i. and other agencies should look at the mental health background of everyone, just having 30 states doing that is way too inadequate. i'm not an expert. i think all of these areas should be subject to debate. having this debate where one side everybody blames the gun and other side everybody says it's the people involved, not the instrument. it is way too simplistic. we have to look at everything and that includes registry of

firearms, computerized records, possible bans, we could debate everything. we should debate our mental health situation and why connecticut is one of the six states that doesn't allow forced medication for people who are mentally ill if they are endangering people and our gun-free zone policy. every mass killing since 1950 takes place in a gun-free zone, obviously that isn't working for us. host: the a.t.f. has a budget of $1.1 billion and regulates firearm sales and only allowed to inspect. maryland, independent caller, you are next. caller: i live in maryland and i'm watching the show and watching all this on the news and everything, vietnam veteran

with p.t.s.d. this has had a big effect on me, but we are looking on the one side of tragedy and god forbid we have to prevent that from happening again. on the other hand, we have to look at the other side, legal responsible citizens. last year there were 2,500 instances where private citizens carrying handguns legally and responsibly stopped murders. if one person from each one of those instances was killed that would have been 2,500 people killed last year that was prevented. we just can't slam and deteriorate those who are legal and law-abiding citizens. we have to give them their rights. the thing on the video games, too.

ban guns and say that people won't be able to have a gun in their house, but you can have all the video games you want and i have seen the children behind that, and they are intense, oh, yeah, look at that and that is the feelings we are instilling in young people. guest: there is a desense ti advising at a young age and we have to worry what kind of influence on young kids. that will be the responsibility of parents and if parents don't do that job, society is limited in what it can do unless it wants to try to ban something. there are hundreds of millions of video games out there. we aren't going to bring them back. 230 million guns out there. we can't eliminate this problem. it's very sad and telling that to someone who has lost a loved

one in connecticut that we can't have a risk-free society sounds heartless, but it's true. host: it was written in the "wall street journal" this morning -- guest: we don't have a federal mental health system.

one of the problems we have at the state level and this is where liberals like the democratic treasurer of rhode island and democratic legislature in states like illinois are grappling with, we have so many of our state resources being taken up by public employee pensions and various wealth transfers, that the basic jobs of government, infrastructure, mental health, certain special education programs are being starved of money and one of the things that citizens of san diego decided if you let the employee pension programs grow, we are going to crowd out money for everything else and they voted to curb back those pensions. we have to re-establish our priorities. if you have a number of beds in mental hospitals at 1850 levels, that is scandalous.

we don't want to go back to that time or institutionalize people or civil liberties abuses. but we need to achieve a balance. we shouldn't wait until someone commits a violent act before we commit em. if someone is threatening them, we can't institutionalize them. that is way too tight a standard and lead to tragedies in colorado and other places where they were noticed by their peers. host: we have erred too much on the side of guns. a democratic caller from south caller. caller: good morning. i had an experience yesterday while traveling. i served four years in the marines from 1967 to 1971.

seen my share of vial enches -- violence in the military. i walk up to a place as i'm going in there is a young man and young lady there and the young man is going in and he is strapped clearly, shirt tucked into his pants, belt on and an automatic pistol on his side. so without thinking, without hesitation, i just asked him, i said good morning young man, and he said good morning. i said what is it that you have on your side? he said that's a gun. i said, is it a real gun? he said, yes. i said why do you need to bring it in this place? and he says because i have a right. there's a right to carry law in north carolina.

