$100,000 in cash prizes will be awarded. the grand prize of $5,000 will go to the student or team with the best overall entry. for more information, go to our website, studentcam.org. >> earlier today the house rules committee considered concealed carry hund gun legislation. scheduled on the floor tomorrow. it would allow gun owners with concealed carry permits in one state to carry weapons in other

state, even where rules may differ. the committee decided which amendments will be allowed on the floor tomorrow. mr. sessions: the rules committee will come to order and thank you for joining us for a fun rules committee today. the rules committee will be considering the concealed carry reciprocity act of 2017. conflicting state codes and regulations have created a patchwork of reciprocity agreements for concealed carry permit holders. as a result, citizens with a state-issued concealed carry permit from a state that does not require permits can lose their second amendment rights when entering another state if that state may have different rules and regulations. the concealed carry reciprocity act ensures that law you a biding citizens' second amendment rights do not end when they cross state lines. the facts show that citizens who

carry concealed handguns are not only better prepared to act on their own self-defense, but also in defense of others. legislation under consideration oday also includes the fix nix act. ensuring that federal and state authorities comply with existing law. legislation penalizes federal agencies that fail to report relevant criminal records to the f.b.i. and it incentivizes states to improve their reporting and directs federal funding to make sure domestic violence records are actually reported to the federal bureau of investigation. the bill also contains a study on bump stocks that requires the bureau of justice statistics to report to congress within 180 days on a number of times that a bump stock has been used in commission of a crime in the

united states. without objection, i'd like to welcome the two distinguished gentlemen here today. one from virginia, the gentleman, the young chairman, chairman goodlatte, as well as the gentleman from new york, congressman nadler, and the gentlewoman from texas, congresswoman sheila jackson lee, who i have not seen yet, but we will include her on this first panel. we're delighted to have you at the rules committee to discuss this important legislation. without objection, anything you brought in writing will be in the record. before we come to each of you, we will defer, or any opening statement, the gentlewoman from new york would like to make. ms. slaughter: thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. sessions: yes, ma'am. ms. slaughter: as we mark the holiday season, i don't think the american people have a lot to be celebrating today. and particularly this bill today. under the leadership of the majority the congress is unable to fulfill its most basic task. funding for the government expires in three days. but there are no guarantees that

you'll be able to keep your lights on, despite unified control of the house, the senate and the white house. this committee was scheduled to consider a two-week continuing resolution today which was pulled from the agenda later this morning. there's never been a time when the government shutdown with one party controlling all of the leaders of -- levers of power in washington, but it looks like we could make history this week for all the wrong reasons. the important issues like the children's health insurance program, community health centers, national flood insurance program, the perkins loans have all expired. we can't get a vote on the dream act and section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act, fice, is -- fisa, is due tokes pire at end of the month. i think it is particularly golf balling that the majority is -- galling that the majority is handing the gun lobby a pen to write a bill we're considering today that would make our communities even less safe from gun violence. it was just a moncht ago tomorrow that a man with a gun

went into a church in a small texas town, killed 26 people, including an 18-month-old baby. he also wounded 20 more. one family lost eight of its cherished members. think of that. those killed in the attack equaled about 7% of the small town's entire population. this is not the time for congress to allow dangerous people to carry a gun all across the country without regard to state laws. yet under the bill, we are considering today, violent offenders and people with no firearm safety training would be able to carry hidden, loaded handguns, even if they could not otherwise legally purchase a gun in that state. let's be honest with the american people about its effects. if this bill passes, violent offenders with loaded handguns could be coming into a community near you, even if you reside in a state with tough gun laws.

groups like the make city chief police foundation, the police executive research forum, all oppose concealed carry legislation. and h.r. 38 goes even further, a similar bill in the senate. hear this. because it exposes members of law enforcement. law enforcement to personal litigation if by mistake they question someone's ability under the law to have a gun. don't you think that's going a little far? does the majority really want to make the members of law enforcement afraid to do their jobs? it is appalling that this n.r.a. bill is being combined with separate bipartisan bills to improve background checks in response to the shooting in texas. this is simply sabotage. a bipartisan bill to improve the national instant criminal background check system would pass overwhelmingly. not only in the house, but also

in the senate. but a combined conceal carry bill may not have the 60 votes it needs to pass on the other side of the capitol. every day in america 93 people on average are killed with a gun. there have been close to 1,000 mass shootings since sandy hook, where three or more people have lost their lives. our communities are being torn apart. whether it's a church, a movie theater, a concert, a school, or the threat of gun violence -- the threat of gun violence is there with us. and let's remember too that very recently we had the massacre in las vegas. there are no sanctuaries from gun violence in america. 16 of america's top retired military commanders, including

general mcchrystal, just this week are pleading with congress to do something about gun violence. they don't want military weapons being used on america's streets. but sadly their pleas and those of the people that we represent are being ignored. because of the n.r.a. thank you and i yield back. mr. sessions: thank you very much for your remarks. i will tell you that i called ms. slaughter before this hearing today and asked her for her help in making sure that we were precise in doing what we want to do and i assured her and she assured me that there would be a fair fight today. ms. slaughter: it's a fair fight every day. mr. sessions: well, it is when you're involved. ms. slaughter: well, and you as well. mr. sessions: i told her -- ms. slaughter: i told you i was going to talk about guns. mr. sessions: yes, ma'am, you did. ms. slaughter: and i did.

ok. thank you. mr. sessions: thank you very much. gentlemen, we're delighted that you're here. young chairman's recognized. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. chairman. chairman sessions, ranking member slaughter, and members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today in support of h.r. 38, the concealed carry reciprocity act of 2017. h.r. 38 was introduced by mr. hudson of north carolina and is co-sponsored by 213 members from both sides of the aisle. this bill allows law-abiding gun owners with valid state-issued concealed firearm permits or those who live in so-called constitutional carry states to carry a con center field firearm in any other -- a concealed carry firearm in any other state that allows concealed carry. carrying concealed weapons reduces violent crime rates by deterring would-be assailants and a-- and by allowing law-abiggede citizens to defend themselves. a 1997 study, regarding the effect of concealed carry laws on crime rates, estimated that

when state concealed handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by more than 7%, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by similar percentages. this bill simply allows americans who travel in interstate commerce to take their second amendment right with them, which is what the founders intended. i'm also pleased that this bill s being paired with h.r. 4477, the fix nics act of 2017. this bipartisan and bicameral bill, mr. chairman, was introduced by two of the now absent chairmen texas delegation colleagues, mr. culberson and mr. cuellar. the fix nics act takes steps to ensure state and federal agencies enter all relevant records into the f.b.i.'s national instant background -- criminal background check system, or nics. this bill will help ensure people who are legaly prohibited from having guns do not get them . the church shootings in

charleston, south carolina, and sutherland springs, texas, are tragic reminders what have can happen when all relevant records are not entered into the system. our nics system is only as good as the information within it. this important piece of legislation len sure that the information is -- will ensure that the information is complete and up to date. taken together, these two bills preserve and protect the right guaranteed to us by the second amendment and ensure that those prohibited by law from receiving a firearm are prevented from doing so. these are principles that every member of congress should enthusiastically support. again, i thank you for your time and look forward to your questions. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. sessions: i thank -- >> i thank the gentleman. the gentleman from new york is now recognized for his opening statement. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. chairman. i appear today in opposition to h.r. 38, the concealed carry reciprocity act. because it bill would not protect us from gun violence but would make us far less safe. under current law, each state makes its own determination about who may carry a con center

field firearm in public -- a concealed carry firearm in public. this bill would eviscerate the core public safety determinations that each state makes concerning the concealed carry of guns in public based on the unique circumstances in each state and the desires of its citizens. in fact, the standards and requirements adopted in the states air isy dramatically. 31 states and the district of columbia require gun safety training to carry concealed guns in public. 21 of those states require live fire training. 27 states and d.c. prohibit individuals convicted of misdemeanor crimes of violence from concealed carry. 28 states and d.c. prohibit convicted stalkers from carrying concealed weapons. 34 states and d.c. prohibit those under 21 years of age from carrying concealed guns. many states prohibit gun possession and concealed carry by abusive dating partners, exceeding federal protections that extend only to abusive spouses.

