David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. VITTER. I yield my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER. I will be happy to consider that offer and get back to the distinguished Senator. My only concern is we have as much ammunition as possible to retain this provision in conference, which a very good rollcall vote could perhaps give us. That is my only concern, since the House version of the bill has taken this language out. I will be happy to consider that offer and personally follow up with the distinguished Senator.

Mr. VITTER. I will.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. VITTER. I urge bipartisan support of the Vitter amendment. It is very simple and straightforward but important. It ends the TARP bailout program on a date certain, the date certain originally set out, which is December 31 of this year. Under the TARP bailout legislation, the program is supposed to end on that date. However, there was some fine print. The fine print said the Treasury Secretary unilaterally can say: No, we need to extend it. On his own, with no additional vote of Congress, he can extend it until October 3, 2010. I think any such extension would be absolutely contrary to the best interests of the Nation, and I believe we should act and simply take that extension authority back and wind down the program and end the program, the bailout, in an orderly way on the original intended date of December 31 of this year. I think we should do this for three clear reasons. First of all, the biggest reason is simply the TARP bailout program was rushed through Congress in what was described as an impending and indeed a cataclysmic crisis. We were told by several experts certainly, including the Treasury Secretary and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, that the financial system was in imminent danger of collapsing. I am not exaggerating. I am simply repeating their statements from last fall. So Congress, certainly over my objection, passed the TARP bailout program in that atmosphere of absolute crisis. Well, we may disagree about where we are getting toward recovery and what we see for the next year. But I think we can all agree that imminent collapse, if it was ever before us, is not before us now; that huge so-called cataclysmic crisis, if it was ever a threat, has passed. So the whole rationale for the extraordinary $700 billion TARP bailout program, that crisis, has clearly passed. Again, I am not saying we are out of this recession. I am not saying we are not in tough economic times. I am not saying we do not have a lot further to go in recovery. I am saying no one believes the world financial system is in imminent danger of collapse or will be, thankfully, anytime soon. Clearly, the entire rationale for such an extraordinary and unprecedented use of government power and intervention and the use of $700 billion of taxpayer funds, that rationale has passed. Reason No. 2 is that the TARP bailout, in practice, has become nothing more than a political slush fund and has been used in many different ways, never as it was originally designed. Of course, we all heard, when it was originally proposed, that it was a toxic asset purchase program; it would be used for one purpose and one purpose only--for the government to buy toxic assets to get them off the balance sheets of troubled financial institutions. That was the sum and substance, 100 percent of the original design and rationale. As we all know, it never was used in that way. Literally within a few weeks of Congress passing the program last fall, it morphed completely. We weren't going to use it to buy toxic assets anymore. Then it morphed into an equity investment program for the largest banks that were deemed too big to fail. That, of course, has been carried out to the tune of not just $700 billion but trillions of dollars, as this money is constantly reprocessed. Next TARP was morphed again and used as a slush fund to bail out two auto companies. Specifically, the administration--at the time, the Bush administration--said: No, TARP is not about manufacturers, auto companies, at all. It is not about that. It is about financial institutions. Nevertheless, it was morphed again, used as a slush fund to bail out two auto companies. And there are many different, smaller programs which have been devised and funded out of the TARP bailout slush fund. TARP has been consistently used by the government for whatever different purpose, whatever new bright idea the administration--first, the Bush administration and now the Obama administration--decides is a good thing to do. It has truly become a slush fund, open-ended, no limits, that the administration can use pretty much however it wants. There doesn't seem to be any real or meaningful limitation. So far the original $700 billion program has grown to reach $3 trillion. That is because some money is paid out. It is paid back in. It is reprocessed. According to SIGTARP, the group that monitors this, the total financial exposure of TARP and TARP-related programs, when we look at all of the myriad activities, may reach $3 trillion. Third and finally, the third important reason we should establish this date certain to wind down the TARP bailout slush fund is that from the very beginning, TARP has not been transparent. It has been very opaque. It has been ripe for fraud. Unfortunately, there are numerous pieces of evidence and media accounts to bear this out. For instance, on July 21, Neil Barofsky, special inspector general for the TARP program, issued a quarterly report to Congress. In it, he said: As of June 30, there are 35 ongoing criminal and civil investigations about misuses of money; Federal felony charges against Gordon Grigg, FTC action against misleading use of MakingHomeAffordable.gov, and on and on. In its quarterly report issued in July, SIGTARP said that the Treasury ``has repeatedly failed to adopt recommendations that SIGTARP believes are essential to providing basic transparency and fulfill Treasury's stated commitment to implement TARP `with the highest degree of accountability and transparency possible.' '' Specifically, SIGTARP had four key recommendations, and they have not been implemented in any meaningful way. The Vitter amendment is very simple, very straightforward. Let's abide by the original end date for the TARP bailout fund--December 31 of this year. Let's take back the unilateral authority the Secretary of the Treasury now has to extend that to October 3 of 2010, for three simple reasons: No. 1, there is no impending crisis anymore; No. 2, TARP has been used as a slush fund for everything under the Sun except the original purpose of buying troubled assets; and No. 3, TARP has never been transparent, open, and aboveboard. It is rife with fraud and misuse, unfortunately, documented by criminal prosecutions, IG reports and the like. I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to support this reasonable amendment. I retain the remainder of my time. Amendment No. 2306