so that was his word and i didn't know the state law because i just didn't know. and i asked for the -- a seat for two and the manager. and i told the manager i would like for you to know there is a young man in here carrying an exposed pistol on his side and it's uncomfortable. they sat me on the other side of a partition. my wife said -- then when i got within when i could keep him within eye shot, my wife got nervous and i said it's not worth it we should just leave. i had a conversation with the waitress. i said we are leaving. she said why. i said i'm uncomfortable after connecticut and now i have a

young man under 30 carrying a firearm, i have no idea about his psychological profile, how qualified he is, whether there is in the chamber, an accidental deal. look, here's my position on this gun thing, ok. if we all carried guns and someone started shooting there is going to be a lot more people dead because there are a lot more folks trying to do good. guest: there can be abuses. people who get concealed carry permits. in some states they have to pass serious evaluations and training and rate of their abuse is no greater than firearms. -- police officers with firearms. he may make you nervous. the restaurant has a right to say we don't want people with

guns in the restaurant. your complaint should be with the management of the restaurant. would it have made the caller feel better if the person had followed the concealed carry law ? you wouldn't have known he had a gun. open carry -- >> we'll bake away here for house votes here on c-span. 201 p.m., that the senate passed senate resolution 622. with best wished i am, signed, sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: senate 3193, an act

to make technical corrections to the legal description of certain land, to be held in trust for the bronea band of mission indians and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the managers on the part of the house have until midnight tonight, december 18, to file the conference report to accompany h.r. 4310. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, proceedings will resume on motions to suspend the rules previously postponed. votes will be taken in the following order. h.r. 6504, de novo, h.r. 3783 by the yeas and nays, h.r. 6621 by the yeas and nays and s. 3642 by the yeas and nays. first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and passing h.r. 6054 on which the clerk will report by

title. the clerk: h.r. 6504, a bill to amend the small business investment act of 1958, to provide for increased limitations on leverage for multiple licenses under common control and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the -- yes, sir. the gentleman from virginia. >> i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 359, the nays are 35.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 359, the nays are 36 with one member voting present. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. vote vote -- the unfinned -- -- the unfinished business is the vote on the amendment to the bill on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3683, an act to provide for a comprehensive strategy to counter iran's growing hostile presence, an activity in the western hemisphere and for other purposes. senate amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment.

members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 386, the nays are six. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspendened and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. wilson: as the senior republican member of the delegation from south carolina, it's my honor on behalf of my colleagues, congressman mulvaney, congressman tun can, congressman gouty, to be here to recognize -- i'm very grateful to be here this afternoon to give recognition to a person who we have the highest regard for, the former chairman of county council of my birth place of charleston a former member of the state house a distinguished member of the house of representatives, and now the next u.s. senator from south carolina and i now defer before he has comment to the senior member of our delegation, congressman jim clyburn of south carolina. mr. clyburn: thank you very

much, representative wilson. as i didn't think i would live long enough or serve here long enough to call myself the dean of the south carolina legislation but i seem to have reached that point and i would like to add my voice of congratulations to tim scot. -- tim scott. tim, i have known for some time. he has worked in the vineyards of charleston county and in the state legislature. i enjoy tim a whole lot. i enjoy those moments when we talk about the issues then go to our respective voting places and cancel each other out. he is that kind of guy and i appreciate him for it. but i also know that tim is the personification, as i have said, to one media, of south carolina's motto.

our state's motto is, while i breathe, i hope. it's a great motto for a state and it personifies what tim scott's appointment has meant not just so south carolina but to this great nation of ours. tim, congratulations. god speed. i know that you will represent our state and nation honorably. mr. scott: thank you, sir. mr. clyburn: i yield back. mr. scott: thank you. thank you very much. thank you. let me just say, just a thank you to everyone. i have thoroughly enjoyed my time in the house. to my delegation members, there

is no better delegation in america to serve with than all of you. i will say this, though. one of the things i have learned in this house is that there is a way to disagree without being disagreeable. jim clyburn, you have helped me to understand that. and to my guys here, i would say without any question, being part of the team is important. and when i think about our country, i think of our country as a team. and as a kid, coming from the single parent household, looking for opportunities, i found that in my team at home and my mentor and now as i head to the senate, i hope that we will continue to be a team but america needs us to remember them. and so thank you all so very much for this opportunity.