all of these states would have their carefully considered laws governing concealed carry overridden by this amendment. the obvious solution to the varying state slause to continue to do what is currently done by many states, which is to choose which other state permits they will recognize. some states, including my state of new york, have chosen not to recognize permit issuesed by any other state. most states, however, have chosen to recognize permits from at least some other states, basing the choice on the strength of the standards employed by the other states. we should not disregard these determinations, which is what this bill would do. i would also point out one other thing. there are bills that we see every session, some of which make sense, some of which don't, to override state standards and to substitute federal standards in a given area. but that's not what this bill would do. this bill is a very unusual kind of bill in that it would use federal power to import the laws of one state into the laws of another state. it wouldn't impose a uniform

federal law. it would simply say that new jersey is governed by the law of which ever other state it may be. i don't know of any other laws that import -- that use federal power to import the laws of one state into another state. although i can think of a bill that -- a former law the fugitive slave act. although i pose this bill, i submitted an amendment to this committee to address one of the concerns i just mentioned. more than half the states recognize that individuals guilty of violent misdy mean doctors -- miss demeaners, although not as serious as felons, have a greater propensity for future criminal activity and will not allow such persons to carry concealed guns. my amendment would prevent the bill from forcing these states to recognize the con center field carry permits of states -- concealed carry permits of tates. i do not believe we should

consider this bill on the floor without consideration of this amendment. and allowing floor debate on the many others that my colleagues have submitted to address similar serious flaws with the bill. in addition, i am deeply disappointed that the version of the bill before the rules committee today includes the bipartisan fix n crimbings s act, a measure that should be enacted as a stand-alone bill without delay. that bill would take steps to address shortcomings of the national instant criminal background check system or what e often call the nics. we should do more to ensure all relevant prohibiting records are submitted to the databases that exriles the nics. no one should pass the firearms background check that he or she should have failed simply because their record of a felony conviction or domestic violence record or some other prohibition under federal law was not included in the system. there's broad bipartisan support for the fix nics bill here in the house and the senate. that proposal, which actually would save lives, should not be tethered to the forced concealed

carry reciprocity provisions which will only serve to endanger our citizens. unfortunately the harms of the concealed reciprocity portion of the bill being considered, being taken to the floor, outweigh the benefits of the nics improvements. therefore i owes -- owe potes combined bill and urge the committee to reject it. that does not mean that the many thoughtful and substantive amendments that we've submitted should not be considered on the floor. i therefore ask that if the bill is made in order, those amendments be made in order so that we may debate this critical public policy issue in a comprehensive manner. i thank you very much. yield back. mr. sessions: thank you very much. i want to thank both of you for taking -- >> thank you investment i want to thank both of you for take time to be here today and for your comments. mr. sessions: i'm a lifetime member of the national rifle association. i've tried to pay attention very arefully to atry beauts of crime in this country.

as you know, i have some background with my family being in law enforcement. and have believed that where you have a police officer or an armed citizen, you stand a chance to stop perpetrators who would commit crimes. and when they do you have a chance to protect yourself, your family and loved ones. in i believe that this bill, its very essence, is to make sure that law-abiding citizens who believe in the united states of america and the constitution would not find they willselves in trouble as long as they are -- would not find themselves in trouble as long as they are following the law. i appreciate you bringing this bill forward today and i want to thank you very much. mr. cole: thank you, mr. chairman. i actually just want to associate myself with your remarks. well said. our sentiments are similar on that. i want to thank the chairman for working on the legislation. certainly thank -- i do have one

question, though. real quickly. on the bump stock issue, we clearly have a technology that makes a legal product an illegal product. i think all of us were surprised to find that out. as i looked into it, please correct me if i'm wrong, mr. chairman, that was a decision made by the alcohol, tobacco and firearms people, actually during president obama's administration. kind of surprised at the decision, surprised -- is our aim here to get them to rethink that decision? because this clearly ought to be something that's outlawed, in my view. mr. goodlatte: absolutely. i share your concern about the misuse of these devices that can turn a semi-automatic weapon into something that is like an automatic weapon. so we view this as the first step in gathering more

information about it. is this used in crimes? obviously it appears to have been used in the very serious crime in lig. -- las vegas. are there other instances? we continue to work with the a.t.f. on what is the best way to go about preventing that from happening. and the study that's called for as a part of this legislation is directed at that. but i share your concern that we may need to do more. mr. cole: ok. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: yes. i want to make two comments. i agree with you totally that the soul function of the so-called bump stock -- sole to function of the so-called bump stock is to make a semi-automatic weapon operate like an automatic weapon. we have banned automatic weapons in this country since the 1930's. i don't think we need a study. this bill provides for a study. as far as i'm concerned that's just a delaying device. we ought to be banning the use of these bump stocks immediately . because they have no function

other than to get around the law. to get around the law that no one disputes. i don't think there's anybody -- i shouldn't say nobody. there's probably not too many people who advocate legalizing machine guns and automatic weapons. that's what this does in effect. so we ought to eliminate it automatically. i want to comment also on one thing, mr. session -- on one thing mr. sessions said. there are two underlying problems with this bill. one is the basic problem that we're talking about. he other is that this bill doesn't make a standard. what it does, and it doesn't make a judgment. what it does is to import -- use federal power to import the law of any state into a different state. and to deprive the people of that state of the ability to make that judgment. and that is simply wrong as a matter of federalism. not to mention a matter of prudence. the second thick i -- thing i wanted to say with respect to what mr. sessions said is that guns -- we've run this experiment now for 40 or 50

years. and you look at the statistics and i don't know exactly, but more or less, the united kingdom has 146 people killed by guns each year. japan, 75. other countries in the double or triple digits. the united states, 30,000. we are not thousands of times more mentally ill than the germans or the british or the japneels. that would be a slander on the american people. the frequency of death by guns is directly correlated, and this has been shown, by the availability of guns in society. you can say that someone has a gun, you know, law-abiding citizen with a gun will stop a person without a gun. and on occasion that -- will stop bad guy with a gun. occasionally that will be true. on occasion the good guy will shoot wrong person. i hate to see a shootout between good and bad people on a sub way in new york city, -- subway in new york city, for example. but speaking as a whole, there

is no question that you can correlate the presence of guns in society, availability of guns in society directly with the homicide rate of guns. again, how do you explain no other country in the world has a homicide rate by gun exceeding 200, 250. and we do 30,000 a year. mr. goodlatte:ify might make two points. with regard to bump stocks. i think we're already having an effect because the department of justice just today put out a press release announcing that they are reopening the rulemaking process with regard to devices like bump stocks. justice department and a.t.f. began regulatory process to determine whether bump stocks are prohibited. that is a positive development. i think it is very directly related to the legislation that we have before us. secondly, with regard to the comments from my friend from new york, the fact of the matter is

that the second amendment is a constitutional right that extends to all americans. the supreme court has held that it extends to them for the purpose of self-defense and that it extends to their right to exercise that in all of the states. so i would hate to see states make it more difficult for people to exercise that right and it is the federal government that has the responsibility of determining how one can transport a firearm across state lines. so i think that's an appropriate thing. and the people who are allowed to do this, the statistics are very, very strong that these are very, very law-abiding people and i agree with chairman sessions that their presence will help to fight crime and prevent crime and to be very, very unlikely that it's going to create additional crime. i think just the opposite's going to be the case. mr. cole: i thank both of you. only wanted to ask about the one

thing but i think we got a telling glimpse of what will be a very eloquent debate. thank you very much. i yield back, mr. chairman. mr. sessions: thank you investment i notice that now ms. jackson lee has had an opportunity to come here. we got started a little bit. under the auspices, ms. jackson lee, that you would be allowed to provide testimony on this. we're attempting to rather quickly today, as a result of the obligations of the house and this evening, the gentlewoman has been provided the protection of things brought in writing would be entered into the record. without objection, we'll continue that. the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. jackson lee: thank you and thank the rules committee for its curt sis. i think my colleagues have probably very well spoken. let me just speak to the issue of where we are. i think that we've done a lot together on the judiciary

committee. we are sometimes charged without having a collaborative effort. but last week these bills were separated. and the nics bill was a bipartisan bill, if i might use the term that it could have rolled to the house, and had a bipartisan vote of support. even though it is legislation that i would want to be stronger, it does provide funding to improve that background check system, which can save lives. in a matter of overnight magic, the concealed bill, concealed weapons reciprocity is merged with nics and i think in all honesty that is trickery and unfair. and it is well known that democrats in many instances have an opposition to an unwieldy, unrestrained use of guns and therefore the reciprocity bill

was going to be a real problem. we spent most of the day amending it. and so i'm baffled as to how all of a sudden it was so urgent to merge the two bills. we finished today. we have a holiday party, i understand. but this could have been done in the days to come. i'm very unhappy about this. the national instant criminal background check is an important act. it can stand oints own two feet. this bill ames to im-- aims to improve the submissions of information by federal and state agencies to nics and serves as response for the recent texas massacre where it was revealed the air force had failed to submit the court marshall record of the shooter. so i have an amendment that would go to this legislation and i will not take a long time, but this is amendment number 229 and it would be amending the nics bill. and it would go through rirg the secretary of defense shall conduct a comprehensive review

of the procedures used by each branch of the armed forces to smibt to the attorney general records which are relevant to a determination of whether a person's disqualified. so it would have a more extensive review disqualified from possessing or receiving a firearm which did not happen with the perpetrator, now deceased, who killed scores of individuals. 20 people-plus. in sutherland, tick. -- texas. everyone was appalled. they were appalled that the violence that he exibbletted against his wife -- that he exibbletted against his wife. but here he is armed to the teeth and in some extended way, in the relative of his wife or present wife or ex-wife, here he is at a church wore shpping. i ask my colleagues to support that amendment that deals with the armed forces and i ask for a waiver. if it is proven to be nongermane, i ask for a waiver. because it's important enough just as we must have sought some kind of trickery to merge the two bills. as it relates to the reciprocity

bill, let me be very clear. i work with a lot of law enforcement. as i guess all of us do. but having been on the judiciary committee for a long time, i have engaged with all of my chiefs of police and all of the federal officers in my district. and there are a lot of them. but from the f.b.i. to d.e.a., we've done projects together dealing with trying to ensure the safety of my community. and i work extensively with almost every single chief that has been the chief during the time that i've served. including former mayor and chief, lee brown, who is the father of community-oriented policing. first woman police chief and now the first hispanic police chief. they've all been members of the major chiefs association. and the major chiefs association i think are unique because they are responsible for their men and women. they're responsible for those two patrol streets. and -- for those who patrol the streets. and they are absolutely appalled. i'll sib mitt into the record a statement from the police of

