CONCEALED CARRY RECIPROCITY ACT OF 2017
(House of Representatives - December 06, 2017)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

        
[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 199 (Wednesday, December 6, 2017)]
[Pages H9685-H9703]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                CONCEALED CARRY RECIPROCITY ACT OF 2017

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 645, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 38) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide 
a means by which nonresidents of a State whose residents may carry 
concealed firearms may also do so in the State, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 645, in lieu of 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on the Judiciary printed in the bill, an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
115-45 is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                                H.R. 38

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Concealed Carry Reciprocity 
     Act of 2017''.

            TITLE I--CONCEALED CARRY RECIPROCITY ACT OF 2017

     SEC. 101. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED 
                   FIREARMS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain 
       concealed firearms

       ``(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State 
     or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in 
     subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this 
     section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from 
     possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, 
     who is carrying a valid identification document containing a 
     photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license 
     or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and 
     which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is 
     entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which 
     the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun 
     (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been 
     shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in 
     any State that--
       ``(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may 
     apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm; 
     or
       ``(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms 
     by residents of the State for lawful purposes.
       ``(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or 
     limit the laws of any State that--
       ``(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or 
     restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their 
     property; or
       ``(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on 
     any State or local government property, installation, 
     building, base, or park.
       ``(c)(1) A person who carries or possesses a concealed 
     handgun in accordance with subsections (a) and (b) may not be 
     arrested or otherwise detained for violation of any law or 
     any rule or regulation of a State or any political 
     subdivision thereof related to the possession, 
     transportation, or carrying of firearms unless there is 
     probable cause to believe that the person

[[Page H9686]]

     is doing so in a manner not provided for by this section. 
     Presentation of facially valid documents as specified in 
     subsection (a) is prima facie evidence that the individual 
     has a license or permit as required by this section.
       ``(2) When a person asserts this section as a defense in a 
     criminal proceeding, the prosecution shall bear the burden of 
     proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the conduct of the 
     person did not satisfy the conditions set forth in 
     subsections (a) and (b).
       ``(3) When a person successfully asserts this section as a 
     defense in a criminal proceeding, the court shall award the 
     prevailing defendant a reasonable attorney's fee.
       ``(d)(1) A person who is deprived of any right, privilege, 
     or immunity secured by this section, under color of any 
     statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State 
     or any political subdivision thereof, may bring an action in 
     any appropriate court against any other person, including a 
     State or political subdivision thereof, who causes the person 
     to be subject to the deprivation, for damages or other 
     appropriate relief.
       ``(2) The court shall award a plaintiff prevailing in an 
     action brought under paragraph (1) damages and such other 
     relief as the court deems appropriate, including a reasonable 
     attorney's fee.
       ``(e) In subsection (a):
       ``(1) The term `identification document' means a document 
     made or issued by or under the authority of the United States 
     Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State 
     which, when completed with information concerning a 
     particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly 
     accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals.
       ``(2) The term `handgun' includes any magazine for use in a 
     handgun and any ammunition loaded into the handgun or its 
     magazine.
       ``(f)(1) A person who possesses or carries a concealed 
     handgun under subsection (a) shall not be subject to the 
     prohibitions of section 922(q) with respect to that handgun.
       ``(2) A person possessing or carrying a concealed handgun 
     in a State under subsection (a) may do so in any of the 
     following areas in the State that are open to the public:
       ``(A) A unit of the National Park System.
       ``(B) A unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
       ``(C) Public land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of 
     Land Management.
       ``(D) Land administered and managed by the Army Corps of 
     Engineers.
       ``(E) Land administered and managed by the Bureau of 
     Reclamation.
       ``(F) Land administered and managed by the Forest 
     Service.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such 
     chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 926C the following:

``926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.''.
       (c) Severability.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this title, if any provision of this section, or any 
     amendment made by this section, or the application of such 
     provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held 
     to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by 
     this section and the application of such provision or 
     amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be 
     affected thereby.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 102. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this title prohibits a law enforcement officer 
     with reasonable suspicion of a violation of any law from 
     conducting a brief investigative stop in accordance with the 
     Constitution of the United States.

     SEC. 103. CERTAIN OFF-DUTY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND 
                   RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ALLOWED TO 
                   CARRY A CONCEALED FIREARM, AND DISCHARGE A 
                   FIREARM, IN A SCHOOL ZONE.

       Section 922(q) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)(B)--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (vi); and
       (B) by redesignating clause (vii) as clause (ix) and 
     inserting after clause (vi) the following:
       ``(vii) by an off-duty law enforcement officer who is a 
     qualified law enforcement officer (as defined in section 
     926B) and is authorized under such section to carry a 
     concealed firearm, if the firearm is concealed;
       ``(viii) by a qualified retired law enforcement officer (as 
     defined in section 926C) who is authorized under such section 
     to carry a concealed firearm, if the firearm is concealed; 
     or''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3)(B)--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (iii);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of clause (iv) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(v) by an off-duty law enforcement officer who is a 
     qualified law enforcement officer (as defined in section 
     926B) and is authorized under such section to carry a 
     concealed firearm; or
       ``(vi) by a qualified retired law enforcement officer (as 
     defined in section 926C) who is authorized under such section 
     to carry a concealed firearm.''.

     SEC. 104. INTERSTATE CARRYING OF FIREARMS BY FEDERAL JUDGES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States 
     Code, as amended by section 101(a) of this Act, is amended by 
     inserting after section 926D the following:

     ``Sec. 926E. Interstate carrying of firearms by Federal 
       judges

       ``Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or 
     political subdivision thereof, a Federal judge may carry a 
     concealed firearm in any State if such judge is not 
     prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such 
     chapter, as amended by section 101(b) of this Act, is amended 
     by inserting after the item relating to section 926D the 
     following:

``926E. Interstate carrying of firearms by Federal judges.''.

                         TITLE II--FIX NICS ACT

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Fix NICS Act of 2017''.

     SEC. 202. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND 
                   AGENCIES.

       Section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act 
     (34 U.S.C. 40901) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (e)(1), by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(F) Semiannual certification and reporting.--
       ``(i) In general.--The head of each Federal department or 
     agency shall submit a semiannual written certification to the 
     Attorney General indicating whether the department or agency 
     is in compliance with the record submission requirements 
     under subparagraph (C).
       ``(ii) Submission dates.--The head of a Federal department 
     or agency shall submit a certification to the Attorney 
     General under clause (i)--

       ``(I) not later than July 31 of each year, which shall 
     address all relevant records, including those that have not 
     been transmitted to the Attorney General, in possession of 
     the department or agency during the period beginning on 
     January 1 of the year and ending on June 30 of the year; and
       ``(II) not later than January 31 of each year, which shall 
     address all relevant records, including those that have not 
     been transmitted to the Attorney General, in possession of 
     the department or agency during the period beginning on July 
     1 of the previous year and ending on December 31 of the 
     previous year.

       ``(iii) Contents.--A certification required under clause 
     (i) shall state, for the applicable period--

       ``(I) the total number of records of the Federal department 
     or agency demonstrating that a person falls within one of the 
     categories described in subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 
     of title 18, United States Code;
       ``(II) for each category of records described in subclause 
     (I), the total number of records of the Federal department or 
     agency that have been provided to the Attorney General; and
       ``(III) the efforts of the Federal department or agency to 
     ensure complete and accurate reporting of relevant records, 
     including efforts to monitor compliance and correct any 
     reporting failures or inaccuracies.

       ``(G) Implementation plan.--
       ``(i) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this subparagraph, the head of each Federal 
     department or agency, in coordination with the Attorney 
     General, shall establish a plan to ensure maximum 
     coordination and automated reporting or making available of 
     records to the Attorney General as required under 
     subparagraph (C), and the verification of the accuracy of 
     those records, including the pre-validation of those records, 
     where appropriate, during a 4-year period specified in the 
     plan. The head of each Federal department or agency shall 
     update the plan biennially, to the extent necessary, based on 
     the most recent biennial assessment under subparagraph (K). 
     The records shall be limited to those of an individual 
     described in subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 
     18, United States Code.
       ``(ii) Benchmark requirements.--Each plan established under 
     clause (i) shall include annual benchmarks to enable the 
     Attorney General to assess implementation of the plan, 
     including--

       ``(I) qualitative goals and quantitative measures;
       ``(II) measures to monitor internal compliance, including 
     any reporting failures and inaccuracies;
       ``(III) a needs assessment, including estimated compliance 
     costs; and
       ``(IV) an estimated date by which the Federal department or 
     agency will fully comply with record submission requirements 
     under subparagraph (C).

       ``(iii) Compliance determination.--Not later than the end 
     of each fiscal year beginning after the date of the 
     establishment of a plan under clause (i), the Attorney 
     General shall determine whether the applicable Federal 
     department or agency has achieved substantial compliance with 
     the benchmarks included in the plan.
       ``(H) Accountability.--The Attorney General shall publish, 
     including on the website of the Department of Justice, and 
     submit to the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on the 
     Judiciary and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives a semiannual report that discloses--
       ``(i) the name of each Federal department or agency that 
     has failed to submit a required certification under 
     subparagraph (F);
       ``(ii) the name of each Federal department or agency that 
     has submitted a required certification under subparagraph 
     (F), but failed to certify compliance with the record 
     submission requirements under subparagraph (C);
       ``(iii) the name of each Federal department or agency that 
     has failed to submit an implementation plan under 
     subparagraph (G);
       ``(iv) the name of each Federal department or agency that 
     is not in substantial compliance with an implementation plan 
     under subparagraph (G);
       ``(v) a detailed summary of the data, broken down by 
     department or agency, contained in the certifications 
     submitted under subparagraph (F);

[[Page H9687]]

       ``(vi) a detailed summary of the contents and status, 
     broken down by department or agency, of the implementation 
     plans established under subparagraph (G); and
       ``(vii) the reasons for which the Attorney General has 
     determined that a Federal department or agency is not in 
     substantial compliance with an implementation plan 
     established under subparagraph (G).
       ``(I) Noncompliance penalties.--For each of fiscal years 
     2019 through 2022, each political appointee of a Federal 
     department or agency that has failed to certify compliance 
     with the record submission requirements under subparagraph 
     (C), and is not in substantial compliance with an 
     implementation plan established under subparagraph (G), shall 
     not be eligible for the receipt of bonus pay, excluding 
     overtime pay, until the department or agency--
       ``(i) certifies compliance with the record submission 
     requirements under subparagraph (C); or
       ``(ii) achieves substantial compliance with an 
     implementation plan established under subparagraph (G).
       ``(J) Technical assistance.--The Attorney General may use 
     funds made available for the national instant criminal 
     background check system established under subsection (b) to 
     provide technical assistance to a Federal department or 
     agency, at the request of the department or agency, in order 
     to help the department or agency comply with the record 
     submission requirements under subparagraph (C).
       ``(K) Biennial assessment.--Every 2 years, the Attorney 
     General shall assess the extent to which the actions taken 
     under the title II of the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 
     2017 have resulted in improvements in the system established 
     under this section.
       ``(L) Application to federal courts.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph--
       ``(i) the terms `department or agency of the United States' 
     and `Federal department or agency' include a Federal court; 
     and
       ``(ii) the Director of the Administrative Office of the 
     United States Courts shall perform, for a Federal court, the 
     functions assigned to the head of a department or agency.''; 
     and
       (2) in subsection (g), by adding at the end the following: 
     ``For purposes of the preceding sentence, not later than 60 
     days after the date on which the Attorney General receives 
     such information, the Attorney General shall determine 
     whether or not the prospective transferee is the subject of 
     an erroneous record and remove any records that are 
     determined to be erroneous. In addition to any funds made 
     available under subsection (k), the Attorney General may use 
     such sums as are necessary and otherwise available for the 
     salaries and expenses of the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
     to comply with this subsection.''.

     SEC. 203. NICS ACT RECORD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

       (a) Requirements to Obtain Waiver.--Section 102 of the NICS 
     Improvement Amendments Act of 2007(34 U.S.C. 40912) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), in the first sentence--
       (A) by striking ``the Crime Identification Technology Act 
     of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 14601)'' and inserting ``section 102 of 
     the Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998 (34 U.S.C. 
     40301)''; and
       (B) by inserting ``is in compliance with an implementation 
     plan established under subsection (b) or'' before ``provides 
     at least 90 percent of the information described in 
     subsection (c)''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(1)(B), by inserting ``or has 
     established an implementation plan under section 107'' after 
     ``the Attorney General''.
       (b) Implementation Assistance to States.--Section 103 of 
     the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (34 U.S.C. 40913) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(3), by inserting before the semicolon 
     at the end the following: ``, including through increased 
     efforts to pre-validate the contents of those records to 
     expedite eligibility determinations'';
       (2) in subsection (e), by striking paragraph (2) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(2) Domestic abuse and violence prevention initiative.--
       ``(A) Establishment.--For each of fiscal years 2018 through 
     2022, the Attorney General shall create a priority area under 
     the NICS Act Record Improvement Program (commonly known as 
     `NARIP') for a Domestic Abuse and Violence Prevention 
     Initiative that emphasizes the need for grantees to identify 
     and upload all felony conviction records and domestic 
     violence records.
       ``(B) Funding.--The Attorney General--
       ``(i) may use not more than 50 percent of the amounts made 
     available under section 207 of the Concealed Carry 
     Reciprocity Act of 2017 for each of fiscal years 2018 through 
     2022 to carry out the initiative described in subparagraph 
     (A); and
       ``(ii) shall give a funding preference under NARIP to 
     States that--

       ``(I) have established an implementation plan under section 
     107; and
       ``(II) will use amounts made available under this 
     subparagraph to improve efforts to identify and upload all 
     felony conviction records and domestic violence records 
     described in clauses (i), (v), and (vi) of section 
     102(b)(1)(C) by not later than September 30, 2022.''; and

       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Technical Assistance.--The Attorney General shall 
     direct the Office of Justice Programs, the Bureau of Alcohol, 
     Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, and the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation to--
       ``(1) assist States that are not currently eligible for 
     grants under this section to achieve compliance with all 
     eligibility requirements; and
       ``(2) provide technical assistance and training services to 
     grantees under this section.''.

