Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment undercuts the uniform eligibility standard that forms the foundation of this legislation. The underlying bill allows individuals with valid State-issued permits to carry a concealed firearm in all other States that also authorize concealed carry. This Second Amendment right to bear arms is, therefore, limited by this amendment. Forty-nine States authorize concealed carry, and 40 of those States have reciprocity agreements with all or some of the other concealed- carry States. But these agreements vary from State to State, creating a patchwork of laws that limits reciprocity, creates confusion for gun owners, and undermines the Second Amendment. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia keeps this patchwork in place by exempting States with reciprocity agreements from the bill. The amendment prevents individuals from taking advantage of nationwide concealed- carry reciprocity unless the State they reside in has a separate agreement with the State they wish to travel to. While I appreciate my colleague's dedication to the concept of States' rights, I think it is misapplied to this legislation. H.R. 822 upholds States' rights in several important ways: First, it does not apply to those jurisdictions that prohibit concealed carry, such as Illinois and the District of Columbia; Second, the bill does not affect a State's right to set eligibility requirements for its own residents; Third, H.R. 822 does not impact State laws governing how concealed firearms are possessed or carried within the various States. All State, Federal, and local laws that prohibit, for example, carrying a concealed handgun in a public building or a place of worship apply equally to any nonresident concealed-carry holder; and Fourth, this legislation does not create any authority for the Federal Government to regulate concealed-carry permits. No Federal agency has any role in the implementation or oversight of this bill which is left, rightfully, up to the States. But, most importantly, this bill respects and protects an individual's right to bear arms while they are traveling. In two recent decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment endows individuals with the right to keep and bear arms, and this right is based in large part on the right to defend one's self. Americans don't need to simply defend themselves in their homes. They must also be able to defend themselves outside their homes and while traveling to other States. Eighty percent of violent crime occurs outside the home, according to the Justice Department. Americans cannot fully be empowered to defend themselves if they are prevented from exercising all their Second Amendment rights. H.R. 822 advances the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and I regret, I believe this amendment infringes upon that right. For these reasons, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment frustrates the basic purpose of H.R. 822. It requires that States pass legislation to implement the bill's provisions. The Supreme Court, in two recent cases, has recognized a fundamental individual right to bear arms that is largely based on the right to defend oneself and one's family. Over 80 percent of violent crime occurs outside of one's home, according to the Department of Justice. This means that for the right to bear arms in self-defense to have any meaning, law-abiding citizens with permits should be able to carry firearms outside of their homes and sometimes across State boundaries. Under current law 40 States have established a patchwork of reciprocal agreements that can be confusing for concealed-carry permit holders to navigate. H.R. 822 provides uniformity to our concealed- carry laws by creating nationwide reciprocity for concealed-carry permit holders. By contrast, this amendment allows States to opt out of H.R. 822's Federal grant of reciprocity. And it provides that only States that choose to pass laws implementing the legislation must recognize out-of-state concealed-carry permits. This amendment would, in effect, just continue the status quo and so would be of no help to individuals with concealed-carry permits. Since 2004 police officers have enjoyed the right to use a concealed- carry permit to take a firearm across State lines. And, in 2010, President Obama signed legislation to include other law enforcement personnel who could take advantage of this ability. It is ironic that some of these groups now want to deny this same right to law-abiding citizens with concealed-carry permits. According to a 2009 Zogby poll, 83 percent of those polled said they supported concealed-carry laws--83 percent. Over 4 million Americans across the country have qualified for a concealed-carry permit. They, most likely, endorse this legislation. I appreciate the gentlewoman from New York's mentioning States' prerogatives, and I hope she will express the same sentiments about other pieces of legislation. H.R. 822 retains the States' ability to regulate firearms in their own States by making clear that all State regulations regarding how a firearm is carried continue to apply to both residents and nonresidents, and by keeping in place the State's own permitting process. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. H.R. 822 is important legislation that recognizes that Americans' ability to exercise their fundamental constitutional rights should not disappear at their State's border. The parade of horribles that have been alleged by some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are simply not true. Federal law already prohibits felons, domestic abusers, and illegal drug users from possessing a firearm. This legislation does not change that. If a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm under Federal law, they cannot carry a concealed weapon under this bill. The arguments we have heard so often today against this legislation are against guns in the hands of violent criminals generally, not against legally permitted concealed weapons. Concealed-carry laws have shown that concealed weapons actually lower violent crime rates in a jurisdiction. H.R. 822 simply permits law-abiding Americans to take their Second Amendment rights with them when they travel. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan piece of legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the gentleman from Georgia agrees with me that this amendment does insert the Federal Government into the States' concealed-carry permitting process. I would simply say that that admission and the fact that that is the case is enough reason to oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Adams), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gibson).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the Washington Post recently published a story about alleged questionable business practices by Koch subsidiaries dating back to the 1990s. The Post received criticism for the unbalanced and incomplete story on Koch Industries. Patrick B. Pexton, Washington Post Ombudsman, stated ``I think The Post erred in republishing this story, or at least in the way it did. And when the Kochs complained to The Post after publication, The Post's response wasn't handled well.'' In addition, the Ombudsman goes on to state, ``. . . I think the story lacked context, was tendentious and was unfair in not reporting some of the exculpatory and contextual information . . . I think newspapers should always be provocative. But they should also be fair and provide context . . . The Post could have included a sidebar summarizing and linking to the rebuttals. It could have called Koch directly--it didn't--and put its comments in the sidebar.'' I hope that the Washington Post will be more thorough and accurate in its reporting in the future.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) both for yielding me time and for introducing this resolution. There are few things Congress could do that would be more important than passing this resolution. It reaffirms ``In God We Trust'' as the official motto of the United States. It provides Congress with the opportunity to renew its support of a principle that was venerated by the Founders of our country and by its Presidents on a bipartisan basis. In our Declaration of Independence, the Founders declared: ``We the Representatives of the United States of America appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World do with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.'' George Washington, as President of the Constitutional Convention, declared, ``Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair; this event is in the hand of God!'' James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, declared while he was President ``a day of thanksgiving and of acknowledgements to Almighty God.'' Madison said in his declaration that ``no people ought to feel greater obligations to celebrate the goodness of the Great Disposer of Events and of the Destiny of Nations than the people of the United States.'' Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence wrote, ``God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their own only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?'' More recently America's Presidents have reaffirmed the same principles. President Franklin D. Roosevelt said, ``In teaching this democratic faith to American children, we need the sustaining, buttressing aid of those great ethical religious teachings which are the heritage of our modern civilization. For not upon strength nor upon power, but upon the spirit of God shall our democracy be founded.'' President Kennedy said, ``The world is very different now, and yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.'' During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln counseled Americans to have ``a firm reliance on God, who has never yet forsaken this favored land'' and recognized that it is God's pleasure to ``give us to see the right.'' And Ronald Reagan told the American people, ``We are a Nation under God, and I believe God intended for us to be free.'' Thanks to the leadership of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), now it is our turn to show that we still believe and recognize these same eternal truths. We can do that by approving a resolution that will allow today's Congress, as representatives of the American people, to reaffirm to the public and the world our Nation's national motto, ``In God We Trust.''

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2944) to provide for the continued performance of the functions of the United States Parole Commission, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow for morning-hour debate and 11:30 a.m. for legislative business.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Americans say the national media are biased, untrustworthy, and too liberal, according to separate polls released recently by Gallup and the Pew Research Center. Gallup found that only 1 in 10 Americans now have a great deal of trust in the national media. A majority say the media are biased. And by a margin of more than 3-1, Americans think the media are too liberal rather than too conservative. Pew found that 1 in 4 Americans think that news organizations, in general, get the facts straight. That's a 14 percent decrease from 4 years ago. And almost 8 in 10 Americans say news organizations favor one side over the other. Mr. Speaker, if the media want to restore the public's trust, they should give Americans the facts, not tell them what to think.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 741 I inadvertently missed the final passage of H.R. 2401, the ``Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation'' (TRAIN Act) on Friday, September 23. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2189) to encourage States to report to the Attorney General certain information regarding the deaths of individuals in the custody of law enforcement agencies, and for other purposes.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.