chiefs. i have two eameds to the concealed weapons reciprocity act. both of them are very simple. and one is, of course, this section does not apply in the case of any person convicted of an offense of zomistic violence, of stalking under the law of a state or indian tribe, i can't imagine that we wouldn't want to have such an theamed addresses the question of domestic violence. the perpetrater in sutherland was a domestic violence abuser. and here he was with a gun and the problem was that that information was not sent to nics. the first amendment of that bill and the second amendment is any person convicted of a hate crime or any substantially similar offense for carrying. we know the perpetrator in charlottesville was able to get guns because they sold the guns before his actual review was completed. if that wasn't a person who was spewing hate, all of his websites showed it, and of course he was able to sit

amongst prayer warriors, if you will, people on a wednesday night prayer service, or in their church, seeking the comfort of god, and he had, with his hateful perspective, had a weapon to kill all nine of them. lastly i would say this, as i began to say the chiefs have concern about their men and women who patrol. i think the one element of this reciprocity bill is the stops. we've seen traffic circumstances that have countered what most families of men and women in law enforcement want. for them to come home safely. and i agree with them. and i like to add enhanced community police relations as well. they are concerned as to how these officers determine the legitimacy and credibility of the permit that's been given to them out the window, that they may have gotten from any manner of places that are not the state in which that officer's in. will you now burden that officer in stops to try to, if i might visually, hold up and get a

microscope here and be able to determine what is this? is this one that tracks or follows the law of my particular state? i think this bill, particularly dealing with the concealed carry act, is dangerous and there are many other ways to provide protection for individuals traveling, but more importantly law enforcement has that privilege and i really think that this is an excessive bill. with that i ask the rules committee to consider my amendments and to make them in order and to waive any germaneness to make my amendments in order. with that i would yield back. mr. sessions: thank you very much. ms. slaughter: thank you, mr. chairman. i recently read that wisconsin department of justice is now required to issue licenses without regard to whether the person has been convicted of violent crimes. as long as they weren't felonies. i've also read that they have removed all age requirements for

gun possession in wisconsin. and that over 1,000 10-year-olds now have gun permits in the state of wisconsin. i actually would prefer them not coming to new york. frankly, the outcome of 10-year-olds ---year-old children running around -- 10-year-old children running around with guns, the prospect of that gives me shivering fits. i hope the rest of you are also concerned about that. but i'd also like to understand when mr. goodlatte's not busy, mr. goodlatte, i want to talk about what what ms. jackson lee just brought up. what was the everyone tus for exposing law enforcement -- impetus for exposing law enforcement to perm liability and litigation -- personal liability and litigation if they question someone's ability to have a gun? mr. goodlatte: it's not uncommon for false arrests to have that kind of liability in other matters in which you falsely imprison or detain somebody and so it is simply included here as

well. ms. slaughter: the thing here, if you were brash enough to ask somebody if they had a gun permit? mr. goodlatte: no. ms. slaughter: what is it? mr. goodlatte: if you were to detain them for an unreasonable period of time while you do whatever it is you want to do to discourage people fromenting your state with a -- from entering your state with a concealed carry permit. ms. slaughter: i'd sure like to know how to do that. in new york, it really scarce me i know we can't stop this bill. i know this is going to pass. there's no question about it. and we will add that to this litany of things about what you're doing with the tax bill and now we're going all shoot each other and no holds barred. this is not the congress that i've known and loved for so many years. it's the one we've got. so let me ask unanimous consent to put into the record letters and statements of opposition to

h.r. 38 by the following. 17 attorneys general. the american academy of pediatrics. the american bar association. the american federation of teachers. amnesty international amnesty international u.s.a. faith united to prevent gun violence. giffords law enforcement coalition. the international association of chiefs of police. law enforcement partnership to prevent gun violence. major cities chiefs. the national task force to end sexual and domestic violence. third way. and united states conference of mayors. i imagine we have time we would have gotten a great many more. mr. sessions: without objection, we'll enter that into the record. ms. slaughter: let me say this is one of the saddest days in

congress for me. i don't know what it takes. honestly, i was naive enough to think when 20 schoolchildren were shot to death in newtown, connecticut that that would give people pause and say, wait a minute. it was two weeks before christmas, wasn't it, when that happened? all these children, all thinking about holidays, and a man walks in, because he's allowed to have had a gun and he killed them. and he killed them. same thing, people went to church in texas. beautiful little place there and they all get killed going to church. are we really going to live in a country where every time members of our family leave the house to go anywhere, a convert, school, anywhere, we may not ever see them again? is that what this congress wants americans to live with? because we're getting there and i'll tell you, i think with 57% of americans surveyed thought the gun laws were far too lax.

what do you think they're going to think about this one? >> this bill will encourage greater enforcement of the law. it will have the opposite effect. both the concealed carry and the nix fix. ms. slaughter: when do we expect a law that says all of us have to be armed. there was a place in georgia that wanted to do that, everybody laughed it out of town. now it's a serious issue. mr. nadler? mr. nadler: i'll point out that a law that allows, i should say that mandates new york or pennsylvania to allow violent misdemeanors to carry guns, concealed weapons, because some other state allows it -- ms. slaughter: and how about 10-year-olds? mr. nadler: and 10-year-olds. this is not a permissive bill, it's a mandate bill saying you

can't enforce your laws, as long as any state has a law that's more permissive or lax than yours. we keep hearing about the second amendment. the supreme court in the district of columbia vs. seller, justice scalia explicitly said the second amendment right was in the unlimited and a variety of gun regulations were consistent with the constitution hsm wrote in particular the majority of american courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed were lawful under second amendment or state analogies. so invoking the second amendment doesn't tell you that a given bill or right is mandatory under it. or is prohibited under it. you have to make the analysis and they specifically said that carrying concealed weapons was not -- laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons were not per se prohibited by the second amendment.

put the second amendment to the side. we understand that an individual right was confered by the -- the supreme court understood the second amendment to confer a right but that's is not unlimited any more than other rights are unlimited. we have free speech, thank god but you can't shout fire in a crowded theater or do a lot of other things. you have to look at the specifics. and laws by states limiting concealed weapons are without doubt constitutional under the second amendment and again what you have here is a bill that doesn't even exercise the judgment of congress, which would be an obnoxious thing to do, to say, we judge that as a matter of federal law we're going to impose this standard on the states, it simply allows any state to impose its standards on any other state which is an even worse thing to do. ms. slaughter: well, i want it on the record that there was a well-regulated militia in the

revolutionary war. it had its own general, his name was general daniel morgan. and it was used basically, that i know of, for a fact, in pennsylvania. and farmers who lived around the battle were allowed to come to the battle, bring their own musket, shoot three times, and then fade back into the woods and go home. now that's pretty darn well regulated. but that has been over the years so drastically changed. i remember thinking about the time in which the second onedment was passed, we had man saying americans can have all the muskets they want, guns, no. we're going in such a dangerous trend, dangerous movement. if everybody is as scared to death, let me tell you you ought to be. i'm really concerned about what's happening next. i never thought we'd see this day. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from georgia, the distinguished gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the chairman bringing the bill before us. the truth is, as happened so often, i don't know how you have hearings in the judiciary committee at all because everything you deal with is pretty white hot. we don't seed the -- send the easy issues to the judiciary committee, we only send the tough issues. mr. woodall: i don't think they did. did you have hearings on this bill? they didn't have hearings. mr. woodall: i'm looking at the committee report here, i take the gentleman's point. i'm thinking about the hearing we're having. i understand ms. slaughter's concern about the 10 ears old in wisconsin, i don't know anything about that. i do know the age to have a concealed carry permit in wisconsin is 21. so if those wisconsinites are not 21, they won't carry a concealed weapon in new york

whether this law passes or not. mr. nadler, ask the me this. resip rossity issues are hard. we have resip rossity with states. mr. nadler: but they've chosen to do that. mr. woodall: take me back. if i'm a 16-year-old new yorker, i'm not allowed to drive in new york city but as a 16-year-old oklahoman, i can grab my car and drive right through times square with it. we regularly have resip rossity rules -- mr. nadler: but the states agreed to those. i don't think that's imposed by the federal government. mr. woodall: you think your driver's license is agreed to by the attorney general? mr. nadler: probably not the attorney general but the state legislature in the past. mr. woodall: i have great respect for the second amendment, this gives me great

pause my friend from new york cited 17 attorneys general general that opposed this measure. mr. chairman, i'd like to cite 23 state attorneys general, the highest law enforcement officers of the land who support this measure. one of them from the great state of georgia. i have real qualms about the federal government telling states how to conduct their business. particularly when states have been so successful at creating these resip ross by agreements but let me just read from this letter, again, intind 23 state attorneys general, we write in support of the concealed carry resip rossity act of 2017. we share a strong interest in the protection of our citizens' second amendment rights and we are committed to supporting federal and state policies to preserve these constitutional rights. these bills, talking about s. 446 and h.r. 38, if enacted, would eliminate significant