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It simply says the TARP bailout fund will end when we originally said it would end: December 31 of this year. Under the original TARP bill, the Treasury Secretary has the authority to extend it another almost full year, until October of 2010. We would take that authority away. We would retain that responsibility and say we will wind down the TARP bailout fund at the end of this year. Clearly, the crisis, the imminent collapse of the financial system, has passed and is not before us. If we are serious about the bailout being temporary, being necessary because of truly unusual circumstances, if we are serious about that, we will vote yes on this amendment and end TARP at the end of this year in an orderly way.

Mr. VITTER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent to call up Vitter amendment No. 2303 to the pending legislation.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise and urge strong bipartisan support for the Vitter amendment. The Vitter amendment simply moves $7 billion from the stimulus--less than 1 percent of the original stimulus program--to backfill and take care of the need in the highway trust fund. This is important to do for two reasons. First of all, we need to stop the reckless borrowing. We are borrowing ourselves into oblivion. We are borrowing our children into poor economic times. We need to reverse that trend. The underlying bill fixes the hole in the highway trust fund simply by racking up more debt, and that is why there is a budget point of order against it. So we need to stop this never-ending upward spiral of borrowing. No. 2, by doing this, we can focus a little bit of the stimulus on something I believe we all think it always should have been focused on: infrastructure spending and spending now versus later. This will move the $7 billion toward roadway spending now, which is effective stimulus.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, this is about a budget point of order. That means the bill, since it was not amended as I would have liked, is contrary to the Budget Act. It has more outlays this year. It also requires us to rack up more debt, borrow more money. In the face of $2 trillion of new debt this year, doubling that in 5 years, and tripling it in 10, this is a critical vote. Either you vote yes and say let's continue to go down that path or you vote no and say we need to change course about debt.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, let me briefly address some of the issues and misconceptions that have come up by focusing on four key points. First, I believe the Senator from Illinois said: Why would we want to take anything out of the stimulus and stop job creation? I have a news flash: There is no job creation. Unemployment is going up. Again, unfortunately and tragically, the unemployment numbers say it all. This was the projection from the proponents of the stimulus about unemployment peaking at 8 percent and then coming down. Tragically, this is the reality. Joblessness goes up and up, toward 8 percent. So there is no job creation right now. No. 2, the Senator from Illinois said: Why would we want to move money from one pocket into another pocket? That doesn't do anything. Well, it does a lot if the pocket we are removing money from is stuff that would not be spent until after 2011, and we move it to a pocket focused on real, concrete roads, highways, and bridges-- spending that can be done now. That is a big change in terms of the type of spending we are talking about. It is a big change in terms of the timing of the spending. The biggest reason for the stimulus having no significant impact on unemployment is the type and the timing of the spending. On the timing side, only 10 percent of the entire $800 billion stimulus has been spent to date. On the type of spending, only 3.5 percent of the whole bill was ever for roads, highways, and bridges. Only 1 percent of that--1 percent of the 3.5 percent--has been spent yet. So, yes, we are moving money from one pocket to another so as not to run up more debt. In the process, we are having a lot more immediate, positive impact on employment. That is very important. Point No. 3: In direct response to the Senator from California, if she would like to wall off any stimulus money--the money for roads, highways and bridges and the money for flood control--and say the President cannot use that money in this transfer, I would be very open and supportive of such a second-degree amendment. I did not do that simply to give the administration maximum flexibility in terms of working out those details. However, again, if the Senator from California would like to propose a second-degree amendment to wall off true highway funding or flood control funding, or whatever, I would be happy to support that. Fourth and finally, I couldn't believe my ears, but I think the Senator from California said the underlying bill involves deficit reduction. Let's get real. I know Washington is a fairy tale world. I know things are turned upside down so often, like Alice in Wonderland, but the underlying bill involves racking up more debt, more deficit. That is the whole motivating factor of my amendment. The underlying bill does nothing but borrow more. Don't take my word for it; look at the fact that there is a budget point of order against the underlying bill which I will point out and raise for consideration by the Senate. So the underlying bill clearly involves more debt. How could it not? We are taking money from the general fund to fill in the highway trust fund. Guess what. We are deficit spending in the general fund. We are already, through the general fund, racking up a deficit. So if we take money from there, we have to backfill that if we spend the same amount with more borrowing, more deficit, more debt. Again, if we care about turning the corner on deficit and debt, this is the responsible amendment to support and the responsible approach to take. The underlying bill racks up more debt; the Vitter amendment avoids that. Again, there is a budget point of order against this underlying bill about which, with the cooperation of the Senator from California, I believe she needs to make some introductory comments, but I will make that budget point of order now. I yield the floor to the Senator from California.