mr. wilson: i yield become my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the five-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, to pass h.r. 6621 as amended on which the nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: a bill to correct and improve the leahy smith america invents act in title 35, united states code. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended? members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 308, the nays are 89. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, to suspend the rules and pass senate bill 3642 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 3642, an act to clarify the cope of the economic espionage act of 1992. the speaker pro tempore: members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 388, the nays are four. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative,

the rules are suspended, without objection the motion to reconsider -- the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the committees on transportation and infrastructure, natural resources and judiciary be discharged from further consideration of senate bill 3687 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 3687, an act to amend the federal water pollution control act, to re-authorize the lake pontchartrain basin restoration program, to designate certain federal buildings and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to consideration of the bill? seeing none, the bill is read a third time and passed. the motion to reconsider is

laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i send to the desk a joint resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house joint resolution 122, joint resolution establishing the date for the counting of the electoral votes for president and vice president cast by the electorates in december, 2012. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to consideration of the resolution. seeing none, without objection, the resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, by direction of the committee on the judiciary, i present a privileged report to accompany house resolution 819 for time filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 819, resolution directing the attorney general of the united states to transmit -- transmit

to the house of representatives not later than 14 days after the date of the adoption of this resolution any documents and legal memoranda and the attorney general's possession relating to the practice of targeted killing of the united states citizens and targets abroad. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal which the chair will put de novo. the question is agreeing to the approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. the chair will entertain requests for one-minutes. for what purpose does the gentlelady from washington rise? the gentlelady from washington

seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute? >> yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized -- without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to honor a dedicated public servant, mark bolt. through 18 years of public service both as a state representative and as a clark county commissioner, mark has put the people of clark county first. mark has been a business advocate, a tireless supporter of the farmer community and a friend of the peopleests elected to serve -- people he was elected to serve. he is a current member of the farm bureau, served 18 years as a local youth leader and a sunday school teacher. ms. herrera beutler: in the months of august there's one place you're going to find mark and that's at the clark county fair serving barbeque to support young life. he has deep roots in our community and his dedication and work has earned the respect of people throughout our community of all political stripes. while his time as a commissioner will end on january, 2013, mark will no

doubt continue to serve the people of southwest washington. today i ask all members of congress to join me in honoring an extraordinary man, a public servant and my friend, mark bolt. thank you. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection. mr. miller: mr. speaker, our hearts were broken over the senseless shooting deaths of 20 first-grade children and their teachers in newtown, connecticut. and we wish that we could undo this unimagine amble tragedy -- unmanageable tragedy. but we know we can't do that. instead the house held a moment of silence. it is what the house does to show empathy and it is a kind and sincere gesture. but it is not enough. last week the house held a moment of silence for two adults killed by a gunman in portland, oregon, shopping mall. earlier the house held a moment of silence after the horrific

mass killings in aurora, colorado, movie theater and held a moment of silence after our colleague, gabrielle giffords, and her staff and constituents were shot in arizona. a moment of silence felt like an honorable thing to do. but clearly a moment of silence is not enough. americans don't need another moment of silence from the united states congress. they need us to pass legislation immediately to ban automatic weapons, semi-automatic weapons, high-capacity ammunition clips and to expand access to quality mental health services. congress needs to act now. a moment of silence is not enough. it cannot substitute for action. the speaker pro tempore: are there further requests for one minute speeches? under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the

gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. woodall: i thank you, mr. speaker. i hope vi 0 minutes will be enough. because -- i hope vi 0 minutes will be enough, because -- i hope vi 0 -- i hope 60 minutes will be enough. i want to go ahead and get starded with someone much more than i am, that's a gentleman that's served here on the floor with jay. chairman of the rules committee at this time. the gentleman from california, david dreier. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i thank my friend for yielding and it's a great privilege to stand here to recognize and honor jay pearson for his stellar service to this institution and by virtue of that, to the united states of america. two years ago this month i stood in the well to honor one of jay's greatest friends, dean her, who was the president --