obstacles to the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms. go on to talk about how to amplify state laws instead of overruling it. mr. nadler: what they eliminate is the right of states to regulate those questions within their own brders. we all pay homage, i suppose, i can't think of a better word, to states rights, to the ability of states to make decisions on their own. we all on some occasions say, no, not here. here we impose the federal standard and other places we won't. but again, and one could debate the wisdom of those particular decisions. enforce the federal standard or let the states do what they want. but here, we're going worse. we're saying that one state, oklahoma, let's say, oklahoma may find it prudent to allow people who have been convicted of violent misdemeanors to have a concealed carry permit and

maybe, i mean, maybe some oklahomans would disagree with that decision by the state government or maybe they won't, that's their decision. new york finds it not prudent. i don't know what the conditions are in oklahoma but i certainly wouldn't want a violent misdemeanor carrying a weapon on a subway or bus or other crowded conditions that you may have less of in oklahoma or other states. and again, new york should make that decision. here, what you're doing is not only not having the federal government make the decision, you're having a state make the decision for itself, which then gets enforced in every other state. and as i said, since the fugitive slave act, i'm not aware of too many instances where we use federal power to say that the law of state a must be enforced in state b, whether state b likes it or not. that's in derogation of the sovereignty of state b, of the ability of that state to

legislate itself. mr. sessions, i think it was, who talked before about the ability and the utility of law-abiding citizens carrying concealed weapons. a violent misdemeanor -- misdemeanant is not a law-abiding citizen. you can disagree if we should exempt from the right to carry nly felon, violent misdemeanants or violent felons, but that's a decision for the states to make. so we're telling, by this law we're telling every state that doesn't want someone who has committed a violent misdemeanor to carry a concealed weapon, you must permit it if some other state permits it. why should we do that? mr. woodall: it would not be

accurate to describe this as a bill that takes the laws of georgia and imposes them on new york. it does take a license of georgia and ask it to recognize that license. mr. nadler: it demands that they rk nice that license. mr. woodall: i'm allowed to carry under the laws of the state of georgia with a oncealed carry permit. but would require me to follow the laws of new york. mr. nadler: no, because the -- assuming you're a violent misdemeanant, the lawses of new york would not allow you to have a concealed weapon and the laws of georgia would take precedent. >> you raise a question i haven't asked. i'll ask it here. the license that says i will not listen to a license of someone unless they're of a certain age, or unless they do not have x, y,

and z in their past, there is no new -- is there a new york law that affirmatively prohibits people from having a gun under those circumstances? or is new york law that we will not issue a license to someone who has -- who has those issues? mr. nadler: new york law makes it illegal for anyone without a license to carry a gun, obviously. so the answer is, there's no distinction really. new york, the new york legislature, new york people through the legislature determined that people who committed violent misdemeanors should not be permitted to carry concealed weapons in new york. this bill would say never mind that, if someone comes from a state with a contrary determination, it prevails in new york. mr. woodall: the licenses are

recognized. mr. nadler: not just that the licenses are recognized. cop new york city cop or a upstate stops someone for speeding or whatever and finds out that he's carrying a concealed weapon and finds out at he is a misdemeanant, committed a violent misdemeanor in the past, under new york law he'd be arrested for illegally carrying a gun. under this law he would not because a new york law in effect is overridden. if he comes from a state that permits it. the real question is why should you permit the law of one state to override the law of a different state which may prevail under different circumstances. we generally allow, unless the federal government is going to say, our general requirement for uniformity for some reason, we demand the following standard, which we do sometimes, but unless that's the case we let the states determine what goes on within their own borders. here you're saying because oklahoma has decided one

standard, we'll enforce oklahoma's standard in new york. who is allowed to carry? mr. woodall: in new york law, in i'm 16 years old i'm not allowed to drive in new york city period. i'm prohibited from driving in the city, yet with my georgia driver's license at 16 i can rolling right on down -- mr. nadler: because the legislature of new york found it expedient to make that accommodation. t's a privilege. >> the difference here is that there is no federal constitutional right to drive a car. there is a federal constitutional right to keep and bear arms. and so therefore the ability to transport that firearm if the concealed carry permit has been granted to the individual by a

state that has been through a process to make that determination the same. the gentlewoman from new york brought up the wisconsin determination which is correct that they have determined that there will be no minimum age to possess a firearm. actually, wisconsin's not the first one to the gate on this. they're the 34th state to permit individuals to possess firearms based upon no minimum age requirement. however, wisconsin has an age 21 concealed carry permit. so if someone shows up in new york and they have concealed a firearm and they're 16 years of age, they're in violation both of new york and the wisconsin concealed carry permit law and they're not in compliance with the law. now with regard to your point, that there are certain items under new york law, yes, this bill makes it very clear that while the licensing process is

the determination of the state of residence of the citizen, it is the state that they take the firearm into whose laws they must comply with in regard to how that is exercised. not who, not, you know if -- first of all, when you talk about violent misdemeanants, the federal law prohibits people guilty of domestic violence which is a misdemeanor in most instances, they can't have a firearm at all. so they can't use it as a concealed carry. but there are other, the gentleman from new york would describe as a violent misdemeanor that are not covered by that, stalking, other things. and that is an exception here to make clear that if people meet the basis for carrying the weapon in their own state, they'll be able to transport it across state lines. congress has very clear authority to allow this.

mr. woodall: this isn't the first time we've seen similar language. i recall states that didn't have licensure -- a requirement being left out of this rubric. i have a license of georgia, but if i come from a state that doesn't issue a license, we voted on bills that offer no protection to me. how has this bill addressed that? mr. goodlatte: we say as long as you met the requirements of your home state, concealed carry permit, you no longer have to fear entering certain states where people have been arrested an charged with serious crimes oftentimes not even realizing they are doing so simply for exercising their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. mr. woodall: and showing my driver's license then if i come from one of those nonpermit states that satisfies my burden of demonstration --

mr. goodlatte: if you can establish your state has a concealed carry, you can do that. ms. jackson lee: the gentleman from new york made a point, very valid point that the supreme court has indicated that the second amendment is not unfettered. and that there is a proper relation laer to scheme that can be accepted. the chairman indicates that the individuals carrying the guns don't have a fear going into the jurisdiction, those people have a fear and the law enforcement officers will have a fear. you're asking law enforcement to do two things on the street. you're asking first of all to look and see whether the georgia license is in fact credible. that it is a legitimate georgia right to conceal carry. having not been a georgia police officer and being a new york police officer, texas police officer, our laws are very much like georgia, they would have to make a determination on the street, secondly, they have to

make determination as to whether this person still complies with new york laws, i think they would probably want to do so, which is if there is a misdemeanor violent charge they've had it may be acceptable in georgia but it may not be acceptable in new york. so let me read from the chief of police of the fourth largest city in the nation, soon on the third largest city in the nation, houston, as it relates to concealed weapons. the chief says, each state has carefully crafted its own laws relating to con sealed weapons. while congress has heretofore respected the constitutional sovereignty of states there's legislation now pending that would undermine the authority of state laws relating to carrying of weapons. we strongly urge congress to reject the misguided and imprabblingtable proposal of resip rossity as police officers could not be expected to recognize legitimate or forged permits from thousands of jurisdictions, it would be

impossible to determine which persons are authorized to carry a concealed weapon. this is what you're going to face across the nation in spite of the 27 attorneys general and the 34 states, you've got to talk to chiefs of police and patrol officers. i -- and i'm talking about individual patrol aurses. i ask unanimous consent to submit this letter into the record. mr. chairman. and ask -- mr. sessions: without objection. ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent for the major chiefs of police and another letter to be entered in opposing this. mr. sessions: mr. mcgovern. mr. mcgovern: i can't believe we're here, i can't believe this legislation is before us. as the gentlelady from new york pointed out, the -- at the outset, we have press, urgent things that need to be done like keep the government open, for example that now has been pushed off and we don't know what's going to happen. we need to re-authorize the chip

program which our kids get access to health care, i mean, we have hurricane relief issues that we need to deal with. we have -- i mean, a gazillion things that are urgent that need to be dealt with now and here we are, dealing with this. and you know, it is a little bit frustrating to be told there were no hearings on this legislation. i mean it's december. so it's not like we just started a new session. it's december. and it would have been nice to bring the police chiefs that ms. jackson lee referred to up to the judiciary committee, let them express their concerns or others. you could bring anybody you want who support this is legislation, but i mean, there is value in listening to people outside of the little bubble here in washington. and i look at this and i ask myself, you know, how much in the bag with the national rifle

association is this leadership and this house? i mean, this -- this makes no sense. that you are going to impose the weakest standards that exist in some states on states that have higher standards when it comes to issuing licenses to those who can carry concealed weapons. i looked at the national rifle associations weapon page, concealed carry resip rossity to is is their highest legislative priority in this congress. and so we all know why we're here today. we'll follow the money. this is about campaigning, this is about contributions to political parties and members of congress who are worried about the next election. but this is not about what's in the best interest of the american people. i mean, this bill we're taking up today would force states to let violent offenders and people with no firearm safety training carry hidden, loaded guns even if those people could not otherwise legally purchase the a

gun in the state. really? i don't get that. as mr. nadler pointed out under current law each state determines if it will recognize con sealed carry permits issued by other states. 11 states don't recognize concealed carry permits issued by other states. most only only recognize those with states with equivalent standards. s that rush to the bottom. i'm trying to understand why anybody would think this is a good idea. the gentleman from georgia tried to compare these to driver's licenses. you know, as i understand it, driver's license, as far as they're concerned, they're a standard, verifiable documents with the same criteria nationwide. concealed carry, there's no uniform security features new york national, sometimes no statewide database. driver's license require things like vision and laws and in-person driving tests.