     SEC. 204. NATIONAL CRIMINAL HISTORY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

       (a) State Grant Program for Criminal Justice 
     Identification, Information, and Communication.--Section 102 
     of the Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998 (34 U.S.C. 
     40301) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(3)--
       (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) as 
     subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
       ``(C) identification of all individuals who have been 
     convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term 
     exceeding 1 year'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(6)--
       (A) by striking ``(18 U.S.C. 922 note)'' and inserting 
     ``(34 U.S.C. 40901(b))''; and
       (B) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the 
     following: ``, including through increased efforts to pre-
     validate the contents of felony conviction records and 
     domestic violence records to expedite eligibility 
     determinations, and measures and resources necessary to 
     establish and achieve compliance with an implementation plan 
     under section 107 of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 
     2007''; and
       (3) in subsection (d), by inserting after ``unless'' the 
     following: ``the State has achieved compliance with an 
     implementation plan under section 107 of the NICS Improvement 
     Amendments Act of 2007 or''.
       (b) Grants for the Improvement of Criminal Records.--
     Section 106(b)(1) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention 
     Act (34 U.S.C. 40302(1)) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)--
       (A) by striking ``as of the date of enactment of this Act'' 
     and inserting ``, as of the date of enactment of the 
     Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017,''; and
       (B) by striking ``files,'' and inserting the following: 
     ``files and that will utilize funding under this subsection 
     to prioritize the identification and transmittal of felony 
     conviction records and domestic violence records,'';
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (3) in subparagraph (C)--
       (A) by striking ``upon establishment of the national 
     system,''; and
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     and''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following--
       ``(D) to establish and achieve compliance with an 
     implementation plan under section 107 of the NICS Improvement 
     Amendments Act of 2007.''.

     SEC. 205. IMPROVING INFORMATION SHARING WITH THE STATES.

       (a) In General.--Title I of the NICS Improvement Amendments 
     Act of 2007 (34 U.S. 40911 et seq.) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

     ``SEC. 107. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.

       ``(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, the 
     Attorney General, in coordination with the States and Indian 
     tribal governments, shall establish, for each State or Indian 
     tribal government, a plan to ensure maximum coordination and 
     automation of the reporting or making available of 
     appropriate records to the National Instant Criminal 
     Background Check System established under section 103 of the 
     Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (34 U.S.C. 40901) and 
     the verification of the accuracy of those records during a 4-
     year period specified in the plan, and shall update the plan 
     biennially, to the extent necessary, based on the most recent 
     biennial assessment under subsection (f). The records shall 
     be limited to those of an individual described in subsection 
     (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code
       ``(b) Benchmark Requirements.--Each plan established under 
     this section shall include annual benchmarks to enable the 
     Attorney General to assess the implementation of the plan, 
     including--
       ``(1) qualitative goals and quantitative measures; and
       ``(2) a needs assessment, including estimated compliance 
     costs.
       ``(c) Compliance Determination.--Not later than the end of 
     each fiscal year beginning after the date of the 
     establishment of an implementation plan under this section, 
     the Attorney General shall determine whether each State or 
     Indian tribal government has achieved substantial compliance 
     with the benchmarks included in the plan.
       ``(d) Accountability.--The Attorney General--
       ``(1) shall disclose and publish, including on the website 
     of the Department of Justice--
       ``(A) the name of each State or Indian tribal government 
     that received a determination of failure to achieve 
     substantial compliance with an implementation plan under 
     subsection (c) for the preceding fiscal year; and
       ``(B) a description of the reasons for which the Attorney 
     General has determined that the State or Indian tribal 
     government is not in substantial compliance with the 
     implementation plan, including, to the greatest extent 
     possible, a description of the types and amounts of records 
     that have not been submitted; and
       ``(2) if a State or Indian tribal government described in 
     paragraph (1) subsequently receives a determination of 
     substantial compliance, shall--
       ``(A) immediately correct the applicable record; and
       ``(B) not later than 3 days after the determination, remove 
     the record from the website of the Department of Justice and 
     any other location where the record was published.
       ``(e) Incentives.--For each of fiscal years 2018 through 
     2022, the Attorney General shall give affirmative preference 
     to all Bureau of Justice Assistance discretionary grant 
     applications of a State or Indian tribal government that 
     received

[[Page H9688]]

     a determination of substantial compliance under subsection 
     (c) for the fiscal year in which the grant was solicited.
       ``(f) Biennial Assessment.--Every 2 years, the Attorney 
     General shall assess the extent to which the actions taken 
     under title II of the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 
     have resulted in improvements in the National Instant 
     Criminal Background Check System established under section 
     103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (34 U.S.C. 
     40903).

     ``SEC. 108. NOTIFICATION TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES OF 
                   PROHIBITED PURCHASE OF A FIREARM.

       ``(a) In General.--In the case of a background check 
     conducted by the National Instant Criminal Background Check 
     System pursuant to the request of a licensed importer, 
     licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer of firearms (as 
     such terms are defined in section 921 of title 18, United 
     States Code), which background check determines that the 
     receipt of a firearm by a person would violate subsection (g) 
     or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, and 
     such determination is made after 3 business days have elapsed 
     since the licensee contacted the System and a firearm has 
     been transferred to that person, the System shall notify the 
     law enforcement agencies described in subsection (b).
       ``(b) Law Enforcement Agencies Described.--The law 
     enforcement agencies described in this subsection are the law 
     enforcement agencies that have jurisdiction over the location 
     from which the licensee contacted the system and the law 
     enforcement agencies that have jurisdiction over the location 
     of the residence of the person for which the background check 
     was conducted, as follows:
       ``(1) The field office of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation.
       ``(2) The local law enforcement agency.
       ``(3) The State law enforcement agency.''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (Public 
     Law 110-180; 121 Stat. 2559) is amended by inserting after 
     the item relating to section 106 the following:

``Sec. 107. Implementation plan.
``Sec. 108. Notification to law enforcement agencies of prohibited 
              purchase of a firearm.''.

     SEC. 206. ATTORNEY GENERAL REPORT ON USE OF BUMP STOCKS IN 
                   CRIME.

       (a) In General.--Using amounts made available for research, 
     evaluation, or statistical purposes, within 180 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General 
     shall prepare and submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committee on the 
     Judiciary of the Senate a written report that--
       (1) specifies the number of instances in which a bump stock 
     has been used in the commission of a crime in the United 
     States;
       (2) specifies the types of firearms with which a bump stock 
     has been so used; and
       (3) contains the opinion of the Attorney General as to 
     whether subparagraphs (B)(i) and (C)(i) of section 924(c)(1) 
     of title 18, United States Code, apply to all instances in 
     which a bump stock has been used in the commission of a crime 
     of violence in the United States.
       (b) Definition of Bump Stock.--In this section, the term 
     ``bump stock'' means a device that--
       (1) attaches to a semiautomatic rifle (as defined in 
     section 921(a)(28) of title 18, United States Code);
       (2) is designed and intended to repeatedly activate the 
     trigger without the deliberate and volitional act of the user 
     pulling the trigger each time the firearm is fired; and
       (3) functions by continuous forward pressure applied to the 
     rifle's fore end in conjunction with a linear forward and 
     backward sliding motion of the mechanism utilizing the recoil 
     energy when the rifle is discharged.

     SEC. 207. AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2018 through 2022 to 
     carry out, in accordance with the NICS Act Record Improvement 
     Program and the National Criminal History Improvement 
     Program, the activities under--
       (1) section 102 of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 
     2007;
       (2) section 103 of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 
     2007;
       (3) section 102 of the Crime Identification Technology Act 
     of 1998; and
       (4) section 106(b) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention 
     Act.
       (b) Additional Authorizations.--Section 1001(a) of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 
     10261(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``$33,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$31,000,000'';
       (B) by striking ``1994 and 1995'' and inserting ``2018 
     through 2022''; and
       (C) by inserting ``, in addition to any amounts otherwise 
     made available for research, evaluation or statistical 
     purposes in a fiscal year'' before the period; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``$33,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$27,000,000'';
       (B) by striking ``1994 and 1995'' and inserting ``2018 
     through 2022''; and
       (C) by inserting ``, in addition to any amounts otherwise 
     made available for research, evaluation or statistical 
     purposes in a fiscal year'' before the period.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 38.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry 
Reciprocity Act of 2017.
  Mr. Speaker, throughout my career in elected office, I have believed 
in and adhered to two fundamental principles regarding firearms policy: 
first, the right guaranteed to law-abiding Americans by the Second 
Amendment must be aggressively protected and preserved; second, the 
laws we have on the books need to be enforced to the fullest extent 
possible. The bipartisan bill before us today does both.
  H.R. 38 ensures that law-abiding citizens' Second Amendment right 
does not end when they cross State lines. The bill allows law-abiding 
gun owners with valid State-issued concealed carry firearm permits or 
those who live in so-called constitutional carry States to carry a 
concealed firearm in any other State that also allows concealed carry.
  We know that citizens who carry a concealed firearm are not only 
better prepared to act in their own self-defense, but also in the 
defense of others. Take, for instance, an incident that occurred just 
last November on a highway in Florida. Lee County Sheriff's Deputy Dean 
Bardes had just concluded a high-speed chase just off Interstate 75. As 
Deputy Bardes approached to apprehend the suspect, the suspect, Edward 
Strother, violently attacked Deputy Bardes.
  A witness on the scene told reporters that the attacker ``just 
started punching him and hitting and hitting and hitting. I was afraid 
for the police officer. I thought he was going to kill him.''
  Fortunately for Deputy Bardes, Ashad Russell, a Florida concealed 
carry permit holder, was also watching the attack unfold. Mr. Russell 
pulled his gun and approached the altercation. He told Strother he 
would shoot him if he didn't stop beating the deputy. The State 
Attorney's Office said Strother ignored Russell's commands to stop 
beating the deputy, so Russell fired his gun three times, hitting and 
fatally wounding the assailant. Lee County Sheriff Mike Scott has 
hailed Russell as a hero.
  Importantly, this bill also contains the Fix NICS Act of 2017. This 
is a bipartisan and bicameral measure. The Fix NICS Act takes steps to 
ensure that State and Federal agencies enter all relevant records into 
the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System. This bill 
will help ensure people who are legally prohibited from having guns, 
like those with violent felony convictions, do not obtain them.
  The shooting at Virginia Tech and the church shootings in Charleston, 
South Carolina, and Sutherland Springs, Texas, are tragic reminders of 
what 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 will ensure that more of the information 
already required to be uploaded to NICS under current law is actually 
placed in the NICS system.
  Taken together, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act and the Fix NICS 
Act preserve and protect the right guaranteed to us by the Second 
Amendment and ensure that those prohibited by existing law from 
receiving a firearm are prevented from doing so.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
legislation.
  I want to thank the lead sponsor, Mr. Hudson of North Carolina, for 
his hard work on this bill. I would also like to thank the authors of 
the Fix NICS provisions, Mr. Culberson and Mr. Cuellar, for their 
important contributions to the legislation before us today.

[[Page H9689]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Concealed Carry 
Reciprocity Act. This bill would not protect us from gun violence, but 
it would make us far less safe.
  Under current law, each State makes its own determination about who 
may carry a concealed firearm in public, including deciding which other 
States' concealed carry permits to recognize. This bill would 
eviscerate the core public safety determinations that each State makes 
concerning the concealed carrying of guns in public based on the unique 
circumstances of each State and the desires of its citizens. In fact, 
the standards and requirements adopted in the States vary dramatically:
  Thirty-one States and D.C. require gun safety training to carry 
concealed guns in public, and 21 of those States require live-fire 
training; 27 States and the District of Columbia prohibit individuals 
convicted of misdemeanor crimes of violence from concealed carry; 28 
States and D.C. prohibit convicted stalkers from carrying concealed 
guns; 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 against abusive spouses.
  All of these States would have their carefully considered laws 
governing concealed carry overridden by this bill.
  The obvious solution to the varying State laws is 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 permits issued by any other 
State. Most States, however, have chosen to recognize permits from at 
least some other States, basing the choice on the strength and 
standards employed by the other States.

                              {time}  1445

  We should not disregard these determinations, which is what this bill 
would do. Instead, this bill would say that every State must honor the 
concealed carry permit of every other State. About 10 States don't have 
any requirements and issue a concealed carry permit upon request to 
anyone.
  What this bill would do, in effect, is to say that if New York or 
Illinois have strict requirements for concealed carry, if someone comes 
in from a State that doesn't, they have to let that person have 
concealed carry in their State. In effect, it uses the power of the 
Federal Government to import the laws of one State and make them 
enforceable in the other State.
  In addition, I am deeply disappointed that the version of this bill 
before us today includes the bipartisan Fix NICS Act, a measure that 
should be enacted as a stand-alone bill without delay, and that was 
reported as a separate bill by the Judiciary Committee.
  That bill would take steps to address shortcomings with the National 
Instant Criminal Background Check System, or what we often call the 
NICS.
  As the recent mass shooting at the church in Sutherland Springs, 
Texas, illustrates, we must do more to ensure all relevant prohibiting 
records are submitted to the databases that comprise the NICS. No one 
should pass a firearm 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 is broad bipartisan support for the Fix NICS bill here in the 
House and in the Senate. That proposal, which would actually save 
lives, should not be tethered to the forced concealed carry reciprocity 
provisions of this bill, which would only serve to endanger our 
citizens.
  The answer to our national problem of gun violence is not that we 
need more people carrying concealed firearms on our streets. More than 
33,000 Americans lose their lives to gun violence every year, while, in 
some other countries, this figure barely exceeds 100. In 2011, the 
United Kingdom had 146 deaths due to gun violence; Denmark, 71; 
Portugal, 142; Japan, just 30; the United States, over 30,000.
  A study in The American Journal of Medicine found that, compared to 
22 other high-income countries, the gun-related murder rate in the 
United States is 25 times higher. The common factor in all of these 
other countries is the lack of such easy availability of guns. Our 
country, however, is awash in guns, and we have the shameful death toll 
to show for it. Sadly, this bill will only increase it.
  We must change our approach to gun violence and adopt meaningful 
legislation that strengthens our gun laws instead of weakening them; 
and we must not undermine the efforts of States to defend their 
citizens against these arms.
  Unfortunately, the dangers posed by the concealed carry reciprocity 
portion of this bill greatly outweigh the benefits of the NICS 
improvements; therefore, I oppose H.R. 38, and urge my colleagues to 
reject it today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Hudson), the lead sponsor of the legislation.
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you a story. It is a story about 
an African-American single mother, two kids, living in south Philly. 
After twice being the victim of muggings, she decides to go out and 
legally purchase a firearm to protect herself, gets trained with her 
weapon, and applies for a concealed carry permit.
  Sometime thereafter, she crossed the State line into New Jersey and, 
at a routine traffic stop, did exactly as she was trained; handed her 
driver's license and her concealed carry permit to the police officer 
and let him know that she had a pistol in her purse.
  What she didn't know is that the State of New Jersey doesn't 
recognize the concealed carry permits of their neighbor in 
Pennsylvania. And so this poor single mother, who has never had a brush 
with the law, spent almost 50 days in jail and was looking at 10 years 
in prison.
  Are you serious? We have to make sure that never happens again.
  The other side today is going to argue that we are violating States' 
rights with this legislation; but Article IV, section 1, the full faith 
and credit clause of the Constitution, says very clearly that every 
State should give the full faith and credit to the judicial proceedings 
and documents of every other State, and that Congress has a 
responsibility to determine how those documents will be recognized.
  That is why a driver's license is recognized in every State. That is 
why, if I get married in North Carolina but I move to Arizona, I am not 
a single man again. They recognize that marriage. That is why divorce 
decrees are recognized in every State. The concealed carry permit 
should be recognized the same way.
  But this is not trampling States' rights, because States can still 
determine what can be carried, where it can be carried. They can set 
any kind of limits they want about how weapons are carried in their 
municipalities or their States.
  For example, if you visit the State of New York, they have a limit on 
the size of a magazine on a pistol. You have got to follow that law. If 
they want to set restrictions about places where you can't carry, even 
with this legislation, that law would have to be followed. The States 
retain this right, just like a driver's license.
  The other side is also going to stand up and claim all kinds of 
doomsday scenarios about how we are going to increase crime; we are 
going to increase the number of weapons out there; we are going to turn 
the cities into the Wild West.
  I find it ironic that we are being lectured to by people from big 
cities with a lot of gun control measures but have some of the worst 
crime in the Nation. They are worried about people coming from other 
places where we don't have crime. I think that is ironic.