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I will make that point of order. The underlying bill is such a great deficit reduction that it would involve more borrowing and more debt and more mandatory spending. It would specifically increase mandatory spending and exceed the committee's section 302(a) allocation. Therefore, I raise a point of order against the bill pursuant to section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. VITTER. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment and ask that it be modified with the changes at the desk.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I urge all colleagues to come together, as the American people surely want us to do, and adopt this amendment. I truly believe this amendment is the responsible way to address the shortfall in the highway trust fund. This amendment funds the highway trust fund shortfall by using money from the already-passed stimulus bill. That is important because otherwise we are racking up yet more deficit and more debt on top of the mountains of debt we have already accumulated to pass on to our children and grandchildren. This is important so that, yes, needed highway work can be done, particularly needed work in the midst of a recession, but it can be done without racking up yet more debt to weigh down the economy and burden our children and grandchildren. I wish to make two central points about this idea and why this amendment is necessary. First, the level of debt we are accumulating is truly staggering. It is beyond our ability to get our hands around. This year alone, the deficit has surpassed $1 trillion. This year's deficit spending has gone beyond $1 trillion. By the way, we are not finished this year. It continues to grow. This year, we have racked up over $1.8 trillion of new debt because there is the $1 trillion in the normal year's spending plus the huge stimulus bill of $800 billion. In terms of racking up new debt to put on the backs of our children and grandchildren, there is $1.8 trillion of new debt this year. That is way beyond anything we have experienced in our lifetime. Just the trillion dollars of deficit spending rivals the sort of numbers we used to talk about not so long ago for the entire Federal budget. But, unfortunately, it gets worse. It gets significantly worse because this Congress, over my objection, passed President Obama's budget, and that budget takes those mountains of debt I just described--at already sky-high historic levels--and what does it do? Does it work it down? No. It doubles that level of debt in 5 years. It more than triples that level of debt in 10 years. That is the path we are on, and that is the legacy we are handing to our children and grandchildren. That is simply completely irresponsible. To have this mountain of debt already accumulated this year, at historically high levels--$1.8 trillion accumulated this year alone, and it is growing-- and then to have a budget plan that doubles that in 5 years and triples it in 10 years is inexcusable. In that 5-year period, this President will have racked up more debt than every predecessor President before him combined. We need to get off that path, and the American people know it. The American people understand, through their common sense, that this is a recipe for disaster. All of us as parents want to hand our kids a better world, a world of more opportunity, a better future than even we had handed to us from our parents. Yet we are on a path to do exactly the opposite and hand our kids an enormous burden, hand them a tomorrow full of clouds and uncertainty, particularly dominated by this threat-- central fundamental economic threat--of deficit and debt. We cannot accept that. Yet here we are on the floor with the other side proposing to fund the highway trust fund with--guess what--more debt, more borrowing, more borrowing by the government from whoever buys our debt, including wonderful allies around the world like the Communist Chinese Government. We need to get off this path, and this is one important step in doing that, saying: Yes, we will continue vital highway programs, but we will do it by taking from the already-appropriated stimulus funds. That is appropriate money that is already appropriated through the process. We will not do it by borrowing yet more money. The other side has fancy arguments about: Well, this is really taking back a loan we sent the general fund 8 years ago. Let's make no mistake about it, that money is long gone. This is racking up more debt, purely and simply. For that very reason--because it is racking up more debt, because it increases outlays in this fiscal year--it has a budget point of order against it, which I will raise before our final vote. So if you need any further proof that the underlying bill requires borrowing yet more money, racking up yet more debt, it is nailed down by the fact that there is a budget point of order against the underlying bill, which I will raise. The second critical reason we should adopt the Vitter amendment and fund highway projects from stimulus money and not rack up yet more debt goes to the nature of the stimulus and the attempt which has been very slow and very faltering of using those stimulus dollars to help revive the economy. Of course, that was the whole argument behind the stimulus: We are in a severe recession. We need to do something. We need to get spending and economic activity out the door. We need to hold down unemployment. That was the whole argument. From the very beginning, I did not think that would be the result. That is why I voted against the stimulus, both because of the nature of the spending--it is a lot of big government programs, not a