concealed carry licenses as we have learned the training varies widely and isn't even always required by states. and yet you're going to impose those low standard on my state? massachusetts has the lowest firearm death rate in the entire country. i'm proud of that don't screw around with what we've done in my state by trying to forcibly, through statute, lower the standards. this is just not right. i could go on and on but you know what, this is a big waste of time. i'm hoping the senate won't even take it up because this is just a terrible idea. this is about campaign contributions. this is not about good policy. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. mr. sessions: thank you very much. e gentleman from geavement >> at the beginning you mentioned to ms. slaughter you guaranteed a fair fight on this issue. that to me means not just our

ability to talk up here, it means making sure the amendments, like the ones offered here today and others, be made in order. i hope this means either open rule or that all amendments that have been introduced be made in order that ast fair fight. mr. sessions: thank you very uch. what i had the basis of my discussion with the gentlewoman, the time of day we would do this, knowing what we had with some accommodations that you understand and i do, of families being in town. today. and i -- the premise was, i asked her about the balance, she said we'd like time to talk about the gun bill. i said you'll be allowed that time. it's -- ter: but mr. sessions: we admitted that

yesterday. admitted it right on the phone. and we're still doing that. ms. slaughter: maybe take a minute while you're here and tell us when we're doing that. r. sessions: tomorrow. judge hastings will ask me and i'll the you. i told you on the phone the other day when we'd do it. judge, do you wish to be recognized? mr. hastings: it won't be that i'll be asking that question in a few minutes, but i will ask that question. mr. sessions: does the gentleman seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized. >> i started to go that way, i went back this way, i'm going to stay where i am. mr. hastings: i appreciate that.

let me say something about the national rifle association. every member of the national rifle association are not people who should be put in the same category as others. many of them would look at the same provision that we're dealing with today and have difficulty understanding why we are ding this. there is a distinction in almost all organizations between the membership and the leadership. and the leadership of the ational rifle association is really, really a set of very cunning individuals who are gun mined to support manufacturers who somehow or

another get left out of the equation when we talk about these matters. we put it on the national rifle association who really are doing nothing but the bidding of gun manufacturers. i remember in sandy hook, many guns were manufactured in the gun -- and the gun manufacturing association was less than six miles from sandy hook elementary school. during all of the brouhaha, they quietly moved out of that area. and i find it passing strange that we focus sometimes on matters differently than in my view we should. mr. mcgovern mentioned, as did ms. slaughter, the significant number of issues we have dealing with, all of us awakened today one of the that

highest variable rates for h.o.v. driving in virginia on to drive at a certain time on that highway. and that's because we haven't paid attention to all of the extraordinary needs with crumbling roads and crumbling bridges in our country and here we are talking about something without addressing the real significance -- the real significant issues with reference to gun violence. i'm a gun owner. i want to make that clear because i always get threat -- threats and i understand that, i don't worry about the people that call and say they're going to harm me, i worry about the ones that don't call. but the simple fact of the matter is, and mr. goodlatte, i

want to address this to you, this is my florida gun permit. to carry a concealed weapon. in the streets, these can be knocked off and proliferate all over the place. weapons. concealed if i have this permit and i've carried a gun to a state that doesn't allow for carry, compared to this is my florida driver's license. and i won't even get into the falsification part, my argument to you is that if a police officer stops me and looks at my driver's license, he or she can determine that i have a valid driver's license. but if a police officer stops me , how is that police officer

with no hotline established as would be the case with driver's license, make a determination whether or not i'm valid with reference to carrying a concealed weapon? mr. goodlatte: mr. hastings, as you and mr. nadler have noted, with regard to driver's licenses, states have cooperated with each other. but it was noted here that 10 states are completely unwilling to recognize the constitutional right, constitutional right, of people to travel with their firearm outside of their home state into the other states. so even if that state in every state but one has a concealed carry permit process that one state being vermont, and they have constitutional -- mr. hastings: reclaiming my time, so you do agree that's there's no state boy state hotline for example to confirm that a permit is valid? mr. goodlatte: it would be great if more efforts were taken to

improve that but that is not a necessary thing. wasn't necessary when driver's licenses were first recognized across state lines. mr. hastings: you mean to tell me if a police officer stops somebody, they claim they have a carry permit, that a police officer shouldn't be able to determine whether or not that is valid? mr. goodlatte: they cannot determine but they cannot unreasonably detain the individual. mr. hastings: gee whiz. this gets crazier and crazier. here we have in my judgment collectively lost our mivendse with all of the things that we've seen with gun violence. and mr. chairman, i want to include in the record, so we can put this issue to rest, i could spend the rest of my time dealing with conceal cardry permits are nothing like driver's licenses but let me ask unanimous consent to include every town analysis that i commend to mr. goodlatte. mr. sessions: without objection.

mr. hastings: as regards concealed carry, usually congress sets the floor for conduct. in other words if states want to take further action on a given matter to strengthen the law, they may do so. but they may not provide fewer protections than the floor established by congress. so folks we see here today with concealed carry turn this is approach on its head and rewards the bottom dwellers. in other words rks states seeking to protect victims of domestic abuse will have to yield to states who do not. mr. ranking member, i want to make sure i have this right. by way of example we have two states. one allows those convicted of domestic violence to carry concealed weapons and the other does not. under this bill, the state that quite reasonably does not allow those convicted of domestic violence to carry concealed weapons will have to welcome in a person and their concealed

weapon because that person's state allows domestic abusers to carry concealed weapons, is that correct? i was talking to you, jerry. mr. nadler: yes. r. hastings: let me share with you all in here the statement of musicians, that's all right -- mr. nadler: you said ranking member, i thought you mevent mr. sessions. mr. hastings: well, i was talking to you but that's ok. keener musician caleb was mindle of the -- mindful of the hailstorm of bullets in las

vegas and he played guitar with the band, which had performed that sunday afternoon just hours before 59 people were killed there. let me quote him. he says, i've been a proponent of the second amendment my entire life. ntil the events of last night. i cannot express how wrong i was. we actually have members of our licenses and legal firearms on the bus. they were useless. we couldn't touch them for fear police might think we were part of the massacre. and shoot us. a small group or one man laid waste to a city with dedicated, fearless police officers desperately trying to help. because of access to an insane amount of firepower.

enough is enough. he says. now i want to ask you, mr. good 50 peopleo you handle etting on an airplane with a one permit to come to any of the states? how does that work? what do the people with their guns and their carry permits do? mr. goodlatte: they have to stow them, they can't carry them on the plane. mr. hastings: what if they arrive about 15 minutes before shutoff time. mr. goodlatte: they have to go through security like the rest of us. mr. hastings: so the delay of

air travel will take place. mr. goodlatte: i don't think so, they'll be delayed from ravel traveling themselves, if you want to carry a firearm you have to stow it in your luggage. mr. hastings: what about trains and buses. mr. goodlatte: trains and buses have different standards. i think the transportation provider has the right to determine that. mr. hastings: how about 175 people showing up here at the capitol going through the -- mr. goodlatte: but they're not going to be allowed. in mr. hastings: but they should be under this law? mr. goodlatte: this bill makes it clear that not only the federal government but state and local governments can make that determination. and by the way, can any private business owner. so if you have a bar or whatever, you can prohibit -- you can make that determination as a private citizen that you're

not going to allow people to carry a firearm into your bar. mr. hastings: how would i know the person had a gun? mr. goodlatte: you can ask them, you can have a metal detector. mr. hastings: to anyone entering into a bar or restaurant will be ubject to magnetometers. mr. goodlatte: if the owner tries to do that. mr. hastings: have you ever been to broadway? you know the crush of people there, would you like for every one of those people to carry a gun? mr. goodlatte: if they have a lawful, concealed carry permit i would feel safer. than if i were at a place where he only person with a gun. mr. hastings: would we as congressmens be permitted to carry our guns on the floor of the house of representatives.

mr. goodlatte: that would depend on the rules of the house. i'm here to talk about this bill not about proposed changes to other rules. mr. hastings: then tell me why you chose to put this bill with the nix fix when the nix fix would have mine and your support and this bill is going nowhere fast other than utilizing the time i'm utilizing now. mr. goodlatte: i believe both bills complement each other in keeping people safe because statistics are clear that for example in your state of florida which has the largest number of concealed carry permit holders of any state -- mr. hastings: i want to make it clear to my detractors i'm one of them. mr. goodlatte: i applaud you for that. the fact of the matter is, studies have been done in florida and concealed carry permit holders have a -- an incredibly lower incidence of

committing violence than the average citizen, even off duty police officers. mr. hastings: i don't have the time to help dispel that myth and i don't want to bore my colleagues but i do want to use e giffords organization to compare florida to georgia, for example. florida, an applicant for florida's concealed firearms license must demonstrate competency with a firearm through completion of a course of participation and organized shoot or military service. not so in georgia. in florida, an applicant is ineligible if within the last three years he or she was convicted of using a firearm. not so in georgia. license would be denied if the applicant is found guilty of any misdemeanor, crime or violence in florida. not so in georgia. the florida crime information

center states maintains an automated listing of license holders and pertinent information. georgia law specifically prohibits the creation of a statewide database of license holders which comes back to my original point of not being able o know who the carriers are. but in the markup, several of our colleagues offered matters that were defeated. and i find that important. the violent misdemeanor offense was offered by mr. nadler to prohibit offenders who have been convicted of a violent misdemeanor in the past three years from carrying a concealed gun in a state where that conviction would otherwise disqualify them from carrying in public. it was defeated. ms. jackson lee offered an amendment to block domestic abusers and stalkers from taking advantage of imposed resip rossity. it was defeated.