  But the truth is, over half the States already recognize permits from 
every other State; 19 States, in fact, already do this. States and 
municipalities, as I mentioned, retain the right to restrict where guns 
are carried in their communities, even under this legislation.
  And if you look at the empirical evidence, places where you have 
concealed carry, even constitutional carry, when you instituted this 
right, violent crime went down. Gun crime went down. You have seen less 
crime, not more crime.

[[Page H9690]]

  There was actually a study done in Florida and Texas, and it showed 
that off-duty police officers commit crimes more than concealed carry 
permit holders. Think about that. Police officers don't commit crimes 
very often, but even they commit crimes more than concealed carry 
permit holders. These are not the people we are worried about. These 
are not the violent criminals that we are worried about in our cities.
  This is a commonsense measure that upholds our constitutional right. 
It makes sure that a law-abiding citizen, trying to do the right thing, 
doesn't become a criminal simply because they cross that line.
  So for every freedom-loving American who exercises their Second 
Amendment right, today is your day. To the 73 percent of Americans who 
support concealed carry, today is your day. To the 15 million concealed 
carry permit holders out there, today is your day. And finally, to the 
single mothers out there who just want to protect themselves and their 
families, today is your day.
  I thank the chairman for his leadership on this. I ask my colleagues 
to join me in supporting this commonsense legislation.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the ranking member of the 
Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me say that the problems that my 
good friend just mentioned on the floor can be solved by real, sensible 
gun safety legislation. Unfortunately, H.R. 38 is not that, and it is 
not that because it has ignored the pleas of law enforcement, and it 
has ignored the rational addition of amendments that would save lives.
  H.R. 38 is dangerous, it is reckless, and it is secretly packaged as 
a fix to gun violence, but, instead, it is laced with lethal elements 
of catastrophic proportion.
  Then, in the midnight hour, it matches the NICS Fix, dealing with the 
background checks, with the concealed carry reciprocity. That is 
patently unfair, Mr. Speaker.
  Then it would not allow reasonable amendments, exposing victims of 
domestic violence, an amendment that I had, it will expose them, 
victims of domestic violence, to stalkers, and those who have been 
involved in domestic violence to gun violence or death.
  It will entice those who perpetrate hate crimes. It will add to the 
current alarming death rate. Unfortunately, where we could have fixed 
the NICS, it does not do that.
  556 women have been murdered this year alone by intimate partners 
with firearms. My amendment would have made this bill safer on the 
concealed carry bill. Didn't want to have it. Fourteen other sensible 
amendments were blocked.
  4.5 million American women alive today have been threatened by 
abusers.
  Hate crimes, those worshippers in Charleston, South Carolina, were 
killed by a person who came there with hate. My amendment dealing with 
not allowing someone convicted of a hate crime--even though they say 
that that is the Federal law, why not have it in this underlying bill 
where so many people are killed?
  Let me give you an example. Under the Brady Campaign, 114,994 
Americans are killed by guns. They include those in Las Vegas; they 
include those at the Pulse nightclub; in Charleston; those who marched 
in Charlottesville, with all the violence that they had; and of course, 
Sandy Hook. Seventeen thousand children are gunned down by guns.
  The laws of different States, 12 States, have an open carry law with 
no rules. That means that if you are in Washington, D.C., where heads 
of state and other dignitaries come, then recklessly someone can come 
on the streets.
  Do we even listen to police officers? The Major Chiefs Association 
has indicated that they are opposed to H.R. 38 because it will require 
those making legitimate legal stops as law enforcement officers, 
seeking to come home to their families, being subjected to individuals 
whose documents they may not know are credible, or whether they are 
fraudulent or whether, in fact, these individuals legitimately should 
have a gun.
  I can't understand why this is not understood. So let me just say 
that it is usually understood that we respect the constitutionality of 
States. This is a bad bill. It ignores sovereignty, and we should vote 
it down because too many people are murdered by guns without safety 
regulations.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 38, the ``Concealed to 
Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017''.
  I oppose the bill for the following reasons:
  H.R. 38 is dangerous, reckless and secretly packaged as a fix to gun 
violence, but instead, is laced with lethal elements of catastrophic 
proportion.
  It will expose victims of domestic violence or stalking to gun 
violence or death.
  It will entice those who perpetrate hate crimes.
  It will add to the current alarming death rate.
  The majority has elected to combine this dangerous measure with a 
more sensible and bipartisan measure, the Fix NICS Act, which we all 
supported as a stand-alone bill at markup.
  This trickery tactic is both disappointing and deadly, of which, 
neither approach is welcome, for this reckless effort will negate any 
protections offered by the Fix NICS Act.
  My Amendments would have remedied these glaring defects in H.R. 38, 
which is a recipe for disaster because it authorizes anyone who is 
allowed by one state to carry a concealed handgun to do so in any other 
state, even if other states have higher standards than the state where 
permit was granted.
  This bill would endanger many more lives when dealing with domestic 
partners by exposing victims to gun violence.
  Approximately, 556 women have been murdered this year alone by 
intimate partners with firearms, as statistics show that guns are the 
weapon of choice for domestic violence homicides.
  My domestic violence amendment is an important public safety measure. 
Had it been made in order, it would have provided that States not be 
required to allow an individual to carry where such person is convicted 
of an offense of domestic violence or stalking as defined under the 
law.
  Despite this sensible measure, my amendments along with 14 other 
germane democratic amendments were all blocked by the majority.
  A 2016 meta-analysis found that approximately 4.5 million American 
women alive today have been threatened by abusers with firearms; of 
those, one million had either been shot or shot at by their abusers.
  Stalking is also a strong indicator of lethality, with one study of 
female murder victims in ten cities finding that 76% of women who were 
murdered by an intimate partner were stalked the previous year.
  My second amendment would have prohibited any person convicted of a 
hate crime, as defined under section 249 of title 18 United States 
Code, or any substantially similar offense under the law of any State, 
from carrying under this bill.
  We all remember the vicious church shooting in Charleston, South 
Carolina where a white supremacist opened fire in a historic black 
church, killing nine people, including a pastor, during a prayer 
meeting.

  Again, recently, in Charlottesville, VA, white nationalists invoked 
violence during a march by plowing a car into a group of anti-
protesters, killing 32 year old Heather Heyer of Charlottesville.
  This event prompted Attorney General Sessions to call the fatal 
attack ``domestic terrorism'' and said you can be sure we will charge 
and advance the investigation toward the most serious of charges that 
can be brought.
  Imagine if this killer from Ohio was allowed to cross state lines 
freely at that time under this bill with a gun; the additional loss of 
life on that day could have been catastrophic.
  New analysis of National Crime Victimization Survey data by the 
Center for American Progress reveals that between 2010 and 2014, 
roughly 43,000 hate crimes were committed in the United States that 
involved the use or threat of a gun.
  Under federal law and the law in most states, individuals who have 
been convicted of hate crimes remain free to buy and possess guns. And 
now, under this bill, they can take their guns with them to inflict 
mayhem beyond their home states.
  Hate-motivated individuals such as violent extremists and hate 
criminals often use guns as a tool to terrorize, threaten and 
intimidate members of historically vulnerable or marginalized 
communities. My amendment therefore, was a sensible and practical 
measure.
  Mass shootings and carnage-filled classrooms, churches, workplace, 
concerts and clubs should not be the new normal because Congress can 
and should do better.
  Every day on average, 315 people are shot, of which 93 die from gun 
violence, daily. And of the 315 shot, 46 are children and teens between 
the age of 0-19 and at least 7 of our children die daily from gun 
violence.

[[Page H9691]]

  Every year on average, 114,994 people are shot, of which 33,880 
people die from gun violence and of those shot, 17,012 of those victims 
are children and teens. Therefore, we lose at least 2,647 of our 
children a year to senseless gun violence.
  These numbers are alarming and we should be devoting our efforts to 
saving lives, not opening up the flood gate to more carnage by snuffing 
innocent lives in passing H.R. 38.
  This bill will amplify tragedies such as Sandy Hook Elementary, 
Charleston, SC, Florida's Pulse night club, San Bernardino, Las Vegas 
bump stocks killings, Texas recent church massacre, and the countless 
lives lost on our streets across this country daily.
  Although the NRA argues that the United States is a dangerous place 
and that owning and carrying a gun is the only way to protect oneself 
and one's family, there are over 30,000 dead.
  Removing safeguards intended to protect the public against potential 
harm or deadly force by private individuals jeopardizes universally 
recognized human rights--including the right to life.
  H.R. 38 prohibits Congress' ability to address gun violence in a 
constructive and realistic manner? Adding more guns to our streets and 
loosening existing laws is extremely dangerous and counterproductive to 
ensuring public safety.
  Disguising the danger in this bill, by wrapping it in the cloth of 
H.R. 4477, a more sensible measure, does not negate the toxicity level 
of H.R. 38.
  In response to the TX recent church shooting, my amendment 
strengthened H.R. 4477 by requiring DoD to conduct a more comprehensive 
review of the procedures used by each branch of the Armed Forces to 
ensure that the Department is in substantial compliance with the DoD 
instruction 5505.11 entitled, ``Fingerprint Card and Final Disposition 
Report Submission Requirements'', dated December 1, 1998. But again, 
these amendments were blocked.
  Unlike H.R. 4477, the Fix NICS Act, a bipartisan measure and good 
first step, which aims to improve key elements in the submission of 
information by federal and state agencies to the National Instant 
Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and which I supported, H.R. 38 
as is and combined is lethal.
  For the reasons stated above, I oppose this Rule and the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds, and I include 
in the Record an article entitled, `` `Good Samaritan' Kills Active 
Shooter in Texas Sports Bar,'' in which a shooter with two guns and two 
knives entered a sports bar and was shot by an individual that the 
police labeled a Good Samaritan who happened to be eating at the 
restaurant with his wife. He was a concealed carry permit holder. He 
told his wife to get down on the ground, and then he shot the 
assailant.

                    [From nbcnews.com, May 4, 2017]

   `Good Samaritan' Kills Active Shooter in Texas Sports Bar: Police

                          (By Phil McCausland)

       A ``good Samaritan'' with a gun killed an active shooter 
     who may have been gearing up for a deadly rampage at a Texas 
     sports bar Wednesday night, police said.
       When 48-year-old James Jones walked inside the Zona 
     Caliente Sports Bar, started yelling and then allegedly shot 
     and killed Cesar Perez--a 37-year-old restaurant manager 
     who'd attempted to calm him down--Arlington police said 
     witnesses were afraid they would be next.
       In addition to the gun used to kill Perez, police say Jones 
     had another semiautomatic pistol and two knives on him. The 
     serial number on the second gun had been scratched off, and 
     Jones did not have a gun license, police said.
       ``He definitely had the capacity, if he wanted, to commit 
     further violence and potentially kill other patrons in the 
     business,'' Arlington Police Lieutenant Chris Cook told NBC 
     News, adding that it did not appear that the shooter knew his 
     victim.
       An armed ``good Samaritan''--as the Arlington Police 
     labeled him--happened to be eating at the restaurant with his 
     wife. A concealed carry permit holder, he told her to get 
     down on the ground and then shot Jones in the back.
       ``I don't think the shooter even knew where the rounds were 
     coming from because he started shooting at the front door,'' 
     Cook said, who described the scene as ``chaotic.''
       Police reviewed video surveillance and pieced together the 
     incident via witness interviews, but it remains unclear how 
     many shots were fired by either individual. Police were 
     looking into Jones' background to see whether he suffered 
     from any mental illnesses and were awaiting test results to 
     find out if he was under the influence.
       The man who took down Jones wished to maintain his 
     anonymity, police said, noting that he felt overwhelmed but 
     relieved that he prevented further violence.
       ``We're thankful that the good `Samaritan' acted quickly 
     and decisively to end the threat,'' Cook said. ``We never 
     recommend people get involved. That's a personal decision 
     that a citizen has to make.''
       Use of force and firearms expert Emanuel Kapelsohn told NBC 
     News that, from his understanding, the man who took down the 
     shooter reacted appropriately.
       ``I think it's to be applauded,'' he said. ``Not everybody 
     in the world ought to own a gun. Not everybody in the world 
     ought to carry a gun. Not everyone in the world ought to 
     engage an armed criminal where innocent people could be 
     potentially injured.''
       ``But this good Samaritan obviously had the ability to do 
     what he did,'' Kapelsohn added. ``Who knows how many people 
     would be dead if he had not acted?''

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Crime, Terrorism, 
Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee of the House 
Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that H.R. 38, as 
amended, includes the Fix NICS Act. I have long supported the National 
Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS.
  NICS is about saving lives and protecting people from harm by 
preventing guns from falling into the wrong hands. It does this without 
interfering in the timely transfer of firearms to eligible gun buyers.
  I was the original cosponsor of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention 
Act of 1993 and worked diligently for its passage. I strongly supported 
this bill because it makes sense to prevent convicted felons and 
individuals judged to be mentally ill from obtaining guns.
  At the time of negotiations, I insisted on the inclusion of the NICS 
program. Under this system, firearms dealers use the FBI's NICS system 
to cross-reference with a list of known convicted felons, drug users, 
illegal aliens, and those convicted of domestic violence.
  As I have stated many times, the NICS system is only as good as the 
records that are put into it. Too often, people who otherwise would not 
pass a background check can slip through the cracks and buy guns.
  After the recent shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas, the U.S. Air 
Force disclosed that it had failed to report the gunman's history of 
domestic assault to the database, which should have prevented him from 
purchasing a firearm in the first place.
  This legislation will provide a much-needed push to speed 
implementation of the NICS system used in conducting instant background 
checks prior to gun purchases. At the Federal level, it would require 
Federal agency cooperation and provide relevant records to the Attorney 
General for inclusion into the NICS. It holds Federal agencies 
accountable if they fail to upload relevant records to the background 
check system through public reporting and prohibiting bonus pay for 
political appointees.
  At the State level, it will incentivize them to make sure that their 
reporting is up to date by giving Federal grant preferences to States 
which comply.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. This bill is not about expanding 
background checks. This is about ensuring that the existing law is 
working. There is strong bipartisan support for improving what has 
become the systemic problem of missing information in the database. 
Accurate reporting is essential to ensuring that the system works as 
intended.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee) for a unanimous consent request.
  (Ms. JACKSON Lee asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article by Mark Kelly 
entitled ``Good Guys With Guns Can Be Dangerous, Too. Don't Gut Conceal 
Carry Laws. Why is Congress about to Vote to Loosen Gun Laws Again;'' a 
letter from Major Cities Chiefs Association opposing H.R. 38; a letter 
from the chief of police from the City of Houston; and, finally, a 
report from the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic 
Violence.