hersch, who was the president of world vision. an amazing organization that's dealt with hunger and strife around the world and interestingly enough i was recognizing dean hersch's 34 years of service to world vision and when i think about the kind of work that dean hersch has done, in many ways the issues that we address and continue to pursue vigorously here in this institution are designed to do the exact same thing. we're focused on improving the quality of life and recognizing societal needs, not only here in the united states, but around the world. and the reason i talk about this high-minded issue is that it's the kind of thick that our friend, jay pearson -- thing that our friend, jay pearson, has spent his life working on as well. not everyone knows that he has roots in california. he's an alumnus of westmont college and he's someone who cannot be replaced and will not be replaced because he has this

amazing skill on the house floor to ensure that things go smoothly. now, things don't always go smoothly on the house floor and you'll notice that when they're not going smoothly, the reason is that jay pearson is not always at hand. and i will say that this institution is a greater place for his incredible service, he's been a great friend to so many of us and as he heads into retirement, recognizing that many of our colleagues want to speak, i just want to wish jay well and congratulate him on his great service and i know that we're going to continue to hear and see great things that will come from this very, very patriotic american and committed public servant. i thank my friend for yielding. mr. woodall: i thank the chairman. i'd like to yield to the minority leader, the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his observations to who i am.

it's not missed on me. and i am pleased to join the gentleman from georgia, my friend, mr. dreier, and so many others who i know will speak. i've had the privilege of serving in this institution since 1981, so i will soon be in my 32nd year serving in this institution. and for all of those years i've served with jay pearson. for all of those years he has been a presence on this floor. for all of those years he has been, like so many members of our staff, a number of whom we see here on the floor with us today, a critical component of the success of this institution. david dreier said that sometimes we do not have peace and harmony and good order on the floor of this house. he's absolutely correct on that. all of us know it.

for that we as members are responsible. not our staffs. jay pearson has worked on the minority side and on the majority side. the republican side of the aisle. but like so many of our staff, they work not for a party but for an institution. created by our founders to be the people's house, the house that is most responsive to the people because we're elected every two years. we're closest to the people in that respect. we need to seek their ampleation on a biannual basis. they send to this house their neighbors and people who they ask to come reflect their views. jay pearson has been for the

30-plus years i have served with him in this house, my friend. he's been somebody who i've respected. someone who treated us all with respect and was willing to help all of us, irrespective of what side of the aisle on which we served. since 1978, jay pearson has been an intimate and important part of the house of representatives. jay, i want to thank you. i want to thank you for your friendship, i want to thank you for your always present civility, helpfulness, good humor, and advice and council. few in this house know as much about this house as you do. and therefore on your retirement we will miss you. but we wish you godspeed, good

health and much success in the days to come. thank you, good friend. and i yield back. >> i'd like to ask unanimous consent that a statement from our speaker john boehner be entered in the record, he couldn't be here due to a prior commitment. the speaker pro tempore: all members have the right to revise and extend. granted. mr. ryan: we have been hearing accolades for jay, he's been a floor assistant for us here, i want to thank him for 34 years of serving.

he's served three speakers of the house. i've had the opportunity to see his contribution to the house in my nearly 14 years of service here. while he may work in the speaker's office, he helps us all and make this is place run well. as chairman of the budget committee, i have the responsibility to manage the budget on the house floor. that can be tricky. i can count on jay so greet me with a smile on the house floor and make sure things go well. in addition to his demeench and education, his knowledge of floor procedure will be sorely missed, it's irreplaceable, that experience we've benefited from. for all his outstanding work for the last 34 year well, deeply appreciate jay pearson's long service to the united states house of representatives, to congress and the american people we have wish him the best if his retirement and his new opportunity to spend more time