ms. lofgren offered an amendment to require that an individual be a resident of the state from which their concealed carry permit is issued in order for the individual to take advantage reciprocity, it was defeated. mr. cass in-- raskin of maryland offered protecting state public safety standards, very sensible measure. the amendment failed defite democratic support and it really ailed by voice vote. my colleague, ted deutch, offered an amendment to ensure safeguarding of private property, asking that private property rights be protected. it was defeated. state laws with age restrictions, mr. cohen offered that one in committee, it was defeated. high capacity ammunition magazines offered by mr. cicilline to prohibit the bill

if allowing the carrying of high capacity magazines for use with handguns, defeated. state laws concerning handgun possession, assaulting or impersonating a police officer, restrictions on concealed carry on certain beaches offered by my colleague, mr. deutch, one that would allow the land administered and managed by the army corps of engineer, not allow guns to be on it. animal cruelty offered by mr. deutch failed. requiring periodic background checks and verification mechanisms, that fail. respecting the laws of the district of columbia, we knew that was going to fail. hate crimes offenses with the increase of hate crimes, ms. jackson lee offered a measure and we've had an increase everywhere in this nation of every kind of hate crime and yet e could not have something offered and made part of this bill.

driving under the influence, background check requirements, all of these measures were defeated in committee. what we you this, have in this country is a gun violence epidemic and the evidence bear this is out and one would think it does not need repeating but then bills like this one come before us and become quite clear that some folks up here either just don't care, or simply are too beholden to the gun manufacturers and the gun lobby. this bill without a shadow of a doubt will make it easier for domestic abusers and stalkers to commit murder. more than half of women kill by guns in this country were killed by intimate partners or family members. and let us not forget that federal law only blocks domestic abusers spouses, dating partners and convicted stalkers are not

covered. many states have addressed this glaring loophole in federal law and moved to block abusive dating partners and stalkers carrying concealed handguns. this bill would needlessly eviscerate these sensible laws. we sit in the wake of mass shooting after mass shooting. we sit in the wake of thousands upon thousands of dead people killed by guns wielded by domestic abusers and this is the bill we get? a bill pushed by the powerful gun lobby and gun manufacturers at the expense of sound policy and don't think just because you attach this ridiculous bill to something sensible like strengthening nix means you have done something particularly clever. just because you add a dash of sugar to a dirt pie doesn't mean you've got yourself something orth eating. i can't even begin to talk about the disappointment that i'm sure

many americans feel that we are gun laws withbout all of the problems that this nation is con fonted with. and not dealing with gun epidemics. they're going to do in this measure a study. you don't need no damn study you need to stop this madness from allowing people to alter weapons to that extent. don't give me the garbage about the second amendment. the people that did the second amendment had no idea we were going to be confronted with what we're confronted with in our society today. things have evolved and each one of these states, you all run in here time and time again arguing states' rights until it becomes sensible for you to do so and now states rights don't matter.

you're going to override it and each one of the states, i also, mr. chairman, by unanimous consent, every town's analysis of overriding concealed carry will laws. mr. sessions: without objection. mr. hastings: and i'd like to enter the giffords report i spoke of as well and i'm going to enter every town's concealed carry reciprocity focus to allow domestic abusers carry. and the giffords federally mandate concealed carry reciprocity measure. in addition, their mandated concealed carry on gun violence, state smart gun laws would be dangerously undermined. mr. sessions: without objection. mr. hastings: in addition, every town's analysis of overriding state public safity laws which

is really very clear. mr. sessions: without objection. mr. hastings: and i gather i don't need to put in the record, mr. chairman, all the matters of dealing with the report itself. obviously we're disappointed that there were no hearings and there should have been for differentto allow for views to be heard. also want to put the "kansas star" article on the fine young man, caleb ketoer, i recited from his tweet. into the record. in addition, the -- someone fact checked the chairman of the house, i'll leave that out, bob gad lat is my friend, i like him, but i think that this is insanity personified for us to be up here dealing with something of this significance

and not dealing with the real issue. no one in this room can make me understand why anybody other than law enforcement and military people need to have an assault weapon. and i came here, we passed an assault weapon measure. mr. nadler was here. we worked on that measure and it was done and now we can't even get altered weapons to be addressed. how many more people have to be killed? how many more people have to commit suicide with weapons? how many abusers of women or men do we have to hear before we take action and do what is necessary to address the gun epidemic? there was a surgeon general here , mr. satcher, he literally got run out of town because he made us aware that there was a gun

violence epidemic in this country. associated with number of other epidemics that we are failing to deal with. re we have an opioid crisis, and what we are here talking about is allowing people to carry guns all over this country into places. i hope that none of your relatives, as some of mine have been killed by weapons. i hope that you think just because you're in a bar or you're in a concert or a theater that if 50 people have a gun than theand law enforcement people are trying to find the one person doing the kill, i hope you think that that will not cause problems but i can tell you, you're thinking -- your thinking is faulty and you're getting ready to help lead to further disasters and i for one resent it.

mr. sessions: the gentleman yields back. is there any other member that seeks time? yes, ma'am. ms. jackson lee: if i might, i just want to reinforce some comment mrs. hastings made which has again raised my amendments dealing with hate crimes and domestic violence. the rebuttal to the submission of these amendments is that they are federal law. my point is that this is a free standing bill that should be comprehensive on two of the most heinous aspects of a background, of a intending concealed to carry individual and would jeopardize the lives of individuals crossing state lines as evidenced by charlottesville and as evidenced by the military person who engaged in mass murder and in one of our churches in texas. that's my amendment on that to be made in order and also with respect to a more detailed requirement of the military to

submit data too. one point i want to make about mr. hastings is the fact that, in the litany of questions, he evidenced the confusion that will come about with the concealed weapon, whether it's broadway, whether it is the cathedral on fifth avenue, whether it is in the boston commons, whether it's at the university of virginia, it is massive confusion for law enforcement to be determining what you have is legitimate. i want to make the point, it seems every horror story of killing we have a sense of emotion. we were on the pathway of banning bump stops. i don't know why we stopped. why we couldn't have a simple bill that would ban these bump stocks. so what we wound up with is provision 206, that just requires the attorney general report on the use of bump stocks. we know what the use of bump

stocks is they used them in las vegas and 5 people are dead. so i don't know whether this puts an end to real legislation on bump stocks, but here we are. and so i hope my amendments would be able to be made in order but i do agree that this is a very dis-- that this is very disappointing. i yield back. mr. sessions: i am really not trying to am not engage anybody. but you have brought up a bill that allows states to do that. i have not heard it's not working. this would allow anybody that has a permit to be respected by another state but you would still have to follow the laws of the state you go gow to. if it said you can't walk into a building with one, you can't say it's ok to walk into the state

capitol of texas, as it is work a gun but you can do it here. that's not what this is about. what it is about is to respect that person that travels, that goes to another state, respect that they have the license to follow the law os they have state that they're in. aened for anybody to think i could get on a plane in dallas; texas, and fly to austin, texas, with my gun at just -- that is not the way it is. it is not that way. i'd have to follow the laws about us -- whether i was going dallas to washington or washington to dallas, same as going tuste. i don't know if this is as confusing as the pitch is today. i want to thank all three of you for being here today. please remind you, anything you brought in writing would be left for us. we're going to go to the second panel, please. mr. nadler, thank you very much, mr. chairman, ms. jackson lee. we're going to the next panel, mr. snyder and ms. titus.

it was good to see you at dinner the other night. i enjoyed that very much, thank you for not only your insistence that we enjoyed the dinner, i enjoyed your presence and your company. ms. titus, delighted you're here. the gentlewoman would know that both of you would be extended the privileges of whatever you brought to us in writing today we'd like to have you leave for our stenographer to have for the record. the gentlewoman is acknowledged and may proceed. ms. titus: thank you very much, mr. chairman. as all of you know, just a little over two months ago, the deadliest shooting in modern u.s. history occurred in the heart of my district. 58 innocent people were killed, over 500 were injured an the lives of thousands of friends and family members have been changed forever. in the two months since that time, absolutely nothing has happened until today. so i was optimistic that maybe

something would get done but instead i'm here listening to testimony not about banning or regulating bump stock, not about expanding our cleaning up background checks, but instead, about expanding access to concealed weapons. i am like mr. mcgovern. i just really can't believe it. and i don't know what to go back to my district and tell these people that congress is doing. and how little they care about the plight not only of those 58 and their family and friends, but also of the hundreds who have been killed in this country since that occurred. now i sat here for an hour or so and listened to testimony that again is astounding. we have parsed words about the difference between regulation and outlawing. we have heard ridiculous assumptions ability how carrying a concealed weapon can make us safer.