[[Page H9692]]


  


`Good Guys With Guns' Can Be Dangerous, Too. Don't Gut Concealed Carry 
                                  Laws


        why is congress about to vote to loosen gun laws again?

                            (By Mark Kelly)

       That day in Tucson, amid a gun tragedy, one of the heroes 
     almost got shot.
       It was Saturday, Jan. 8, 2011, and a mentally ill young man 
     who'd gotten his hand on a gun opened fire on my wife, then-
     Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), and her constituents at an 
     event in a Safeway parking lot. He shot my wife in the head 
     at close range, injured 12 others and took the lives of six 
     people. One victim was a 9-year-old girl.
       After Gabby's would-be assassin dropped the full magazine 
     as he sought to reload his gun and continue his rampage, 
     people tackled him, kicked his gun away, subdued him as they 
     waited for law enforcement to arrive and brought an end to 
     the chaos. They were heroes.
       The chaos nearly continued, though. Because the man who 
     murdered those innocent people wasn't the only one there with 
     a loaded, concealed gun.
       Joe Zamudio was shopping at a drugstore nearby when he 
     heard the shots. Allowed to carry a concealed weapon under 
     Arizona law, Zamudio recognized the sound of gunfire and 
     rushed to the scene with his gun in his jacket pocket, his 
     hand on his weapon and ready to fire. But then Zamudio--a 
     good guy trying to do the right thing--almost shot another 
     good guy.
       As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. 
     Zamudio confronted him: ``Drop it, drop it!'' he yelled.
       But that man with a gun was a good guy, too. He was one of 
     the heroes who had wrestled the shooter to the ground. And he 
     was moments away from being shot for the wrong reason.
       To his credit, Zamudio held his fire--just barely. As he 
     recounted to reporters later, ``It was a matter of seconds. . 
     . . I was really lucky. . . . I've never been in the military 
     or had any professional training. I just reacted.''
       The situation that played out in the Safeway parking lot 
     that day shows the potential for tragedy and bloodshed when 
     untrained people carrying loaded guns react to a crisis. Even 
     with the best intentions, an armed person without the 
     extensive firearms training that is required to respond under 
     pressure in a crisis will risk making the situation worse, 
     not better.
       But this week, as we approach the seventh anniversary of 
     the tragedy in Tucson and the fifth anniversary of the 
     tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School--and after two of the 
     five deadliest mass shootings in modern history happened in 
     the last two months--Congress is working hard to pass one of 
     the big-ticket items on the National Rifle Association's 
     wishlist, a bill that weakens our gun laws and poses serious 
     threats to public safety.
       The House of Representatives is on the verge of voting to 
     allow people permitted to carry concealed weapons to carry 
     them into any other state regardless of what that state's law 
     on such guns is. That would make it harder for law 
     enforcement to do their job and allow all permit holders, 
     even if they don't have a single shred of training, to carry 
     loaded, hidden guns on every street in our country.
       Right now, each state has the right to determine the extent 
     to which it will recognize the concealed carry laws of other 
     states. Some states have strong laws, preventing dangerous 
     people like domestic abusers and convicted stalkers from 
     obtaining concealed carry permits and requiring training and 
     a thorough evaluation as part of the process. In other 
     states, concealed carry laws have much lower standards. The 
     12 states with the weakest laws, permitless carry states, do 
     not even require a permit. That means a resident of those 
     states may carry loaded, concealed guns in public spaces 
     without ever having passed a background check.
       The bill before Congress would allow people who have a 
     permit issued by any state--including permitless carry 
     states--to carry loaded, concealed handguns in any other 
     state that allows concealed carry, even though they might not 
     meet local public safety standards. This would mean an 18-
     year-old high school student from West Virginia could legally 
     carry a concealed firearm in New York City, where residents 
     must be 21 to even own a handgun.
       And what would it mean for law enforcement? Nothing good. 
     The bill would impose a threat of personal litigation on all 
     law enforcement officers by allowing anyone whose ability to 
     carry a concealed gun is mistakenly questioned by law 
     enforcement to personally sue the officer. This bill would 
     also effectively require them to be an expert on nationwide 
     gun laws as they work to determine if it's legal for someone 
     from out of state to be carrying a gun in whatever state they 
     might be visiting. Just as concerning, it will mean that more 
     law enforcement officers will have to confront more people 
     with guns. And think back to the tragedy in Tucson: When law 
     enforcement officers arrive at a crime scene where multiple 
     people are holding guns, how do they even know who the good 
     guy is?
       We need politicians to show courage and listen to the 
     American people, who want stronger laws to make them safer, 
     not giveaways to gun lobbyists that threaten the safety of 
     our communities. And that's exactly what this irresponsible 
     bill would do.
       As members of Congress consider this bill, they have to ask 
     themselves if they want to be remembered as voting to help 
     the Washington gun lobby instead of supporting law 
     enforcement and public safety. And they should know that 
     their constituents are watching their decision closely.
                                  ____



                              Major Cities Chiefs Association,

                                                 November 2, 2017.
     Hon. Paul Ryan, 
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan: On behalf of the Major Cities Chiefs, 
     representing the Nation's largest metropolitan law 
     enforcement agencies in the country, we are writing to voice 
     our strong opposition to the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act 
     of 2017, HR 38. Because we are responsible for public safety 
     in jurisdictions across the Nation, we recognize that this 
     legislation would be an enormous mistake.
       This measure is both impractical and contrary to the rights 
     of States. Moreover, it raises Constitutional questions about 
     the authority of Congress to direct State officers.
       Concealed weapon permit laws have been tailored to the 
     needs of regions and local communities over a period of many 
     years. An attempt by Congress to preempt these State laws 
     forces States to accept the lowest minimum standard for 
     concealed carry across the Nation, and creates a 
     contradiction between the standards required for State 
     residents and State visitors.
       The thousands of local permit formats would make 
     enforcement impossible, because police officers would not be 
     able to determine the validity of a permit issued in another 
     State or locality. It would be impossible for law enforcement 
     to distinguish true permit carriers from criminals and 
     illegal guns.
       We are confident that members of Congress will respect the 
     Constitutional sovereignty of the States and will not act 
     with disregard for the many reasonable and prudent laws 
     already in place across the Nation.
           Sincerely,
     J. Thomas Manger,
       Chief of Police, Montgomery County Police Department, 
     President.
                                  ____

                                                  City of Houston,


                                    Houston Police Department,

                                   Houston, TX, November 29, 2017.
     Hon. Chuck Grassley,
     Chairman,
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     Ranking Member, Committee of the Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate, Washington DC.
       Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: As the 
     Chief of Police in Houston, I see first-hand the bloodshed 
     and death toll from gun violence. Recent horrible events in 
     Texas and Nevada serve as grim reminders that we have not 
     done enough to prevent gun violence in America. While I am 
     sorry I cannot attend your planned hearing, I serve as the 
     First Vice President of Major Cities Chiefs and ask that you 
     also enter this letter into the record.
       The mass shooting in Texas is an ugly and tragic example of 
     the need to strengthen our system of background checks. 
     That's why I am supporting the measure introduced by Senator 
     Cornyn and I urge the Committee to move his bill forward. The 
     proposed legislation seeks to make current law work better by 
     strengthening procedures. But we should not stop there as 
     much more can be done to prevent the public from gun 
     violence. This measure alone does not go far enough to stop 
     what recently happened in Texas and the many, many senseless 
     mass shootings that preceded our own tragedy.
       Universal Background Check: The mass shooting in Texas 
     represents a renewed call for the Universal Background Check 
     that Congress has failed to adopt in the past. Much has been 
     said about how the Texas gunman would have been precluded 
     from the store purchase if the background system had worked 
     correctly. But what would have stopped him from buying the 
     same weapons at the next gun show? It's a disservice to the 
     public to conduct background checks only in some cases, but 
     not for all of them.
       ``Bump Stocks'': Another common-sense measure is a ban on 
     ``bump stocks'' and similar accessories that replicate fully 
     automatic weapons fire. Such features result in a number of 
     shots fired that causes the carnage we witnessed in Las 
     Vegas. Like other law enforcement officials, I have studied 
     the Las Vegas slaughter and concluded that there is no 
     reasonable sporting or hunting purpose served by deadly 
     devices that simulate military weapons capabilities. I was 
     seated next to the ATF Director at a recent meeting of Major 
     Cities Chiefs when he advised the Chiefs that new legislation 
     will be required.
       Concealed Weapons: Each State has carefully crafted its own 
     laws relating to concealed weapons. While Congress has 
     heretofore respected the Constitutional sovereignty of the 
     States, there is 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 
     impractical proposal for reciprocity. 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.
       Silencers: Legislation to deregulate silencers is ill-
     advised because it would further threaten public safety. 
     These devices were

[[Page H9693]]

     invented for killing and stealth. Once widespread, hunters 
     would be unable to hear nearby gunfire and thus be 
     endangered. Gunshot detection systems in urban areas would be 
     thwarted. Worst of all, the proposed legislation would permit 
     criminals to purchase and possess silencers without any 
     screening requirements. There is simply no legitimate 
     justification for a measure that would further endanger the 
     public.
       Our Duty to Protect: Like those of us who wear a badge, 
     members of Congress share our solemn duty to protect the 
     public. The recent tragedies in Texas and Nevada should be 
     recognized by Congress as cries for help from past and future 
     innocent victims of gun violence. Chiefs of Police and 
     Sheriffs join these victims in asking you to act now to 
     prevent more death and bloodshed. We turn to you for courage 
     and leadership to consider multiple steps and measures to 
     curb the ongoing threat of gun violence in America.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Art Acevedo,
     Chief of Police.
                                  ____

                                        National Task Force to End


                                   Sexual & Domestic Violence,

                                                 December 1, 2017.
       To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: As we 
     enter the winter holiday season, we grieve for the 
     approximately 556 women who will not celebrate with their 
     families--the 556 women who have been murdered this year by 
     intimate partners with firearms. As a country, we can and 
     must do more to prevent the daily mass shootings that plague 
     our nation, most of which are related to family violence.
       Accordingly, we, the member organizations of the National 
     Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence (NTF), 
     comprising national organizations working to end gender-based 
     violence and representing hundreds of member programs and 
     hundreds of thousands of advocates and survivors, write to 
     you today to oppose the package containing both the Concealed 
     Carry Reciprocity (CCR) Act of 2017, H.R. 38, and the Fix 
     NICS Act of 2017, H.R.4434.
       While the Fix NICS Act of 2017, H.R.4434, will protect 
     victims of domestic violence by ensuring domestic violence 
     records are properly and expeditiously submitted to the 
     National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), the 
     Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, H.R. 38, undermines the 
     safety of victims of domestic violence, dating violence and 
     stalking by destabilizing protections for victims of abuse 
     and allowing domestic violence offenders to follow their 
     victims across state lines with loaded, concealed firearms. 
     This combined measure is incredibly dangerous and will negate 
     any protections offered by the Fix NICS Act.
       Firearms are regularly used as tools of power and control. 
     A 2016 meta-analysis of existing literature found that 
     approximately 4.5 million American women alive today have 
     been threatened by abusers with firearms; of those, one 
     million had either been shot or shot at by their abusers. 
     Guns are also the weapon of choice for domestic violence 
     homicides. An abuser's mere access to a firearm increases the 
     risk of intimate partner homicide of women by five times. 
     Stalking is also a strong indicator of lethality, with one 
     study of female murder victims in ten cities finding that 76% 
     of women who were murdered by an intimate partner were 
     stalked the previous year. Lawmakers have enacted strong, 
     commonsense protections to prevent domestic violence 
     homicides in states and localities across the nation and such 
     protections must not be undermined by federally mandating 
     concealed carry reciprocity.
       States and Reciprocity Agreements: Currently, each state 
     determines who can legally carry concealed, loaded firearms 
     in public. Many states have enacted strong laws to protect 
     victims and survivors from gun-enabled abuse beyond the vital 
     but limited protection federal law provides. States enter 
     into reciprocity agreements at their own discretion. The 
     proposal before the Committee would take away this local 
     control by requiring every state to recognize every other 
     state's concealed weapons permits, thereby undermining 
     states' authority to make their own decisions as to what 
     measures will provide the best protection for their citizens.
       Victim Relocation: Often, victims of domestic violence, 
     dating violence and stalking relocate across state lines to 
     escape their abusers and seek refuge in states with stronger 
     firearms protections. H.R. 38 would require states with 
     strong protections for victims of abuse to accept the permits 
     of states with weaker protections and allow domestic violence 
     offenders to travel across state lines with loaded, concealed 
     firearms. Domestic violence offenders could shop around for 
     ``out of state'' permits, which are granted by ten states to 
     non-residents, even if they do not meet the requirements to 
     obtain a permit in their home state. Even if domestic abusers 
     are prohibited from possessing firearms from their state of 
     residence, they could easily obtain ``out of state'' permits 
     and cross state lines to threaten, harass and harm their 
     victims with firearms.
       Law Enforcement and Background Checks: The CCR Act assumes 
     that law enforcement need only look at an individual's out-
     of-state concealed carry license to verify their eligibility 
     to carry a firearm. Twelve states no longer require permits 
     to carry loaded, concealed firearms; individuals from those 
     states would not be able to produce a state-issued photo ID 
     license to prove their eligibility to carry a concealed 
     firearm, as required by the bills. The bill also assumes that 
     federal firearms prohibitors apply to all persons asserting 
     the right to concealed carry reciprocity. However, many 
     states do not run background checks when issuing concealed 
     permits, so law enforcement in the travel state is unable to 
     ascertain whether a federal or state prohibitor impairs the 
     traveler's concealed carry permit or firearm possession. Even 
     when a background check is required before a permit is 
     issued, prohibited abusers often erroneously pass background 
     checks, because the federal background check databases are 
     missing most records relating to federal and many states' 
     domestic violence prohibitors.
       The Fix NICS Act of 2017 (H.R.4434): This bipartisan, 
     bicameral bill reauthorizes NCHIP, requires all federal 
     agencies and states to design implementation plans to 
     increase submission of records into NICS, holds states and 
     federal agencies responsible if they do not meet the 
     benchmarks established in their implementation plans, and 
     creates a Domestic Abuse and Violence Prevention Initiative 
     to focus state efforts specifically on domestic violence 
     records. This bill is supported not only by the domestic 
     violence community but also such disparate entities as the 
     NRA, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and a number of 
     gun violence prevention organizations.
       Although gaps in reporting of records span a range of 
     firearms prohibitors, the gap in reporting of domestic 
     violence records is particularly notable. Approximately 
     700,000 protective orders reside in state databases that are 
     not in any federal database, and countless more protective 
     orders are issued at the local level but never entered into 
     state databases. Similarly, there are significant gaps in the 
     number of misdemeanor domestic violence convictions and the 
     records submitted to NICS. Poor record keeping often leads to 
     domestic abusers erroneously passing background checks or to 
     `default proceed', in which a background check cannot be 
     completed within seventy-two hours, and a sale is allowed to 
     proceed before the FBI has made a determination about the 
     potential buyer's ability to legally purchase or possess 
     firearms. In 2013 and 2014, a plurality (approximately 40%) 
     of cases referred by the FBI to the ATF for firearms 
     retrieval after a default proceed were related to a domestic 
     violence prohibitor. An unknown number of prohibited abusers 
     wrongly passed background checks altogether.
       Simply put, we cannot support any bill that puts the lives 
     of victims of domestic violence, dating violence, and 
     stalking at risk. Any bill that includes the Concealed Carry 
     Reciprocity Act, H.R.38, imperils the lives of victims, 
     survivors, their children, their families, their friends and 
     their communities. We continue to support The Fix NICS Act of 
     2017, H.R.4434, as a standalone bill because it saves lives. 
     On behalf of victims of domestic violence, dating violence 
     and stalking, we urge you to reconsider combining these 
     bills. These two bills cannot be supported as a package and 
     the CCR Act threatens to erase any progress that could be 
     made by the Fix NICS Act.
       Sincerely,
     The National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence.