with his family and we are all better served by his service. thank you and i yield back. >> at this time it's my privilege to yield to mr. alcee hastings. mr. hastings: thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak regarding jay cease service. i am especially grate to feel you, congressman woodall, for asking me to participate. i met jay 19 years ago. i've been in this institution now, this is my 20th year. 19 years ago, i had quintuple heart bypass surgery and during the period of recoopings -- re coupe ration andra habilitation, i did a lot of my

work here at that time. as has been said by minority whip hoyer and congressman ryan, the institution that jay has served is critical and important for all of us. and most of the people that work here on the staff, the police officers, the people that report on and transcribe our words go unrecognized year in and year out. even sometimes when they retire. in this instance, we could do ourselves no less proud than to recognize that jay began as paul ryan just said in the office of republican leader john rhodes but he also served as assistant manager for speaker newt gingrich, the

floor assistant for speaker dennis hastert and has served as the floor assistant for then-republican leader john boehner and now speaker john boehner. jay is loyal, knowledgeable, efficient, fair, and one thing i don't know how many of you have observed, he's also swift of foot. he -- he can get from that cloakroom to this floor or to the speaker's rostrum faster than anybody i have ever seen. during the 19 years i have known him, we pass each other here in the institution, but one thing that is important is that we are constantly recognizing each other and jay does that with all of us and the one thing that i'm going to miss, i don't have many people

that i can turn to, he was always fair about giving me a clue about when we were going to leave this joint. and i'd ask him, now, jay if you know, i'm coming over there to shake your hand if you know when we're going to leave, tell me, please. we wish you well, my friend. god speed. thank you. mr. woodall: at this time it's my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. smith. mr. smith: i thank the gentleman from georgia for yielding me time. today we say good-bye to a friend and colleague and a friend on the house floor who has served congress for more than three decades. i have known and appreciated jay pearson for many years and he's sitting to my right back there on the floor right now. jay has been an integral part of the daily activities on the house floor, serving as floor assistant to speakers gingrich,

hastert and boehner. it seems there isn't a question to which he doesn't know the answer, except perhaps when we leave this week. he's always informed and gives good advice. he's served with a smile on his face for the last 34 years. his expertise an enthusiasm will be missed and we all wish him the best on his well-deserved retirement system of jay, thank you again for all you have done for so many of us. thank you, mr. speaker. mr. woodall: i thank the gentleman. at this time it's my great pleasure to yield to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. petri. mr. petri: i thank my colleague for organizing this special order and rise just to say a word of thanks and appreciation to jay pearson for his 33-plus years of service to this institution and for what he represents. members of congress stand in the well of the house and i don't know how many people watch c-span but on national

tv, but in fact, this institution is sustained by dozens of individuals who work very quietly and for many years behind the scenes both in the speaker's office, the minority leader's office, the parliamentarian's office, the clerk's office and so on. people who really have dedicated their life to helping to make this great democratic institution function. and i'm reminded of something that lyndon johnson said years ago, when he came to, he said when he came to washington, he discovered that the definition of a -- an expert on social security which was a big issue and still is, was someone who knew will burr corn's telephone number. because will burr was the guy

who understood the program and could answer any question about it. i think the definition of an expert on behavior of the floor of the house of representatives and how to handle debate and amendments and all of that is someone who knows jay pearson's telephone number or where he is or can reach him. he's helped me on innumerable occasions manage bills and that's true of every member of this house. jay appreciates -- appreciate -- jay, i appreciate you and your service and wish you very many years of success to come. mr. woodall: i thank the gentleman. at this time it's my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from michigan, mr. upton. mr. upton: i rise with so many to honor a really good friend, jay pearson. years ago, i came to capitol hill as a congressionalade. i had the pleasure of work --

congressional aide. my job was what's going on. make sure my boss, the president of the united states, in essence, knew what was going on. that meant i had to have a direct line right here. this was before c-span. you couldn't turn on the tv and watch what's going on. and by the way, mr. petri, there's 30 million people watching tonight as we honor jay pearson. but he had to know what was going on and jay was my contact. he was my link. he would let me know what was going on and i have to say that when i probably surprised a few people and became a member and actually had a voting card here, he still had my back. he really did. there's probably not a week, probably not a week that we've been in session but even when we've been out of session that i haven't called his office to find out what's going on and with -- and be able to share my colleagues and do the people's business. we have had a great relationship, we really have.