well i can tell you those people at the concert would not have been safer if they were carrying weapons because the shooter was a thousand feet away. and the -- in a tall building. there's no way they would have made you safer. and so my question is, if this bill is so great and you are so proud of it and you want to pass it so much, why didn't you just bring it as an independent bill? why did you have to attach it as a poison pill onto a bipartisan measure that has broad support from members of the congress including myself as a co-sponsor and all the organizations to try to get at a real problem and do the nix fix. why did you tack it on? fragly, that's kind of why i'm here. i didn't think i was going to be adding an amendment but i just couldn't help myself. you know, we have seens through course of this year in this congress, this kind of behavior occurring over and over again.

you have seen that -- seen mysterious amendments appear and other amendments that have been considered in committee disappear. bills change from tremendous time they are heard and passed by committee until the time they get to rules. it is no wonder that the people of this country do not trust what is going on back here in congress. it was just this friday that we learned that the fix nix bill which is fix the national instant criminal background check system introduced by my friend from texas, mr. culberson, was now suddenly going to be added to the expanded concealed carry bill. for no apparent good reason, it's just a matter of deception that goes on behind closed doors. so my amendment is very simple. it would just strike the entirety to have title 1 of the bill which is the conceal cardry provision, you want that, go for

it, but go for it on its own, don't add it to our bill which is a good bill and it would also get rid of that so-called study of bump stocks. you've heard a lot from other people before me about the problems with the concealed carry weapon provision. i won't go into that. except to say that my home state of nevada is still the wild west. we have pretty liberal gun laws. and yet even we don't believe that teenagers or somebody who has been convicted of a violent crime, even if it's a misdemeanor, should have the license to carry a concealed weapon. mr. sessions: excuse me. there's no evidence that's been -- no testimony that indicated that that was a fact. titistitis that that what was a fact -- tithetithe that what was with a -- ms. titus: that what was a fact? mr. sessions: children in any state are able to have a concealed carry license. ms. titus: in nevada the

restrictions are at 19. in idaho you would be able to carry a weapon. i think that's a fact. mr. sessions: we're talking about concealed carry license. ms. titus: i am too. some states are 18. ms. titus: an adult. an adult. ms. titus: well, i don't know. i've seen some people who are in their 30's who don't act like adults. 18, 19 is not usually considered an adult. you can't gamble at 18 in nevada. you have to be 21. >> but you can join the military. ms. titus: i appreciate that. and you can vote. yeah. but still. i stand by the point that at 19 you cannot carry a weapon in nevada. but you can move to idaho and you can get a concealed weapon there. carry a concealed weapon. mr. sessions: they're considered an adult. not a child. ms. titus: ok. at 19 or 18. but anyway. nevada would have no choice but to recognize idaho's law, even though it is more lax than nevada's.

so you've heard all those arguments. my primary reason here is to split those bills. these are two separate issues. the addition of the concealed weapon measure undermines the attempt to fix the reporting system, a system that needs to be fixed. and following the recipe of the judge here, adding a study about bump stocks is like building a monument. you won't do anything else and a study like this won't tell you anything because there's so little reporting of bump stocks. you want a study, come study those 58 crosses in my district. then you'll see what bump stocks do. so i just think you ought to split these bills. if you want them go for them. consider them. but don't add them onto something that might do a little bit of good. mr. sessions: thank you very much. we're delighted that you're here. the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you very much. thank you for the time to be here. i want to particularly thank mr. hastings for your remarks. i speak here very personally.

my hebrew name is samuel. i'm named after my grandmother's brother sam who was murdered when a gunman walked into his office in 1942 and shot him four times. called the police and waited for them to arrive as my uncle bled to death. my grandmother had 18 grandchildren. my cousin jeff took his own life. he dealt with mental illness for a long time. and was able to get a gun. this is a very personal issue. mr. schneider: mr. hastings, thank you. i understand that many people come to this issue with their personal per speskets -- per speblingtives. i personally strongly oppose the reckless and dangerous concealed carry reciprocity legislation that this house is considering. or preparing to consider. it's inconceivable to me that after more than 300 mass shooting events just this year alone, and daily gun violence in cities and communities across our country, we're voting on legislation to weaken commonsense restrictions that are already in place. concealed carry reciprocity i believe undermines american gun laws by forcing states to accept

carry permitting standards of every other state. including some states that have no standards at all. my constituents want gun safety standards to protect our communities. not to race to the bottom and apolicy that put more of our neighbors and neighborhoods and communities at risk. illinois has commonsense regulations on concealed carry permits. for example, if you had two or more d.u.i.'s within five years, within the past five years, you do not have the right in illinois to obtain a concealed weapons permit. in fact, a majority of u.s. states deny concealed carry permits to people with multiple d.u.i.'s. this is a deliberate decision about people who often are simply too irresponsible to carry a firearm in public. yet this bill would steam roll over states' laws, allowing multiple d.u.i. offenders to carry anywhere in the country so long as they seek out any low standard or no standard permitting system that will issue them that permit. in a new study published earlier this year, researchers showed

that among handgun owners, convictions for d.u.i. and other alcohol-related crimes are associated with a major increase. four to five fold increase. in the latter risk of arrest for a firearm crime or other violent crime. in other words, these convictions for d.u.i. are a serious red flag that a person is at risk of committing a future crime. states that have decided to bar these offenders have determined that they are too irresponsible to carry in public. and congress should not be overriding the decisions of these individual states. today i'm offering an amendment to this legislation that allows states like illinois to continue to enforce their state laws barring people with two or more d.u.i. offenses from carrying a concealed handgun. i urge this committee to allow a vote on my amendment. so that states can continue to enforce their own commonsense rules, preventing irresponsible concealed carry. thank you very much. mr. sessions: thank you very much.

ms. slaughter. ms. slaughter: i thank you both for being here. i know that you personally have dealt the grief of -- easily available guns. so thank you for your testimony. i don't give you much hope for anything. but nonetheless, i'm glad to have it here and on the record. thank you both. mr. mcgovern: as i said earlier, i think given the fact that there were no hearings on this bill, that at a minimum we want a fair fight here,ed a the chairman promised the ranking member, we ought to open this thing up so members have an opportunity to offer their amendments. i agree with ms. titus. the idea that they attached a really, really bad bill to something that had bipartisan support just shows how cynical this place has become. but as i said before, this is not about good policy. i follow the money. this is about money. this is about the power of the n.r.a. and quite frankly, this is another reason why we ought to be talking about campaign

finance reform. because we have to finally figure out a way to separate the money in politics from this system. because it results in this kind of garbage being brought to the house floor. so i thank you both and i hope your amendments are made in order. mr. sessions: thank you very much. the gentleman from florida, judge hastings. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. chairman. ms. titus, and mr. schneider, both of you were very clear and it's deeply appreciated. i wish your amendments were to be made in order. i don't think they are going to. and it's kind of senls for us to ruined by licy adding, as you put it, ms. titus, poison pills. this is a very sad day for this country. and it gets sadder with more deaths and us not doing anything about it. i yield back. mr. sessions: the gentleman yields back the balance of his

time. is there any member that would seek time? i want to thank both of you. i do recognize that both of you took a good bit of your time this afternoon to not only participate in the full hearing, but to take time to offer your thoughts and ideas. if i could please remind you to leave whatever you brought in writing for our stenographer to complete her job, thank you very much. i need to acknowledge that the gentleman from ohio, congressman jim jordan, came and told me that he did not have more time to spend this afternoon, but that he wamented to make sure that he knew -- wanted to make sure that he knew that i would acknowledge that he asked that we separate the two bills, the nics from the reciprocity bill, and that that would be what his testimony would be about. i hasten to say that without regard to making that available, but it would be his idea.

he did not bring written comments. but had that. and i acknowledge that i would bring that forward before the hearing was done. is there any other member who wishes to be heard on h.r. 38? seeing none, this now closes the hearing portion. the chairman will be in receipt of a motion from the distinguished gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: mr. chairman, i move that the committee grant h.r. 38, the concealed carry reciprocity act of 2017, a closed rule. the rule provides one hour of debate equally divided and controled by the chair and ranking minority members of the committee on judiciary. waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. the rule provides that an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 115-45 shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered as read. the rule waves -- waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. finally the rule provides one motion to recommit with or

without instructions. social mr. sessions: thank you very much. is there amendment or discussion to that? ms. slaughter: yes. mr. chairman, i have an amendment to the rule. i move the committee consider h.r. 4477, and h.r. 38, a stand-alone bills, granting each an open rule so that all members have the opportunity to offer amendments to this incredible bill on the floor. it is shameful that we are considering a rule that combines the text of a partisan n.r.a.-sponsored bill with a bipartisan bill to provide much-needed updates to the national brand check system. the fix nics bill will help close dangerous loop holes that have led to -- loopholes that have led to countless deaths and we should do everything we can to advance the bill, not sabotage its chance of becoming law. i ask for a yes vote. mr. sessions: thank you very much. you've now heard the amendment offered. is there discussion? seeing none, the vote will now