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. Esty).
  Ms. ESTY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
the so-called Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. It is outrageous that 
today, of all days, 1 week before the 5-year anniversary of the 
horrific murder of 20 schoolchildren and 6 educators in my district of 
Newtown, 2 months after the slaughter of 50 Americans watching a 
concert, that we are about to act on a bill to put more guns in the 
hands of more dangerous people.
  Rather than helping raise the standards nationally for gun safety, 
this bill would override and lower most States' concealed carry laws, 
making it easier for domestic violence abusers, stalkers, and violent 
criminals to carry across State lines loaded hidden guns. This bill 
should be called the ``Act to Carry Any Gun Anywhere Anytime by 
Anyone.''
  The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act is an outrage and an insult to 
the families in Newtown and to the hundreds of families who have lost 
loved ones to gun violence who are gathered here today at the Capitol 
for the fifth annual Vigil to End Gun Violence.
  In the 5 years since Sandy Hook, this is the very first bill we have 
been allowed to vote on in this Chamber, and it is a reckless giveaway 
to the moneyed gun interests.
  Mr. Speaker, since 2012, gun violence has killed over 170,000 
Americans. It is time for this House to truly honor the victims of gun 
violence and their families with action instead of caving in to the gun 
lobby yet again.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this dangerous 
bill.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Poe), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

[[Page H9694]]

  

  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, history is the great educator. We 
remember in American history the War of Independence started when the 
British tried to take away the firearms of Americans, and we had the 
Battles of Lexington and Concord. That revolution was successful 
because Americans were able to be armed.
  The Texas War of Independence started when the Mexican Government 
tried to take away the firearms of Texans. That started in Gonzales, 
Texas, and it was successful and we became an independent country.
  The Second Amendment is a constitutional right that Americans have. 
My friends on the other side don't like the Second Amendment. They wish 
it wasn't there. They do everything in their power to restrict the 
privilege and the right that we have under the Second Amendment, and we 
get it because of our history, to protect us from government and also 
for self-defense.
  My friends talk about gun violence. They have got to remember that 
gun violence happens many times where people are disarmed, and it 
usually takes a gun to stop that gun, just like it did at the church in 
Texas.
  In another situation, if I were to drive my Jeep to California and I 
get stopped by the California Highway Patrol, which maybe would occur, 
I would show them my Texas driver's license, and then they would let me 
drive, even though the laws in California are different on a driver's 
license.
  Second, the registration of my Jeep in Texas would pass in 
California, even though if I had to get it done in California, it 
probably wouldn't pass. But they recognize that because we have laws 
that recognize that.
  My marriage license would be accepted as well.
  The right to bear arms, the right to have a concealed carry weapon, 
is based on the Second Amendment of the Constitution. All this law does 
is allow us to exercise that right in every State.
  And that is just the way it is.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Nadler for yielding to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, that is just the way it is. Since the start of 2017, 
more than 14,340 people have been killed by gun violence in the United 
States, more than any other country on Earth. That is just the way it 
is.
  More than 29,150 have been wounded. More than 680 of those have been 
children.
  In October, 58 people were killed and 515 wounded in Las Vegas in the 
worst mass shooting in our Nation's history.
  But we don't have a bill on the floor to prevent the creation of 
machine guns, which are illegal, by bump stocks.
  Just 5 weeks later, a gunman entered a church in Sutherland Springs, 
Texas, and killed 26 worshipers, while wounding 20.
  The majority's response?
  Bring to the floor a bill that makes America less safe, more replete 
with people carrying and concealing weapons in our communities. This 
bill says: If you want to carry a concealed weapon in a State that 
doesn't allow it constitutionally, no problem. Get your concealed carry 
license in another State that does.

  In other words, every State, no matter their own judgment, talk about 
States' rights, no matter their own judgment, must be subjected to the 
policies of the least protective State in the Nation.
  Instead of addressing the very serious problem of rampant gun 
violence in a constructive way, the Republican majority is bringing to 
the floor a bill that makes it easier to hide dangerous weapons in 
public.
  Newtown, Aurora, Orlando, Las Vegas, Sutherland Springs, and 
community after community after community. What will it take for this 
Congress to act? What will it take to face this challenge instead of 
ignoring it? How many more will not live to see the new year or begin 
it with debilitating injuries they will carry for the rest of their 
lives? How many times will we have a moment of silence and a year of no 
action?
  Mr. Speaker, defeat this bill. Its rational provision of NICS, making 
sure people report, does not justify the danger it expands. Support the 
rights of States to protect their residents from hidden firearms. Do 
not ignore the crisis that confronts our country. Have a moment of 
action, a moment of legislating more safety, not less; not simply a few 
seconds of silence to lament the loss of life, whether it be in Las 
Vegas or Orlando or in our own communities. Defeat this bill. Come back 
and do some positive, constructive work that makes America safe again.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to include in 
the Record a letter signed by 23 of those States' attorneys general who 
say, in part, in this letter: ``Strong evidence indicates that 
concealed carry permit holders actually deter and reduce crime.'' This 
is taking action by passing this legislation.

                                 Attorney General of Missouri,

                             Jefferson City, MO, December 1, 2017.
     Re Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (S. 
         446) and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R. 
         38).

     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Chuck Schumer,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressional Leaders: As the chief legal officers of 
     our States, we, the undersigned 23 state Attorneys General, 
     write in support of the Constitutional Concealed Carry 
     Reciprocity Act of 2017 (S. 446) and the Concealed Carry 
     Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R. 38). We share a strong interest 
     in the protection of our citizens' Second Amendment right to 
     keep and bear arms, and we are committed to supporting 
     federal and state policies to preserve that constitutional 
     right. These bills, if enacted, would eliminate significant 
     obstacles to the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms 
     for millions of Americans in every State.
       The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides an 
     individual right to own and carry a firearm for self-defense. 
     The Amendment states that ``[a] well regulated Militia, being 
     necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the 
     people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'' U.S. 
     Const. amend. II. As the Supreme Court recognized in District 
     of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008), the Second 
     Amendment ``guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and 
     carry weapons in case of confrontation.'' Indeed, 
     ``individual self-defense is `the central component' of the 
     Second Amendment right.'' McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 
     U.S. 742, 767 (2010) (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599).
       The core interest protected by this right is self-defense 
     by law-abiding citizens. This right therefore extends to 
     weapons ``in common use'' and ``typically possessed by law-
     abiding citizens for lawful purposes.'' Heller, 554 U.S. at 
     624-25, 627 (quoting United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 
     179 (1939)).
       The Second Amendment historically has guaranteed the right 
     to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense. In 
     Heller, the Supreme Court relied on the preeminent authority 
     on English law for the founding generation, William 
     Blackstone, who explained that the right to self-defense, 
     codified by the framers in the Second Amendment, was an 
     ``individual right protecting against both public and private 
     violence.'' Heller, 554 U.S. at 594 (citations omitted). As 
     Justices Thomas and Gorsuch have written, `` `[s]elf-defense 
     has to take place wherever the person happens to be,' and in 
     some circumstances a person may be more vulnerable in a 
     public place than in his own house.'' Peruta v. California, 
     137 S. Ct. 1995, 1998-99 (2017) (Thomas, J., and Gorsuch, J., 
     dissenting from the denial of certiorari) (quoting Eugene 
     Volokh, Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for 
     Self-Defense: An Analytical Framework and a Research Agenda, 
     56 UCLA L. Rev. 1443, 1515 (2009)).
       To be sure, the right to carry firearms for self-defense is 
     not unlimited, and the Supreme Court has stated that its 
     decisions do not cast doubt on the ``longstanding 
     prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the 
     mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in 
     sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or 
     laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial 
     sale of arms.'' Heller, 554 U.S. at 626-27. But these 
     exceptions all assume that the right to carry a weapon in 
     self-defense applies in public places generally.
       The Second Amendment, moreover, applies to both the Federal 
     Government and the States. The Second Amendment is a right 
     ``fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty,'' and so it 
     applies not just to the Federal Government but also to the 
     States under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 
     Amendment. McDonald, 561 U.S. at 767; see also Caetano v. 
     Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027, 1027 (2016) (per curiam).
       Nevertheless, some activist courts have held that the 
     Second Amendment has no application at all outside the home, 
     and thus have upheld state laws banning any firearm ownership 
     outside the home. See, e.g., Peruta v. California, 137 S. Ct. 
     1995, 1997, 1999 (2017) (Thomas, J. and Gorsuch, J., 
     dissenting from

[[Page H9695]]

     the denial of certiorari) (collecting cases); e.g., Williams 
     v. State, 10 A.3d 1167, 1177 (Md. 2011); Mack v. United 
     States, 6 A.3d 1224, 1236 (D.C. 2010). Further, ten states 
     refuse to recognize any out-of-state concealed carry permits, 
     and many more refuse to recognize out-of-state concealed 
     carry permits unless certain conditions are met.
       The citizen interest in self-defense, supported and 
     protected by the Second Amendment, is called into serious 
     question by such blanket refusals to permit carrying firearms 
     in self-defense outside the home or to allow non-resident 
     visitors to carry concealed weapons. Because some States 
     refuse to give the Second Amendment its full import, Congress 
     should enact concealed-carry reciprocity legislation, to help 
     implement and enforce the constitutional right to self-
     defense for millions of law-abiding Americans across the 
     country.
       The exercise of Congress's power is particularly warranted 
     in this case because the States that refuse to allow law-
     abiding, non-resident visitors to carry concealed weapons 
     place their occupants in greater danger--not less--from gun 
     violence. These States leave citizens without any real option 
     for self-defense, and so it is not surprising that they have 
     been unable to show that their regulations reduce crime.
       Authorizing permit holders to carry across state lines will 
     not result in an increased risk of crime. Concealed carry 
     permit holders are among the most law-abiding members of 
     society, and those States that allow for reciprocal 
     concealed-carry permits have not encountered any significant 
     safety issues. In Texas, for example, state data on permit 
     holders shows that, compared to the general public, they are 
     ``ten times less likely to commit a crime, eleven times less 
     likely to commit an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, 
     and seven times less likely to commit deadly conduct with a 
     firearm.'' Kevin Ballard, Peruta v. County of San Diego: An 
     Individual Right to Self-Defense Outside the Home and the 
     Application of Strict Scrutiny to Second Amendment 
     Challenges, 47 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. 25, 59 (2017).
       Further, strong evidence indicates that concealed-carry 
     permit holders actually deter and reduce crime. Those who 
     engage in lawful and licensed concealed carry are not only 
     less likely to be involved in criminal activity themselves, 
     but their presence also deters others from engaging in 
     violent crime. See John R. Lott, Jr., More Guns, Less Crime 
     (University of Chicago Press, 3d ed. 2010). County-level data 
     for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, the period in 
     which many concealed-carry laws took effect, shows annual 
     reductions in murder rates between 1.5 percent and 2.3 
     percent for each additional year that a right-to-carry law 
     was in effect, and the total economic benefit from reduced 
     crimes usually ranges between approximately $2 billion and $3 
     billion per year. Florenz Plassmann & John Whitley, 
     Confirming ``More Guns, Less Crime,'' 55 Stan. L. Rev. 1313 
     (2003). ``Violent crime falls after right-to-carry laws are 
     adopted, with bigger drops the longer the right-to-carry laws 
     are in effect.'' John R. Lott, Jr., What a Balancing Test 
     Will Show for Right-to-Carry Laws, 71 Md. L. Rev. 1205, 1212 
     (2012).
       Our experience as attorneys general further reinforces this 
     data. Law-abiding individuals who choose to exercise their 
     constitutional right to carry a firearm for self-defense 
     promote public safety. Our states have chosen to respect the 
     rights of residents and non-residents alike to carry arms for 
     their defense, and we ask Congress to protect the same rights 
     of our law-abiding residents as they travel throughout the 
     United States.
       States should not be able to deny citizens of other States 
     the basic constitutional right to self-defense. We thus urge 
     Congress to enact legislation such as the Constitutional 
     Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (S. 446) or the 
     Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R. 38). These 
     bills aim to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to 
     carry a concealed handgun. They do not allow for carrying 
     firearms by felons, those involuntarily committed to mental 
     health facilities, and other persons prohibited by federal 
     law from possessing or receiving firearms. And these bills 
     would not prevent States from allowing governmental and 
     private entities to preclude concealed carry on their own 
     property.
       As the Supreme Court held in McDonald, it is 
     ``unmistakably'' true that ``the Second Amendment right to 
     keep and bear arms'' is ``fundamental to our scheme of 
     ordered liberty'' and ``deeply rooted in this Nation's 
     history and tradition.'' McDonald, 561 U.S. at 767-68. 
     Congress should act to safeguard and implement this deeply 
     rooted right for those traveling across state lines.
       Thank you for the opportunity to address this legislation. 
     As the chief legal and law enforcement officers of our 
     respective States, we urge Congress to pass this important 
     legislation implementing one of the most basic American 
     freedoms, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
           Very truly yours,
       Joshua D. Hawley, Missouri Attorney General; Steve 
     Marshall, Alabama Attorney General; Mark Brnovich, Arizona 
     Attorney General; Leslie Rutledge, Arkansas Attorney General; 
     Pamela Jo Bondi, Florida Attorney General; Chris Carr, 
     Georgia Attorney General; Lawrence Wasden, Idaho Attorney 
     General; Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Indiana Attorney General; Derek 
     Schmidt, Kansas Attorney General; Jeff Landry, Louisiana 
     Attorney General; Bill Schuette, Michigan Attorney General; 
     Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General.
       Doug Peterson, Nebraska Attorney General; Adam Paul Laxalt, 
     Nevada Attorney General; Wayne Stenehjem, North Dakota 
     Attorney General; Mike DeWine, Ohio Attorney General; Alan 
     Wilson, South Carolina Attorney General; Marty J. Jackley, 
     South Dakota Attorney General; Ken Paxton, Texas Attorney 
     General; Sean Reyes, Utah Attorney General; Patrick Morrisey, 
     West Virginia Attorney General; Brad D. Schimel, Wisconsin 
     Attorney General; Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General.