lot of true shovel-ready infrastructure spending--and because of the timing of the spending. I thought from the very beginning that relatively few dollars would go out the door immediately and a lot of the stimulus money would not be spent for years. Well, unfortunately, all of that is coming true. Again, if you look at the nature of the spending in the stimulus and the timing of it, it leaves a lot to be desired. I think all of us in this body, and Americans across the country, favored infrastructure spending as the centerpiece of the stimulus. Yes, let's do real, concrete, shovel-ready projects. Let's build roads and highways and bridges as the best example of a true, concrete, shovel-ready infrastructure project. I certainly strongly supported that element of spending as a way--not the only way but as a way--to help revive our economy. Unfortunately, that type of project was never a major part of the stimulus bill as passed. In fact, if you take all of the roads and highways and bridges, all of that construction in the entire stimulus, how much of the bill do you think it is? Fifty percent? Certainly not. Thirty percent? Keep going down. Twenty percent? No. Ten percent? Try 3.5 percent. Mr. President, 3.5 percent of the entire stimulus focused on what the American people thought really could be spent to help stimulate the economy: shovel-ready infrastructure projects on roads and highways and bridges. My amendment is a way to increase that part of the stimulus that goes to that project to increase highway funding through the stimulus, which I think there was a very broad consensus to do from the beginning, but it never got done in the stimulus. The second big problem with the stimulus is the timing of that money. It has gone out the door very slowly. Of the entire $800 billion stimulus bill, which was supposed to be immediate relief for the economy--let's start turning the corner on this recession immediately passing that bill--today, months later, a half a year later, 10 percent has gone out the door. Only 10 percent has been spent. That is ludicrous. Of that tiny slice that was roads and highways and bridges--the 3.5 percent--guess how much of that money has gotten spent. Mr. President, 1 percent of that. Not 1 percent of the whole bill, not almost a third of the 3.5 percent. I mean 1 percent of the 3.5 percent; in other words .035 percent of the entire bill--a meaningless amount. So let's increase the amount of money we take from the stimulus pot and immediately get it out the door for vital highway projects. Because of those factors in the stimulus--the nature of the spending, which was never focused on real, shovel-ready infrastructure; only 3.5 percent going to roads and highways and bridges; and the timing of the money, which has been amazingly slow; only 10 percent of the stimulus spent right now and only 1 percent on roads and highways and bridges-- what has been the effect on the economy? Well, of course, the effect has been slim to none. This chart I have in the Chamber says it all. This graph is what the proponents of the stimulus bill say would happen to unemployment over time: We pass the stimulus, and it is going to help revive the economy. It is going to make sure unemployment peaks at less than 8 percent and then comes down. Well, unfortunately, the reality has been very different, because compared to this prediction by the proponents of the stimulus, this is the reality, as I show you on this chart. This is what unemployment has been doing in the last several months--going up and up and up, well beyond the peak that was predicted, reaching almost 10 percent today. Again, this is the second fundamental reason we need to adopt the Vitter amendment, because the stimulus, as it was put together, is not weighted nearly enough toward real infrastructure such as roads and highways and bridges, and it is not weighted nearly enough on spending now versus years from now. This Vitter amendment will help change that for the better. It will reweight the stimulus, at least at the margin, to more roads and highways and bridges and more spending now because we need it now in the midst of this recession now. So again I urge all of my colleagues to come around and embrace and support this Vitter amendment. Doesn't it make sense to say we need to start now in terms of rejecting this path of more and more and more debt? Because the underlying bill, make no mistake about it, is funded by more borrowing, more debt. That is why a budget point of order lies against the underlying bill. I will raise that budget point of order before the end of our debate. Secondly, doesn't it make sense to say: Look, the stimulus idea was about exactly this sort of spending? Americans across the country favor stimulus spending that is really focused on roads and highways and bridges and real infrastructure, things that are truly shovel ready. They do not favor big government waste programs and they do not favor spending 3 years from now because that is going to have no impact to get us out of this recession right now. This amendment, again, will fine-tune the stimulus in the positive direction, toward spending on roads and highways and bridges, and virtually all of us support more of that spending, including the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. She had an amendment on the stimulus to do just that, which was opposed and defeated by the other side. This amendment will also fine-tune the stimulus to get more money out the door now. Don't we need that? Only 10 percent of the $800 billion has been spent. Don't we need to front-load it a lot more than that to have any sort of significant positive impact on this recession? Again, tragically, the unemployment figures say it all. The prediction: Peak at 8 percent, come down from there. The reality: We continue to go up and up and up--perilously close right now--toward 10 percent. Again, I urge all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to join together, to work together, as the American people want us to do, around a basic commonsense idea. Let's stop the debt. Let's stop racking up yet more debt, putting it on the backs of our children and grandchildren. Let's front-load the stimulus and do shovel-ready infrastructure now rather than big government projects 3 years from now. With that, Mr. President, I yield back my time.