be on the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. ms. slaughter: roll call. the clerk: mr. cole, no. mr. woodall, mr. burgess, no. mr. collins, no. mr. byrne, no. mr. newhouse. mr. buck. ms. cheney, no. ms. slaughter, aye. mr. mcgovern, aye. mr. hastings, aye. mr. polis. mr. chairman, no. three yeas, six nays. mr. sessions: could you please ell me how mr. newhouse from washington, state of washington, is recorded on the slaughter amendment. the clerk: mr. newhouse is not recorded. mr. sessions: ok. does the gentleman wish to be recorded? mr. newhouse: i'd like to vote no. mr. sessions: the gentleman is requesting that he be recorded as a no vote on the slaughter

amendment. could the clerk please re-provide the total. thank you very much. the clerk: three yeas, seven anyways. -- nays. mr. sessions: the amendment is not agreed. to further amendment or discussion. ms. slaughter: yes, i have another amendment to the rule. i move the committee make in order and give the necessary waivers for the amendment to h.r. 38, by representative jackson lee, number 19, why which would prohibit a person from carrying a concealed firearm across state lines if the individual has been convicted of domestic violence or stalking. mr. sessions: you've heard the amendment from the gentlewoman, number 19, from the gentlewoman from texas, jackson lee. is there discussion? seeing none, the vote on the slaughter amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. noes have it. ms. slaughter: roll call, please. the clerk: mr. cole, no. mr. woodall. mr. burgess, no. mr. collins, no. mr. byrne, no. mr. newhouse, no.

mr. buck. ms. cheney, no. ms. slaughter, aye. mr. mcgovern, aye. mr. hastings, aye. mr. polis. mr. chairman. mr. chairman, no. mr. sessions: clerk will report. the clerk: three yeas, seven nays. mr. sessions: the amendment is not agreed to. mr. mcgovern: i have an amendment to the rule. i move the committee make in order and give the necessary waivers for the bipartisan amendment to h.r. 38 by representatives moulton and curbelo, number 16, which would ban the manufacture, possession or transfer of any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire from a semi-automatic rifle such as bump stocks and similarly functioning devices of a different name. i would just say to my colleagues, you know, the kicking the can down the road or this meaningless study that is in this bill doesn't suffice. to too many people are dying in this country result of this technology that turns these

weapons into weapons of war, that turns them into machine guns, essentially. i've been critical of this institution because in the aftermath of massacres all we do -- is have a moment of silence and we move on. i'm critical because what we're doing is actually putting forward legislation that will endanger my constituents. so i would hope that this amendment could be made in order so we could actually maybe do something positive. with that, i urge a yes vote. mr. sessions: thank you very much for the discussion. seeing none, the vote on the mcgovern amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. mr. mcgovern: roll call. the clerk: mr. cole, no. mr. woodall. mr. burgess, no. mr. collins, no. mr. byrne, no. mr. newhouse, no. mr. buck. ms. cheney, no. ms. slaughter, aye. mr. mcgovern, aye. mr. hastings, aye.

mr. polis. mr. chairman, no. three yeas, seven nays. mr. sessions: excuse me, i'm sorry. before we report, could you tell me how the gentleman from georgia is recorded. the clerk: the gentleman from georgia is not recorded. mr. sessions: if you could please ask the gentleman. the clerk: mr. woodall, no. three yeas, eight nays. mr. sessions: the amendment is not agreed. to not agreed to. further discussion? seeing none, the vote will now be on the motion from the gentleman from oklahoma -- excuse me. i'm sorry. i did not hear it. that is my issue. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. it would be an understatement, mr. chairman, for me to say that i'm not angry. i've been on this committee, along with ms. slaughter, and you, for a protracted period of

time. i don't know a day that i have today. disturbed as i am and i've been angry at other times. but i really am beside myself about what we are doing here. all of us know that this measure isn't going to become law. and ms. slaughter and mr. mcgovern have made it abundantly clear, as have all of the members here, that we have a lot of work to do. it's surreal to be in a setting at the same time to have exacting responsibilities. in addition to ourselves, 25 of the members of the house of representatives offered amendments to this measure.

one of them are made in order. this is our agenda as published and i ask unanimous consent that it be made a part of the record so i won't read all of the amendments to you or any of them. mr. sessions: without objection. mr. hastings: at least have it understood that the parliamentarian, the drafters of legislation, all of the people have had to work. and here we come to the 54th closed rule. you've broken the record for the house of representatives. and i just -- on a measure of this consequence it would seem to me that you'd stand up and be repared to vote if it's your conscience. then vote your conscience. if it's your pocketbook, then vote your pocketbook. but at least give everybody else a chance. the amendment i offered is one that was offered on that list, the agenda that i just put

forward. the number is 20. the woman that offered this amendment is a former police chief. and we have quite a number of sheriffs and police chiefs here on both sides that this legislation, if it were to become law, is going to impact the law enforcement community in a significantly negative way. this amendment to the rule, i move the committee make in order, and give the necessary waivers for the amendment to h.r. 38 by representative val demings. as i indicated, number 20. which would strike the provision that would allow persons from other states to carry concealed weapons in school zones. that's the amendment, mr. chairman. mr. sessions: i have a question. mr. hastings: yes. mr. sessions: is there any state that allows anyone with a

concealed weapon to carry in schools or school zones? mr. hastings: mr. chairman, there are states that permit weapons at schools. florida's legislature is prepared to undertake -- mr. sessions: excuse me, i strike that. i meant not colleges, i meant elementary, junior, high schools. mr. hastings: most of us have gun-free zones and drug-free zones around our schools. but i think mrs. demings as a form chief of police really understood the necessity for this particular measure. mr. sessions: yes, sir. the word schools i took to mean not colleges. mr. hastings: i understand. well, florida also has a proposal before our legislature to allow school teachers at

schools and other personnel at schools to carry guns. florida is getting just about as crazy as some of the rest of y'all's states. mr. sessions: yes, sir. reminding us that if it is against that state law, that person who would be offered the resip rocation would still have to follow the state law that they're in. mr. hastings: the problem, mr. chairman, is once the person is in the area, we are acting as if all of them are consult. the idea is we're getting ready to let people carry concealed weapons, whether they're caught or not. mr. sessions: they've been doing that for years. you made the point back to me and i respect that. mr. hastings: some of the states that do, alabama, arkansas, new hampshire, oregon, rhode island, utah, these all allow carrying

concealed weapons in k-12 zones. mr. sessions: wow. ok. urther discussion. those favor -- those in favor of the hastings amendment say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the gentleman asks for a roll call vote. the clerk: mr. cole, no. mr. woodall, no. mr. burgess, no. mr. collins, no. mr. byrne, no. mr. newhouse, no. mr. buck. ms. chaney, no. ms. slaughter -- ms. cheney, no. ms. slaughter, aye. mr. mcgovern, aye. mr. hastings, aye. mr. polis. mr. chairman. mr. chairman, no. three ayes, eight nays. mr. sessions: the amendment is not agreed. to further amendment on discussion. seeing none, the vote will now

be on the motion of the gentleman from oklahoma. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the gentlewoman asks for a roll call vote. the clerk: mr. cole, aye. mr. woodall, aye. mr. burgess, aye. mr. collins, aye. mr. byrne, aye. mr. newhouse, aye. mr. buck. ms. cheney, aye. ms. slaughter, no. mr. mcgovern, no. mr. hastings, no. mr. polis. mr. chairman. mr. chairman, aye. eight yeas, three nays. mr. sessions: the motion is agreed to. mr. collins will be handling this for the republicans. mr. hastings for the democrats. judge, you want to ask a question? mr. hastings: what damage are we going to do tomorrow? mr. sessions: thank you very much. tomorrow the committee will be meeting at the scheduled time of 3:00. we're going to go to the c.r. tomorrow. knowing today was a time crunch, h.r. 3971, the community

institution mortgage relief act of 2017, and h.r. 477, small business burden protection assistance act of 2017. this completes our work for the day. thank you very much. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017]

>> with the vote a moment ago, the concealed carry handgun legislation moves from here in the rules committee to the full house which is expected to debate and vote on the measure tomorrow. the committee also is looking ahead to its work tomorrow to extend federal spending, which

is expected to be on the house floor thursday. republican congressman sean duffy of wisconsin tweets, i co-sponsored h.r. 38, the concealed carry reciprocity act because our constitution is worth defending. and democratic representative jackie speier of california sends the message, h.r. 38 would allow domestic violence offenders and those convicted of violent misdemeanors in certain states to bring concealed weapons into california, including our school zones. that's why i strongly oppose c.c.r. and urge my colleagues in the house to do the same. again a debate and vote on the concealed carry legislation in the house, here live on c-span tomorrow. >> tomorrow morning, we're live in tallahassee, florida, for the next stop on the c-span bus 50 capitols tour. florida state representative and speaker of the house richard corcoran will be our guest on the bus during "washington journal" starting at 9:45 a.m.

eastern. >> now a portion of this morning's "washington journal," looking at president trump's executive orders. to cut the size of two national monuments. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now is noelle e&e news, she serves as natural resources editor. good morning. morning.ood host: i'll show a picture from the salt lake tribune. of president trump at a signing, what took place here? to t: president trump flew salt lake city yesterday on day trip and reduced size of two both in monuments, southern utah. he took about two million acres them, so the national esceoente national onument, biggest reduction in history. so pretty big deal.