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Alabama (Mrs. Roby), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 38, the 
Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017.
  Mr. Speaker, our Founders laid out certain rights in our 
Constitution, not to empower the government, but to empower the people. 
Certainly among the most fundamental of those rights we have as 
Americans is to keep and bear arms.
  H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, simply ensures 
all law-abiding citizens who meet the requirements to obtain concealed 
carry permits in their home State can exercise the right to protect 
themselves in any State, provided that they obey the local concealed 
carry laws.
  Mr. Speaker, some opponents of this bill claim that we are somehow 
making it easier for dangerous unqualified individuals to obtain and 
carry guns. That is absolutely not true.
  If a citizen is currently prohibited from purchasing or possessing a 
firearm, this bill does nothing to change that.
  On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, others will tell you that we are 
making it harder for law-abiding Americans to exercise their Second 
Amendment right. That is not true either.
  H.R. 38 does nothing to infringe upon anyone's right to keep and bear 
arms. The bill simply ensures that our current National Instant 
Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, is enforced and working 
properly.
  Those of us who respect the Second Amendment and dedicate our careers 
to defending it will always fight to protect this fundamental right 
from those who would erode it.
  Mr. Speaker, we also have a responsibility to uphold and enforce our 
current laws to ensure dangerous people can't obtain weapons. In fact, 
it is precisely because we want to preserve our Second Amendment right 
that we must ensure our criminal background check system works 
properly.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill in order to 
ensure that those who obtain a concealed carry permit in one State are 
able to enjoy the freedom in any State and to make sure our current 
background check system is working the way it was intended to work.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, firstly, the NRA put a bulletin out to urge 
people to vote for this. They said: ``We must ensure that antigun 
jurisdictions do not harass travelers.''
  Mr. Speaker, that is the purpose of this bill from the NRA, that nine 
antigun jurisdictions, State legislatures that have restrictive gun 
laws, cannot harass travelers, cannot see that their State has the same 
laws that their citizens have from people out of State.
  When my friends on the other side talk about being concerned about 
the Second Amendment and dedicating their lives to it and seeing that 
irresponsible people don't get guns, when we tried to bring a no fly, 
no buy law, they weren't for it. They talked about due process.
  But have they brought a due process bill to the floor for people who 
are on the no-fly list?
  No.
  People who are on Social Security who can't manage their own affairs, 
they passed a law that said they should get guns when they couldn't 
before. That is not in keeping with what they are saying.
  This bill violates States' rights, puts guns in the hands of people 
that States don't want them to have. There are seven States that don't 
allow people under 21, unless they are in the military, to have a gun 
permit. This Federal law would override those seven States.

[[Page H9696]]

  Mr. Speaker, this is a bad law. It is the NRA's law. We should have 
had amendments considered in committee, but we didn't because the NRA 
didn't want them.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Farenthold), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to support the Concealed 
Carry Reciprocity Act, which will allow a person who is licensed in one 
State to carry their firearm to carry it in other States. It works just 
like your driver's license. My Texas driver's license lets me drive in 
Virginia; it lets me drive in Florida; it lets me drive in California.
  When I was a child growing up in Texas, my family taught me the 
importance of marksmanship, gun safety, and the Second Amendment. And I 
have long said that, when it comes to reducing violence, it is the 
individual, not the weapon, that we need to be focused on.
  This bill helps ensure an American's right to carry is not infringed 
when crossing State lines, enhancing public safety. In fact, as the 
chairman stated earlier here today, a peer-reviewed study shows that 
States with more restrictive concealed carry laws had higher gun-
related murder rates. That is why we need an armed citizenry to protect 
ourselves and each other.
  As we saw in the terrible Texas church shooting in Sutherland Springs 
just recently, the death toll could have been much higher had not an 
armed citizen been there to confront the gunman. There are those who 
insist the bill will arm the criminals, but those claims are far from 
true, as gun laws restricting criminals from access to weapons are 
already there in their home States. They are going to remain 
undisturbed.
  I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and the Constitution, 
as I suspect most of you all are, Mr. Speaker, and I believe gun 
control is hitting what you aim at and nothing else.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Deutch).
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been almost 5 years to the day that 20 6- and 7-
year-old babies were slaughtered in Newtown. It has been about a year-
and-a-half since 49 people were killed in my home State of Florida, 58 
more being injured. In October, 59 people were killed and 500 injured 
at an outdoor concert in Las Vegas. And in November, 26 people were 
killed and injured as they worshiped in Sutherland Springs, Texas. The 
response to all of this tragedy is a bill to make it easier for people 
to carry concealed weapons in every corner of this country.
  I don't know whose idea--other than the gun corporations, I don't 
know whose idea it was that this would be the way that we honor the 
memories of those who have been killed, that instead of commonsense gun 
safety legislation that the overwhelming majority of people in this 
country support, we get a bill to make it possible to carry concealed 
weapons in every State, in every corner of this country.
  When my friends on the other side say this doesn't override any laws, 
that is absolutely untrue. In States that have State laws that govern 
where you can and can't carry a gun, this bill overrides that and says 
you can bring any gun into the State, whatever your regulations are 
about what you can carry.
  This is a bill that doesn't make us safer. It doesn't make us 
stronger. But make no mistake, it makes the bottom line, the profits of 
the gun makers in this country, a little bit healthier.
  As we enter the Christmas season and we think about the 20 6- and 7-
year-old kids whose lives were taken 5 years ago today, whose parents, 
whose families suffer every day with that loss, whose kids aren't there 
to receive Christmas presents, I ask my friends on the other side: Why 
is it that we respond to that by giving this enormous Christmas gift to 
the NRA?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to include in 
the Record two articles, one from Tennessee and one from Florida, in 
which concealed carry permit holders stopped dead in their tracks 
people who were going to commit murder.

                   [From www.wsmv.com, Oct. 8, 2017]

 Usher Being Called ``Hero'' for Helping to Stop Antioch Church Shooter

                           (By Edward Burch)

       Antioch, TN.--Robert Caleb Engle is being hailed as a hero 
     after helping to stop the accused gunman during the shooting 
     at Burnette Chapel Church of Christ in Antioch on Sunday.
       According to police and witnesses at the scene, Engle, who 
     is an usher at the church, confronted the accused shooter, 
     Emanuel Kidega Samson. Engle was then pistol-whipped by 
     Samson. The two got into a scuffle before Samson shot himself 
     in the chest.
       Engle, who has a carry permit, went out to his car to get a 
     gun, despite suffering a head injury.
       Engle then went back inside the church to confront Samson 
     and held him at gunpoint until authorities arrived.
       Engle, 22, declined an on-camera interview but did send a 
     statement.
       When complimented about his heroism, Engle said, ``I do not 
     want to be labeled a hero. The real heroes are the police, 
     first responders, medical staff and doctors who have helped 
     me and everyone affected.''
       ``I've been going to this church my whole life,'' Engle 
     said ``I would have never, ever thought something like this 
     would have happened.''
       ``(He's) just an outstanding young man, even before 
     today,'' said Tammy Adcock, one of Engle's neighbors. ``Today 
     just proved his character.''
       Engle also asked for prayers for not just the victims, but 
     for the shooter and the shooter's family.
       ``They are hurting as well,'' Engle said.
       Engle and 64-year-old Catherine Dickerson were taken to 
     Skyline Medical Center with non-life-threatening injuries.
       Both Engle and Dickerson have since been released from the 
     hospital.
                                  ____


                  [From Florida Today, Nov. 27, 2017]

  Schlenker Shooting: Rockledge Gunman Recovering, Worked at Brevard 
                           Elementary School

                            (By J.D. Gallop)

       The 28-year-old man suspected of carrying out a shooting at 
     a Rockledge auto shop last week that left one person dead and 
     another paralyzed, also worked as a part-time custodian at an 
     elementary school, authorities said.
       Brevard County Public School officials confirmed that 
     Robert Lorenzo Bailey Jr. was employed with the district 
     since 2014, working at Lewis Carroll Elementary on Merritt 
     Island.
       ``He's a part-time custodian,'' said Jennifer Wolfinger, 
     spokeswoman for the school district, adding that Bailey 
     remains on the payroll. Officials are reviewing his 
     employment records.
       Bailey wandered onto the Schlenker Automotive property on 
     Friday, and using a .40-caliber handgun, started firing on 
     workers, killing 50-year-old Schlenker employee Roger Lee 
     Smith, Rockledge police said. Smith had stepped into the 
     parking lot after he heard a shot that paralyzed a 25-year-
     old, unidentified co-worker, according to police. Police have 
     not released the identity.
       Two other workers--both concealed weapons permit holders--
     confronted the gunman and engaged in a shootout that left the 
     suspect wounded. Bailey continues to recover at Holmes 
     Regional Medical Center in Melbourne.
       The shooting--which happened the day after Thanksgiving--
     left family members of the victim, a husband, father and 
     grandfather, devastated.
       ``He would do anything . . . anything for anybody. It hurts 
     that somebody would hurt him,'' said Bnickcole Smith, a 27-
     year-old niece of the victim. ``That man took from us a 
     longtime husband, a father figure and a grandfather. He loved 
     being with his family and was such a fun, outgoing person. 
     Personally, it's just destroyed me.''
       Bailey, known to friends as a bouncer and a regular in the 
     Cocoa Village pub scene, did not have any connections to the 
     autoshop, police said. Police have not yet confirmed any 
     criminal or medical history that might give insight into a 
     possible motive.
       Others who knew Bailey, including a manager at the Dog and 
     Bone British Pub, said he seemed to be acting differently 
     lately. The manager said Bailey was fired from his job at the 
     pub after Bailey confronted a patron. Another manager 
     suggested Bailey see a doctor after Bailey aired thoughts 
     that he believed the patron had a gun and was attempting to 
     kill him.
       ``You could tell he had gone through some type of stress or 
     disorder. He kept to himself,'' said 26-year-old Paul Lyal, 
     who learned about the shooting late Sunday. Lyal said he met 
     Bailey at the Dog and Bone British Pub several years ago.
       ``Sometimes he would be quiet, other times out laughing 
     with everyone. He would even do karaoke or just go upstairs 
     and dance for hours,'' Lyal recalled. ``I'm just shocked like 
     everyone else.''
       Rockledge detectives did not comment on Bailey's injuries 
     or surgery over the weekend to treat his wounds.
       Lou Schlenker, owner of the business that has operated in 
     Rockledge for 36 years, released a statement to Florida Today 
     on Sunday evening:
       ``In this difficult time of mourning the loss of Roger and 
     the severe injuries that (our other employee) has sustained, 
     we would like

[[Page H9697]]

     to thank all of the community for the overwhelming support 
     and prayers we have received. We know there will be a long 
     healing process ahead of us but we want to reassure everyone 
     that this is an organization full of dedicated, courageous, 
     and heroic individuals serving this community,'' the 
     statement read.

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Gaetz), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't know why Democrats are so afraid to allow people 
to exercise the full extent of their constitutional rights. In my 
State, we have got 1.7 million concealed carry permit holders. 
Concealed carry permit holders in Florida are eight times less likely 
to commit crimes than members of law enforcement.
  I think the American people see that, if they had their way, we would 
take the bad acts of people who break the law and we would use that as 
an excuse to deprive law-abiding people of the full exercise of their 
rights.
  So I rise in support of the Constitution and to correct a common 
mistake. The rights that are enumerated in the Constitution are not 
granted to the American people by government. These are God-given 
rights, and it is the government's duty to protect them for all 
citizens.
  For too long, the government has failed to protect the Constitution 
and has stripped law-abiding citizens of their freedom. States 
recognize driver's licenses from other States, but nowhere in the 
Constitution are they mentioned; yet States routinely deny carry 
permits from other States, including neighboring States, even though 
the Constitution explicitly states that the right of people to keep and 
bear arms shall not be infringed.
  Mr. Hudson's good bill restores constitutional liberty. I am proud to 
join in sponsoring this legislation and to stand with the Constitution 
and against those who wish to dismantle it.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to remember the oath that they 
swore to uphold and defend the Constitution, and I would encourage them 
to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 38.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island 
(Mr. Cicilline) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  (Mr. CICILLINE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle 
made a number of arguments about how, if everyone has a concealed 
weapon, America will be safer.
  Mr. Speaker, I have two studies here which directly rebut that:
  A 2017 Stanford University study found that in States that adopted 
the most permissive concealed carry laws, violent crime is 13 to 15 
percent higher than it would have been had the State retained a more 
restrictive law;
  A 2017 study by researchers at Boston University found that States 
with shall-issue laws had a 10.6 percent higher handgun homicide rate, 
consistent with the results of the Stanford study.
  Both of those empirical studies disprove the claim that we make 
America safer if everyone carries a hidden, loaded firearm.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Crowley), the distinguished chairman of the Democratic 
Caucus.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I must have missed something in my religious training. Were there 11 
Commandments by God? I know about the first 10, but I missed that 11th 
one that thou shall have the ability to bear arms. I missed that one, 
that God-given right.
  Was it a God-given right for someone to take that God-given right and 
execute 58 people at a concert? Was that a God-given right?
  Mr. Speaker, the American people have spoken with nearly a unanimous 
voice. They want Congress to keep their families safe by passing 
commonsense gun safety legislation, legislation that will keep guns out 
of the hands of criminals; protections that will keep those who want to 
cause terror in our churches, in our schools, at concerts, and in our 
communities from getting those firearms.
  The bill before us does the exact opposite. It would force States 
like New York to weaken their own gun safety laws and allow concealed 
carry. It puts families like yours and mine at risk. And for what? To 
appease the NRA? That is shameful.
  In the 66 days since the Las Vegas massacre, Congress has done 
nothing, absolutely nothing, to address the clear loopholes in our laws 
that allowed one man to kill and injure so many.
  It has been 66 days since numerous Republicans denounced the bump 
stocks and promised a fix, only to turn around and do this bill. At a 
time when we have seen one horrific mass shooting after another, 
Republicans are forcing through a bill that will put each and every 
American in harm's way. What is more, this egregious proposal comes 
days before the fifth anniversary of the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook.
  This will put us in further danger of another Las Vegas, another 
Orlando, and another Sandy Hook. The American people are sick and tired 
of this. They want this Congress to protect them, not enable criminals.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining on 
each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Young of Iowa). The gentleman from 
Virginia has 11\3/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York has 
13 minutes remaining.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all persons in the 
gallery that they are here as guests of the House and that any 
manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation 
of the rules of the House.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Rutherford), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. RUTHERFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, in my 41 years of law enforcement, 12 years as a sheriff 
of Duval County, Florida, I can tell you I have seen many, many times 
where good, law-abiding citizens used legal firearms to stop dangerous 
people from harming them, their loved ones, and even their neighbors.