and just like he had my back, he had the back of every member of this institution. he taught us the rule the procedures, time on amendments, how to get things done, when we took over a majority, had to run the speaker's chair, he knew the rules then, walked us and guided us through those procedures, and frankly he did it the way our founding fathers wanted it to be done. on our side of the aisle, he really followed folks who love this institution who really knew its rules. people like billy pitts and ron lash and jim oliver and j.l. cullen and peggy and tim who are here tonight. they care about not only the institution but the people on both sides of the aisle to make sure this place runs the way it should. you know, there's an old saying, it's nice to be important but it's more important to be nice.

jay, you're both. you really have. you care about the people's house, the u.s. house of representatives, and we are so grateful for your decades of service and yes, jay, you look just the same. god bless. mr. woodall: i thank the gentleman, mr. speaker. it's my pleasure to yield to the new secretary of the republican conference, the gentlelady from north carolina, ms. foxx. ms. foxx: i thank my colleague from georgia for yielding time and giving me the opportunity to pay a very small tribute to jay pearson. mr. speaker, it's with mixed emotions that i rise to join my colleagues in recognizing jay pearson who served the house of representatives with dedication and vigor, vigor for the better part of 35 years. jay pearson is practically an institution in and of himself. members, staffers, former

pages, and multiple speakers of the house know jay by name and are in awe of the breadth of his devotion to this body and the people it represents. the stressful and often thankless duties of a leadership floor team are difficult at best for mere mortals. but jay has managed the task for decades with such professionalism and kindness, it's truly laudable and a testament to him as a person. for members and legislative staff trying to make sense of house rules and procedures, jay is a lifeline. he has helped me on numerous occasions and i'll always be grateful for his wid dom and willingness to help members. regardless of the challenges or niche details propeling a legislative cause he can be counted on to know the ins and outs and apply his enpsych lo peedic knowledge and unmatched expertise for the good of this

body. whenever the house gaveled in, jay can be seen buzzing around the floor, putting out fires before they start and doing more than his part to keep the training running on time. even when action on the floor of the house is slowed by the glacial pace of our senator friends, jay is still on duty, though in down moments, he may stop occasionally to trade gardening tips with me and any other green thumbs who may be on the floor, or give us advice on the best books to be reading. at the conclusion of this congress, the house of representatives will be saying good-bye to jay pearson as we moves on to the next chapter of service in his life. inteed, when he told me he wasry tire, my response was, jay, you're too young and you have too much energy. while we're sad to lose him and will certainly notice his absence on the floor, we recognize the length of jay cease investment. as a body, we cannot adequately express our thanks for the years of contributions jay has

made to the house of representatives. but as an individual, -- but as an individual member who has been well-served by jay's hard work and consistency, i would like to thank him and to the entire pearson family i would like to extend my best wishes for what the future holds. mr. speaker, jay pearson's contributions to this body and to our country will not soon be forgotten. with that, i yield back. mr. woodall: at this time it's my great pleasure to yield to the gentlelady from florida, chairwoman ros-lehtinen. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much. and i thank the gentleman for arranging this for us. and i also rise to commemorate the 34 years of jay pearson's career as a member of the republican cloakroom, the republican floor staff, the speaker's office. he's held many possessions -- positions. but the 113th congress, mr. speaker, will suffer due to his retirement and members on both

sides of the aisle will certainly feel his absence. by the time i came to the u.s. house of representatives, jay was already a seasoned veteran of the archaic world of house parliamentary procedures. to this day, never far from jay's side, is his jefferson's manual of rules with its well-marked pages and notes, written in the margin -- notes written in the margins. hiser tocal expertise and institutional knowledge will not easily be replicated. precious few know this house better and what we are losing is substantial. but jay is far more than just a fountain of institutional knowledge. he is a familiar and comforting figure here on the floor, even though many of us still don't recognize him without his iconic mustache. i still see it in his face, john bolton style. but jay is renowned for his personable nature, for his grace, for his patience, for

his helpful nature. jay's energy and vitality are hard to match, as is his deep love of classical music that is always coming from his office. and i consider myself incredibly fortunate for having had the privilege of working with jay pearson over these many years and i thank you, jay, for your service. but most especially for your friendship. you are a true professional and your shoes will be hard to fill. and not only do i no longer leave my papers on our chairs because i have grown to admire your nature, but i now find myself chastising other members who absentmindedly leave papers behind. so you taught me well, jay. you taught us all well. god speed. mr. woodall: i thank the chairwoman. i can see mr. pearson reaching out for his manual as you were speaking those words. it's my pleasure to yield to

the gentleman from alabama, the chairman of the financial services committee, mr. bachus. mr. bachus: i thank the gentleman from georgia. someone has said that congress is a place where, when someone gets up to speak, no one listens. but then everyone disagrees. whether it was one person that had to less -- well, there was one person that had to listen, had to listen the entire time, and that was jay pearson. he was selected by three different speakers, speaker gingrich, speaker hastert and speaker boehner, to have that -- what was really an awesome obligation. he is truly a man hind the scenes. -- behind the scenes. we have brought many pieces of important legislation to the floor, during the financial

meltdown, during the flash crash, during other times of financial stress. and our committee is known for working in a bipartisan way. but that doesn't all the time work. and jay often says when i show up and ask for his advice, he says, the financial services committee is bringing a bill, things are fixing to get messi. well, let me say this -- messy. well, let me say this, jay. because you were here, things didn't get as messy as they otherwise would. and i, along with every member of this body, has relied on you phenomena your advice and guidance and i too, along with every other member, consider you not only a professional but a friend. so thank you for your 34 years of wonderful service. mr. woodall: i thank the chairman, mr. speaker.

at this time it's my great pleasure to yield to my good friend from georgia, mr. kingston. mr. kingston: thank you, mr. woodall. and certainly i join everything that has been said about jay pearson already. but i'm going to say it from my point of view. my daughter is in a rock 'n roll band and one of her great frustrations is trying to get everybody in sync. that's what jay pearson does here on the house floor, with all these 435 egos and all the parts and all the things that go on behind the scenes, he seems to be the conductor that gets everything running in a harmonious fashion. he's here early. i've never been able to beat him. i don't know what time he goes home at night. he stays very, very late. whatever the subject matter is he seems to be on top of it from a legislative, substantive point of view, then from a parliamentary point of view, he seems to know what the timing is. he knows the history of it. if there's a meltdown, he knows

how to get out of it. because it seems like he's been there before. he listens to the speakers even when no one else seems to be speaking and two or three weeks later he will say, remember that speech you made, is that right or whatever, and it appears that he remembers that. and i just have to thank him for his professionalism in that manner. but i have to say this to mr. pearson, i want to say this on a very personal level, been married 33 years. i'm proud to be a member of congress but i'm more proud that i've been able to be married for 33 years and raise four kids. and jay, you played a part in it. as a father of four, sometimes the most important thing that can take place on the house floor interferes with your most important role as being a daddy. and sometimes knowing, are you going to be in on thursday or friday, will we get out at 2:00 so i can catch that 2:30 flight? will there be a delay and what votes are coming up?