  Mr. Speaker, as a law enforcement professional, I want good people 
carrying firearms.
  The Fraternal Order of Police that represents thousands of officers 
all across the United States of America supports good people carrying 
firearms. Do you know why? Because we know, as law enforcement officers 
we understand that, at our agencies, our priority one response time 
target is 7 minutes.
  In a life-and-death situation, we target getting there in 7 minutes. 
That is in a well-policed community. I want to put Republicans, 
Democrats, and everyone on notice that, for that 7 minutes, you better 
be prepared to protect yourself.
  If an active shooter in a mall, in a school, in a church like we just 
saw in Sutherland Springs, Texas, is killing people, let's say to the 
tune of five people per minute, that is an average of 35 dead, unarmed 
citizens before the police can even arrive at the scene.
  Believe me, we want good, law-abiding citizens who are authorized to 
carry firearms to have the ability to intervene in a violent situation 
before law enforcement can even arrive at the scene. We need the 
Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act to ensure that these good, law-abiding 
citizens can retain the constitutional right to bear arms legally 
across State lines and hopefully be able to stop a violent incident.
  Mr. Speaker, none of our other constitutional rights stop at a State 
line. Our Second Amendment rights should not stop at that line either.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 38 
and save lives.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  We just heard some of our other colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle speak about the God-given right to apparently carry a concealed, 
loaded firearm across State lines. What about the God-given right to 
live, to stay alive, and to be free from gun violence in this country?

[[Page H9698]]

  We now have seen the two deadliest shootings in American history, 20 
children slaughtered 5 years ago at Sandy Hook, and the list goes on 
and on.
  Our Republican colleagues will do nothing about it. They won't pass 
universal background checks. They won't pass no fly, no buy to keep 
terrorists from being able to buy a gun. They won't prevent bump 
stocks. But they are finally rising up to do something, and what is 
their answer? Let everyone in America carry a concealed, loaded 
firearm. Even people who are violent criminals, stalkers, and domestic 
abusers can carry a concealed firearm.
  Make no mistake about it. This legislation allows someone to go 
online. You don't have to be a resident of the State, a State that has 
no protections. You don't have to have training. You could be a 
criminal. You can go online and you get a permit in that State. You 
don't have to be a resident. You only have to go there, and you can 
then travel America with a loaded, concealed firearm and overrule the 
will of the people of that State through their legislature to impose 
responsible limitations on it.

                              {time}  1530

  It also endangers police officers who can be sued for having the 
audacity to ask someone if they actually have a permit and detain them. 
They have a cause of action against the police officer and attorneys' 
fees--unprecedented.
  This is the response to a country that is pleading for responsible 
gun safety legislation, that is living with the carnage of gun violence 
and asking this Congress: Do something about it; protect us from this 
violence.
  Our Republican colleagues muster up the courage to pay homage to the 
NRA and make it easier to sell guns so that people can carry concealed 
loaded firearms all across this country.
  Shame on you. Shame on you. You have a responsibility to work with us 
to protect our constituents from gun violence and to enact sensible gun 
safety legislation that will reduce the incidents of gun violence. This 
will make it worse.
  The claim that somehow it makes it safer is refuted by all of the 
empirical evidence. You know it is. Shame on the Republicans.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman and other Members are reminded 
to direct their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Johnson), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support 
of H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017.
  Our constitutional right to keep and bear arms should not be confined 
by State lines. Yet, currently, a person who has legally obtained a 
concealed carry permit in one State can be denied that right by simply 
crossing the State's border.
  Consider my own home State of Louisiana. Our laws rightfully allow 
for licensed carrying of concealed firearms. I am a concealed carry 
permit holder myself. When a Louisianian leaves the State, however, our 
valid concealed carry handgun permit becomes void, absent an agreement 
from the State we may be in or traveling through.
  The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act that we vote upon today ensures 
that law-abiding citizens with a concealed carry permit are not denied 
their Second Amendment right simply because they travel to other 
States. The Constitution should know no such bound. It does so while 
also recognizing States' rights by clearly noting that concealed carry 
holders must follow the law of each and every jurisdiction.
  As a constitutional law attorney myself, it is critically important 
to me that the fundamental right of every law-abiding citizen to keep 
and bear arms is protected; and, yes, this legislation is about 
preserving our God-given freedoms. It is about public safety, and it is 
about common sense.
  As noted, our letter by 23 States attorneys general, including my own 
home State of Louisiana, affirms that concealed carry laws deter crime. 
As my friend and colleague, Sheriff Rutherford, just said here so well, 
he reminded us that law enforcement wants the good guys to be armed.
  The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act protects our Second Amendment 
right, and I encourage my colleagues to support this important 
legislation. I want to thank Congressman Hudson for introducing H.R. 38 
and Chairman Goodlatte for advancing this legislation through the House 
Judiciary Committee. I am proud to be a part of this historic 
legislation.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, there have been 914 cases of non-self-
defense killings by private citizens holding permits to carry concealed 
loaded handguns in the last 10 years, which translates into 1,119 
Americans dead by homicide, mass shooting, suicide, and murder of 
police officers under concealed carry permit laws in the States.
  In Florida, for example--I saw my friend, Mr. Rutherford, up there--
in August, concealed handgun permit holder, Everett Miller, shot and 
killed two Kissimmee, Florida, police officers.
  Now, if you want to give everybody the right to a concealed carry 
permit in your States, fine. But don't impose that on the people of 
Maryland. We have got our own laws, thank you. Since January, we have 
had 397 gun massacres in America defined as a slaying of four people or 
more. Two of them--Las Vegas, which left 58 people dead, and Sutherland 
Springs, which left 26 people dead--are among the 10 worst massacres in 
American history by gun.
  The American people want to end this reign of terror. But what do our 
friends do on the other side? Do they bring us the universal criminal 
background check legislation favored by more than 90 percent of the 
American people of every political party to plug the gun show loophole, 
the internet loophole, and the 7-Eleven parking lot loophole? No.
  Do they bring to the floor the bill to criminalize bump stocks which 
they promised to us? No. No such luck. Instead, they bring forward a 
bill that would wipe out the vast majority of concealed carry laws in 
the United States of America, trampling States' rights and wrecking all 
of the painstaking work of legislatures all over the land dragging this 
down to the most lax and permissive State laws in the country. It is 
not a race to the bottom, it is a plunge to the bottom they have 
engineered here.
  This fraudulently named bill has nothing to do with reciprocity 
because States already have the power to negotiate reciprocity 
agreements, and 22 of them have it.
  Your bill destroys reciprocity. Your bill brings us down to the level 
of the lowest, most permissive laws in the country. My State doesn't 
give concealed carry permits to domestic abusers, to violent offenders, 
and to dangerously unstable people. Don't drag us down to the lowest 
level. Protect States' rights.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Culberson).
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, the difference of opinion on this bill 
vividly illustrates the profoundly different world view of Democrats 
versus Republicans. Democrats instinctively trust the government and 
instinctively distrust individuals. Republicans instinctively distrust 
the government and trust the good hearts and good sense of individual 
Americans to be the best stewards of protecting themselves, their 
family, their property, and their freedoms.
  Our Founders understood this, and this is why the First Amendment 
protects our freedom of conscience and the Second Amendment follows it 
immediately so that we, as free people, have the ability to protect 
ourselves--our freedom of conscience--against the overpowering force of 
the government.
  We in Texas enacted in 1995, while I was a member of the Texas house, 
a concealed carry law, and we have had now over 20 years of data. 
People can go to the Department of Texas Public Safety website and look 
under conviction rates and see that the concealed carry permit holders 
in Texas, over the last 22 years, are 21 times less likely to commit a 
crime than the average Texans.
  The 7 minutes Sheriff Rutherford just mentioned to us are a lifetime, 
if you or your family or neighbors are at risk of attack. The 
individual law-abiding American who is carrying a concealed weapon has 
had a background check, they have been trained in the

[[Page H9699]]

use of the weapon, and they know the law. We all, as Americans, should 
work together to preserve the Second Amendment right of every American 
to keep and bear arms no matter what State they are in.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this important legislation.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. O'Rourke).
  Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Like so many Texans, I grew up in a household that honored a 
tradition of gun ownership for hunting, for collection, and for 
sportsmanship, and also honored gun safety. I was taught to shoot by my 
uncle, Raymond O'Rourke, jail captain and the chief marksman in the El 
Paso County Sheriff's Office.
  I also live in a State that has a license to carry process which 
requires safety training, though 18 States do not. Texas requires that 
someone who has a license to carry be 21 years or older, though 15 
States do not. Texas requires that those who abuse their partners not 
be allowed to have a license to carry, though 14 States do not. Texas 
does not grant licenses to violent offenders, though 22 States do. 
Texas does not grant licenses to people convicted of stalking, though 
21 other States do.
  What H.R. 38 does, Mr. Speaker, is it subjects every Texan and every 
El Pasoan whom I represent to the lowest common denominator in the 
United States. It will make our State less--not more--safe. That is why 
I oppose H.R. 38, and I ask all my colleagues to join me in doing the 
same.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to point out 
that the attorney general of the State of Texas has signed a letter, 
along with 22 other State attorneys general, in support of this 
legislation and pointing out that authorized permit holders to carry 
across State lines will not result in an increased risk of crime. 
Further, strong evidence indicates that concealed carry permit holders 
actually deter and reduce crime.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Cuellar), who is the lead Democratic cosponsor of this legislation.
  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, as one of the lead sponsors for the Fix NICS Act of 
2017, I rise in support of this legislation which has been combined 
with the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, which is, again, another 
section that I support, also.
  On the Fix NICS Act, I certainly want to thank Senator Cornyn, 
Representatives Culberson, Esty, Costello, and Aguilar for their 
leadership on this particular issue that we have been working on.
  A few weeks ago, 26 members of the Sutherland Springs community, 
which is in my district, were killed by someone who should have never 
had access to firearms. The investigation into the shooter revealed 
that the shooter had a criminal history. The Defense Department and the 
Air Force missed six times--six times--where the criminal justice 
process should have reported the history to the NICS database.
  As of 2016, the Air Force, which should have entered the Sutherland 
Springs shooter's criminal information, entered a total of one active 
record in the NICS record. If the Air Force would have met the minimum 
obligations, then the gunman never would have been able to legally 
purchase a firearm. This is why we introduced the Fix NICS Act of 2017.
  This legislation ensures that Federal and State authorities comply 
with existing laws to accurately report relevant criminal history--
accurately report these records to the NICS. It also provides 
consequences for Federal agencies who fail to report the relevant 
records and ensure that States improve their overall reporting. The Fix 
NICS Act is an important step to ensure that people like the Sutherland 
Springs shooter never slip through the cracks of the NICS database 
again.
  As to the reciprocity part of it, again, I know that both sides have 
spoken on that, but, again, as a supporter of the Second Amendment, I 
believe that the Second Amendment doesn't stop at political State 
lines. It is part of the U.S. Constitution and should apply across.
  So, again, I rise in support of this legislation, and I ask my 
colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), who is the chairman of the 
Gun Violence Prevention Task Force.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this dangerous bill. I asked my 
local law enforcement what they thought of folks from out of State who 
don't meet our local requirements coming into our communities with 
loaded concealed firearms. These are the folks who are on the front 
lines of fighting gun violence, and we should listen to what they have 
to say.

  Our Sonoma County sheriff opposes this bill and says it would 
negatively affect our community and put citizens and his deputies in 
greater danger.
  The chief of police from my hometown in St. Helena said: As a 
lifelong proponent of the ability to own, possess, and carry firearms 
within the provisions of the law, I am wholeheartedly against H.R. 38.
  Like many of us, he asks: How long will it take before someone who 
can't meet the legal requirements to concealed carry in California goes 
to some other State with little or no standards and gets a permit from 
that State?
  Our chief of police in Martinez opposes this bill and says that it is 
a race to the bottom.
  Overwhelmingly, law enforcement in my district strongly oppose this 
bill. Moreover, there is a reason no major law enforcement 
organizations have come out in support of this bill. It is dangerous, 
and it is unnecessary.
  I think my colleagues should stand with law enforcement--the people 
that keep us and our families safe--and oppose this bill. Every example 
that was given from my friends across the aisle doesn't pertain to this 
bill. They talk about, in their States, concealed carry. Texas was the 
last one. In Texas, there is a standard you have to meet to get a 
concealed carry permit.
  If this bill passes, you erase that standard. Somebody from out of 
State who is a violent criminal can come in with a loaded concealed 
firearm in the State of Texas. Someone who is a criminal in the State 
of Texas, where there are rules, can go to another State, get a 
concealed carry permit, and bring that loaded, concealed firearm into 
the State of Texas. This is bad policy, and it should be opposed.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Dunn).
  Mr. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 38, the 
Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. This commonsense legislation ensures 
that our Second Amendment rights don't end when we cross State lines.
  We are all aware of the story of Shaneen Allen, a mother of three who 
was pulled over in New Jersey after committing a minor traffic 
violation. She told the police legally that she had a handgun on her 
person and a concealed carry permit. She was unaware that the permit 
was not transferable to New Jersey, and she had no prior criminal 
record. Nonetheless, she spent 40 days in a jail cell.
  Americans like Shaneen are exposed to real risks of accidentally 
breaking the law of another State simply by exercising their 
constitutional right. This bill ensures that valid concealed carry 
permits from one State are valid in all other States.

                              {time}  1545

  It creates legal protections for law-abiding gun owners against 
States that violate this statute.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this important 
legislation and to show the American people the Second Amendment is 
safe with us.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 6 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, we have a gun 
violence epidemic in this country.
  It is glaringly obvious to anyone paying attention that our Federal 
gun safety laws are pathetically weak and in major need of improvement.