it means so much on those small but very important things called birthdays and anniversaries and school plays and football games. and, jay, i can tell you, my 20 years in congress, my attendance at those things hasn't been 100% but it's been a heck of a lot better than it would have been without your advice and counsel. so, on behalf of the kingston family, the four kids, and my wife, libby, we appreciate your friendship and we appreciate the extra value added because of your public service to all of our families. thank you and may god bless you and the road that lies ahead for you. mr. woodall: i thank the gentleman for his words. at this time it's my great pleasure to yield to my friend from texas, mr. gohmert. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. woodall. and thank you, mr. speaker. i know it's a time to honor jay

pearson but it's really a sad time for me. over my years, i don't know of anybody i've spent more time with on these evenings on the floor. of course for the last two years we're either going until midnight most nights and was usually here with jay pearson. and i know jay was not a boy scout but as someone who is an eagle scout, i know that we're taught that the ultimate in life is to be trustworthy. i don't know of anybody on capitol hill that is more trustworthy than jay pearson. loyal, loyal and yet courteous, kind. jay pearson has been a true friend and to have somebody who knows what goes on, knows the rules, we can disagree about

the rules but i can come to him and know i have the institutional memory right there with me. that has been such a huge help. and just knowing when i did need information i could call jay, and i would have whatever i needed. so, jay, i know that you're going to be better off without us, but we're certainly not going to be better off without jay pearson. i also know that nobody serves in congress without loved ones missing and suffering because of an absence of time with them. so we know, it's kind of like when i was in the military, my wife knew well that it's not just one person who serves. so as jay pearson served all these years, in congress, there's no question his wife served as well, we'll be

forever grateful to her. and very thankful for the sacrifice that she's made all those nights whether jay would rather have been at heem -- when jay would rather have been at home, would rather have been with her but instead he's with some bald-headed goose down at the capitol to. jay pearson, there's not enough words, not enough times that we can say thank you that will cover all that you've done for us. nontheless, that's the word we come down to. thank you. may god bless you for blessing all the rest of us. mr. woodall: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, at this time it's my great pleasure to yield to my friend from north carolina, mr. jones. mr. jones: i thank the gentleman from georgia and, you know, i came here in 1995 with newt gingrich, at that time the largest class until this last

one. i served in the north carolina house of representatives for 10 years. i thought i knew a little something about congress. but those first few months that we were here, and contract with america, we were changing the way we did things in washington and the things we did in this country, i got to meet jay pearson. because, quite frankly, i couldn't figure out what i was doing here. we would come in and work 10, -- 10:00, 11:00, 12:00 at night, i saw this man with a mustache who seemed to know the leadership and seemed to have the ear of that speaker and i couldn't quite figure out who this person was. so over a period of time i reached out and we started chatting and talked about the different things of what was happening on the floor and what members were doing, especially we freshmen. but what really seemed to tie us together was we both played basketball. i didn't go as far as jay did,

i think jay was -- played varsity basketball at his college in california. i played a little freshmen basketball at n.c. state. but the a.c.c. got us together talking about basketball. you can't always talk about policy here on the floor of the house. if you did you'd go crazy. so jay and i had that few times together, a little time together, to talk about a.c.c. basketball. he was always pulling for ucla and i was pulling for duke or one of the other colleges. well, one thing that jay did that i wish i had done, that was about a few months ago, before i found out he was retiring, he actually showed me a photograph of his taking a jump shot and he has pretty good form, i must say. he also at that time, and i was about the same age, a little bit older, in college he wore the knee socks. pretty fancy uniforms back at those times. but, jay, i appreciate the

friendship that i think you've extended, not only to me but to so many members, even on the democratic side, as well as the republican side. as louie said just a moment ago, it's going to be a sad day when we come back in january and there's no jay pearson. i know that you and your wife, it's time that y'all decided that you want to do some other things, than to be stuck here late at night so many times during the session. but i can say that you will sorely be missed. i don't think you can really be replaced. i will say that from the bottom of my heart. oh, yes, there's somebody, we can all be replaced. and there's no question about it. but when it comes to having a man that has patience, that shows the ability to listen and to try to guide members of congress who, whether they be freshmen or senior members, freshmen or senior members, that needed that