[[Page H9700]]

  So what is this House doing about it?
  Working to pass a bill that completely undermines gun safety laws and 
puts more guns on the street and more lives at risk.
  Believe me, if more guns made this country safer, we would be the 
safest country on Earth. We are far from it.
  Under this bill, someone who couldn't get a concealed carry permit in 
New York would now be able to carry concealed guns into New York State 
or any State, as long as they have a permit from another State. This 
completely eviscerates State-level gun safety laws and puts us all at 
the mercy of the weakest gun safety laws in the country.
  This bill is opposed by major law enforcement organizations across 
this country. I urge this body to listen to their advice and vote 
against this reckless assault on State and local gun safety laws.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Budd).
  Mr. BUDD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Mr. Hudson's 
Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.
  As things stand, each State currently determines its own concealed 
carry reciprocity laws. Some States don't recognize concealed carry 
permits from other States. This forces lawful gun owners to sometimes 
surrender their Second Amendment rights when they are traveling.
  The current system has created accidental criminals, ruined lives, 
and punished gun owners simply because they fell victim to complexity 
and uncertainty in the law.
  My colleague's bill addresses this problem by bringing much-needed 
clarity to the system. H.R. 38 is a simple proposal, but a necessary 
one. If enacted, it will allow lawful gun owners to carry their firearm 
into other States that allow concealed carry. This interstate 
recognition of concealed carry would be very similar to a driver's 
license.
  H.R. 38 would not create national standards for concealed carry or 
take away a State's right to govern their own concealed carry laws, 
like some might claim. No. This bill simply uses Congress' 14th 
Amendment power to protect people's constitutional rights from State 
abuse.
  Samuel Adams said: ``The Constitution shall never be construed . . . 
to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens 
from keeping their own arms.''
  This powerful line from Mr. Adams sums up my feelings on this bill 
much better than I can.
  I thank Mr. Hudson for his steadfast leadership on this issue.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Demings).
  Mrs. DEMINGS. Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle from Florida talked about the 1.7 million concealed weapons 
permits that are issued in Florida. Let me make it quite clear that 
those permits are issued to Floridians for Floridians, not to any 
person from any State at any time who wants to bring a gun into 
Florida.
  Different from my colleague, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to advocate 
for the safety of every American and for the safety of our first 
responders, who are entrusted with that awesome responsibility.
  As Members of Congress, our question should be: What can we all do to 
make living in America safer?
  Every day, law enforcement officers risk their lives to keep our 
communities safe. Last week, I was honored that the House passed the 
Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Act unanimously. Police 
officers have a tough job, and I think we can all agree on this point: 
the job is getting tougher.
  Mr. Speaker, we must ask ourselves: Why would any Member, Republican 
or Democrat, support this legislation that would make a police 
officer's job harder, more dangerous, and open our officers up to 
personal liability for simply doing their jobs?
  This reckless piece of legislation would allow persons from outside 
your State to bring their firearms anywhere, including school zones, 
without applying the guidelines, laws, restrictions, or oversight of 
your State.
  Mr. Speaker, I want you to envision this situation from the 
perspective of a law enforcement officer. An out-of-state, armed 
individual is stopped by that officer. Maybe that individual's license 
is legitimate, maybe it is not. The officer is on the side of the road, 
facing an armed individual, trying to figure out whether the 
individual's permit is authentic, which the officer is obligated to do.
  If the permit is fake, failing to stop that individual puts the 
community at risk. If the permit is real, stopping the individual has 
opened the officer up to potential personal liability.
  In the last year, I have heard my colleagues on the other side talk 
about how we should better empower States to decide what is in their 
own best interest.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Florida.
  Mrs. DEMINGS. Mr. Speaker, this legislation strips individual States 
of their power and puts our public safety officers in legal and 
personal jeopardy.
  Supporting this legislation is reckless and irresponsible. As a 
former chief of police, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 38.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining 
on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Maine (Mr. Poliquin).
  Mr. POLIQUIN. Mr. Speaker, for generations, Maine families have 
enjoyed the great outdoors. That means hunting, fishing, camping, and 
hiking. That is part of who we are as a people. That is part of our way 
of life.
  Part of that way of life is responsibly and lawfully owning firearms. 
We are comfortable with them. We have been for generations.
  Mr. Speaker, Mr. Hudson's bill, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act 
of 2017, is a commonsense fix to a patchwork of State laws that will 
confuse, and do confuse, law-abiding Americans who have valid concealed 
carry permits issued by their own States when they want to travel to or 
through other States that have different concealed carry laws.
  I want to make this very clear: H.R. 38 does not allow travel as long 
as the holder of a concealed carry license does not obey the laws of 
the States that he or she is traveling to. I read directly, Mr. 
Speaker, from the statute: ``This bill shall not be construed to 
supersede or limit the laws of any State.''
  So the other side of the aisle just needs to make sure they get this 
exactly right, because they have not been correct on this fact.
  Mr. Speaker, Mr. Hudson's bill actually additionally strengthens 
existing regulations by requiring Federal Government agencies to 
promptly and accurately require a reporting to the FBI someone who is 
mentally ill, someone who has committed a serious crime, or someone who 
is in the country illegally and should not have a firearm.
  This bill is a commonsense bill that will help law-abiding Americans 
enjoy their Second Amendment right, their outdoor sporting activities, 
and help keep our families safer.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is advanced I am not sure in the name of what, 
but what it is going to do is make us less safe and to overrule all our 
States.
  Under this bill, someone who lives in New York could go to another 
State--doesn't even have to go to another State; just apply to the 
other State, get a concealed carry permit from that State, never set 
foot in that State, and then use it in New York; thus, overriding New 
York's laws.
  We have heard it said that this bill is necessary to protect the 
Second Amendment constitutional rights of gun owners. But the fact is, 
there is no Second Amendment constitutional right for concealed carry.
  In the District of Columbia v. Heller case in which the Supreme Court 
said that the Second Amendment established a personal right, Justice 
Scalia's

[[Page H9701]]

opinion held that the Second Amendment was not unlimited, a variety of 
gun regulations were entirely consistent with the Constitution, and he 
said:

       The majority of American courts to consider the question 
     have held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons 
     were lawful under the Second Amendment for State analogues.

  So the Second Amendment argument is simply wrong or disingenuous.
  But let me say also that we are living in an epidemic of gun 
violence. 33,000 Americans are killed every year, and 30,000 more every 
year. No other country approaches this. No country--other than those at 
war--in peacetime has more than 300 or 400, or even 100 or 72, and we 
have 33,000. It is not because of mental illness. It is because of the 
presence of large numbers of gun.
  A 2017 Stanford University study found a direct correlation with the 
most permissive concealed carry laws and violent crime. General studies 
have shown a direct correlation of the presence of the number of guns 
and murder rates by guns.
  So this is a bill that is a death sentence for many Americans. That 
is what this bill is. It is a death sentence without trial for many 
Americans by increasing the danger of guns by overruling States that 
fear and that we don't want concealed weapons on the New York City 
subway or the Chicago metro or other places of great concentrations of 
people.
  But no, we, in our wisdom, are going to say the States with the least 
restrictive, perhaps most rural, maybe sensible restrictions for them, 
will impose those restrictions on other States.
  It is wrong. It is a death sentence for many Americans. It ought not 
pass.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert) for the purpose of closing the 
argument.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, we all have subjects that we find 
fascinating.
  For 25 years, I have actually kept files of abstracts on this because 
I actually participated in writing Arizona's 1993 concealed carry law.
  I desperately wish this was an intellectually honest conversation 
about the data, because we all want our communities and families to be 
safer. I believe I can show you the statistical abstract data.
  In States like Arizona, adjusted for population, the violent use of 
firearms is almost one-half of what it was before the adoption of our 
concealed carry law.
  Now, was concealed carry responsible for that?
  Of course, not. But it is a factor. Some of it is mental health, some 
of it is law enforcement, some of it is incarceration. It is 
complicated. But if you actually look at these data abstracts of crime 
statistics in the United States on the misuse of firearms, it turns out 
that States that have adopted concealed carry compared to States that 
have gone other directions, States that adopted have gotten safer.

  There is actually some brilliant articles when you compare Florida 
and Illinois: big, populated, demographically complex States. Florida 
has gotten dramatically safer. Illinois has not.
  If you really love our families, love our communities, this needs to 
be an intellectually sound discussion of what factors make us safer as 
a society. I believe this bill leads us in that direction.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 38, the Concealed 
Carry Reciprocity Act.
  While I am opposed to restricting law abiding citizens' access to 
firearms, I feel that this bill does not adequately address many of the 
requirements that states have instituted in passing their own concealed 
carry laws.
  I am a big supporter of concealed carry and was the lead author of a 
bill in 1991 in the State Senate to create local concealed carry. The 
way this bill is written would strip many protections that are 
currently afforded to Texans.
  Texas has many requirements for a person to be able to get that 
license including live-fire training. As a state, we also bar convicted 
domestic abusers and those convicted of violent crimes and stalking. 
Under this bill, an individual who had committed those crimes could 
conceal carry their weapon in Texas if they got their permit from a 
neighboring state that lacked these requirements for concealed carry 
like Mississippi. It is for these reasons that I do not support this 
bill as it is currently written.
  If we are going to create a federal reciprocity standard for 
concealed carry it should be a standard that takes into account many of 
the protections individual states have created. I would proudly vote in 
support of a bill that addressed these standing issues.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bost). All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 645, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.

                              {time}  1600


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit 
at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. I am opposed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Thompson of California moves to recommit the bill H.R. 
     38 to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendments:
       Page 1, line 13, strike ``(a)'' and insert ``(a)(1)''.
       Page 2, line 10, strike ``(1)'' and insert ``(A)''.
       Page 2, line 13, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(B)''.
       Page 2, after line 15, insert the following:
       ``(2)(A) A person who has been convicted of a violent crime 
     within the preceding three years may not possess or carry a 
     concealed handgun under this section in a State that by law 
     prohibits a person from doing so on the basis of a conviction 
     for such offense.
       ``(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term `violent 
     crime' means any offense that involves injury or the threat 
     of injury to the person of another.
       ``(C) What constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall 
     be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction 
     in which the proceedings were held. Any conviction which has 
     been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been 
     pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be 
     considered a conviction for purposes of this paragraph, 
     unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil 
     rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, 
     transport, possess, or receive firearms.''.

  Mr. THOMPSON of California (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment 
to the bill, which will not kill the bill nor send it back to 
committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final 
passage, as amended.
  Mr. Speaker, next week will be the fifth anniversary of the hideous 
mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary, where 20 kids and six educators 
were slaughtered in their classroom.
  This year, we have witnessed two of the worst mass shootings in 
recent American history: in Las Vegas, Nevada, and in Sutherland 
Springs, Texas. Every day more than 30 people are killed by someone 
using a gun. This should be a call to action for everyone to work 
together to help prevent gun violence. That is why 90 percent of 
Americans support strengthening our gun laws, not weakening them.
  Let's be clear about what this Congress is going to do today. Instead 
of taking serious action on bump stocks or expanding background checks, 
the majority party is undermining the very laws that work to prevent 
gun violence.
  For example, some States allow people who have been convicted of some 
violent crimes to carry a loaded, concealed firearm.
  Thirty States and the District of Columbia currently deny permits to 
people convicted of those violent crimes, such as assault and battery, 
threatening, or crimes committed with a weapon. So if you are from any 
of these States--Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, 
Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana,

[[Page H9702]]

Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, 
Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, 
North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West 
Virginia, or the District of Columbia--a vote for this underlying bill 
is a vote to undermine your own State gun violence prevention policy, 
because this bill says that, even if your State prohibits its own 
residents who have been convicted of certain violent crimes, you can't 
prohibit someone from another State with the same criminal record from 
carrying a loaded, concealed firearm if their State allows it.
  This motion to recommit would state that a person who has been 
convicted of a violent crime within the preceding 3 years may not 
possess or carry a concealed handgun in a State that prohibits a person 
from doing so on the basis of a conviction for that very same offense. 
This would be people convicted of crimes such as resisting arrest, 
assault, permitting sexual abuse of a minor, aggravated assault, or 
violation of a criminal sexual assault protection order--all violent 
crimes.
  An ``aye'' vote on this motion to recommit is a pro-States' rights, 
pro-Second Amendment, and anticriminal vote.
  I am a gun owner. I have been all of my life. I am not opposed to 
concealed carry, but I am opposed to violent criminals having guns, and 
Members should be, too.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this motion to recommit; and 
if they vote against it, they are voting to allow violent criminals, 
convicted criminals, to carry loaded, concealed firearms in their 
community, in their State, and in their district. That is wrong. We 
should prohibit that from happening.
  It is a real easy fix. It could have been fixed in committee. It 
could have been fixed in committee. They could have taken care of the 
concerns that they have with the restrictions on concealed carry, and 
they could have stopped criminals, convicted criminals, from carrying 
loaded, concealed firearms. But the committee didn't do it.
  We have a chance now. It is the last chance to do it before this bill 
comes to a vote. I urge my friends on both sides of the aisle to vote 
for this motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the 
motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, with this motion to recommit, my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are trying in vain to hamper 
the passage of this important legislation. H.R. 38 seeks to allow law-
abiding citizens the ability to exercise their Second Amendment right 
when they cross State lines.
  The Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller that the 
Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm 
unconnected with service in a militia and to use that firearm for 
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense. Further, the Court 
concluded that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to 
possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation, and that central to 
this right is the ``inherent right of self-defense.''
  Additionally, in McDonnell v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court 
ruled that the right of an individual to ``keep and bear arms,'' as 
protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due 
Process Clause of the 14th Amendment against the States.
  An individual's Second Amendment right is no different than the First 
Amendment's protections on speech and free exercise of religious 
expression and the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable 
search and seizure or the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and 
unusual punishment.
  Can you imagine my colleagues' outcries if any of the aforementioned 
rights stopped at their State's borders? Believe me, I can. They would 
be loud and boisterous about it, and justifiably so. Despite that fact, 
here they are trying to derail a bill that affords the Second Amendment 
the same respect.

  Now, this motion to recommit attempts to extend the law, the Federal 
law, which already bars people from having firearms if they have been 
convicted of a felony or misdemeanor domestic violence crimes, by 
saying any violent crime be covered. And they define violent crime by 
saying it means ``any offense that involves injury or the threat of 
injury to the person of another.''
  Well, in my State of Virginia and in most other States, it is up to 
the police officer in a traffic accident, if you rear-end somebody and 
you injure them, whether or not you are simply charged with a traffic 
offense or you are charged with a criminal offense. That should not be 
the basis of denying somebody their Second Amendment rights under the 
United States Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion to recommit 
and support the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 
5-minute votes on:
  Passage of the bill, if ordered; and
  The motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Con. Res. 90.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 190, 
nays 236, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 662]

                               YEAS--190

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blum
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--236

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney

[[Page H9703]]


     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bridenstine
     Brownley (CA)
     Kennedy
     Pocan
     Rice (SC)
     Suozzi

                              {time}  1634

  Messrs. COSTELLO of Pennsylvania, BISHOP of Michigan, Ms. GRANGER, 
Messrs. RUTHERFORD, and HARRIS changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Messrs. BLUMENAUER and BLUM changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 231, 
noes 198, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 663]

                               AYES--231

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--198

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Buck
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gohmert
     Gomez
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     King (NY)
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rosen
     Roskam
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bridenstine
     Brownley (CA)
     Kennedy
     Pocan

                              {time}  1642

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________