Mr. VITTER. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I renew the plea that we work on that sort of agreement to consider the matter this week immediately following the Energy and Water appropriations bill. Yes, I absolutely want a Vitter amendment considered because that is the whole issue I have been pushing--to fund this out of the stimulus, not to run up debt. I believe we can have an agreement for a very limited number of germane amendments. But it is essential for that discussion to be meaningful and that it happen this week. I renew my encouragement of the chairman to help put together an agreement for consideration of the bill this week, a limited number of amendments, including the concept of funding it out of the stimulus. I believe that is the way we can act responsibly and not be held hostage and be married to whatever the House says is the right answer, simply because they are leaving town at the end of this week. I look forward to working with the chair of the authorizing committee toward that end. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to talk about something I have brought up several times on the floor of the Senate, which is the fact that the highway trust fund, essential to continuing to build out our highway infrastructure, and particularly essential in the midst of a recession, is about to run out of money. We need to do something about that and we need to act responsibly; not merely increase debt, increase deficits, borrow more money but act responsibly to replenish this trust fund in a way that doesn't drive up yet more the public debt and the Federal Government debt. I have a proposal to do that, but it is essential we consider this issue now, this week, and not wait until next week when the House of Representatives will not even be in session so we can correctly address this issue and act in a responsible way. Again, it is very clear the highway trust fund is running out of money. I think it is a near universal consensus that we need to act, we need to do something about it so the highway program doesn't end and essential construction in all our States around the country doesn't come to a screeching halt. But how do we do that? That is the issue. There is absolutely no reason we need to do this by driving up the debt yet more, borrowing yet more money from our lenders, whoever they may be, including the Chinese Government. We can do this with already appropriated dollars. How do we do it? Well, let's move some of the stimulus dollars--a very small percentage of the stimulus bill which is already passed, dollars which have already been appropriated--to the highway trust fund. This solves the problem and does it in a responsible way, without increasing our debt level, without borrowing yet more money from all sorts of sources, including foreign sources. I summarized this proposal in a letter to Senator Reid, cosigned by about 35 of my colleagues, and we sent the distinguished majority leader this letter on July 21. We urged him to get behind in support of this proposal, but we also urged him to take up this matter of the highway trust fund now--sooner, not later--so we can have a full and fair debate on the issue and come to a proper resolution. Why does it matter when we take this up? Well, for a very simple reason: This week we could address the issue; we could have a full, fair debate; we could amend House action and send it back to the House and include the proposal that funds be shifted from the stimulus to meet this essential need. Next week, we can do the same thing, but I can tell my colleagues the first thing that will come out of the mouth of the majority leader and others will be: Well, the House is gone. The House has left town. It is take it or leave it. It is accede to everything they want. We can't amend it one comma, one period. That is bogus. We can amend it. We can, in particular, amend it if we act this week. That is what we should do, as soon as we conclude consideration of the Energy and Water appropriations bill, which is on the floor now. I urge all my colleagues to come together in a reasonable, responsible debate to consider this commonsense solution of replenishing the highway trust fund but doing it out of stimulus dollars, so we don't increase the debt yet more. After all, highway construction is exactly the sort of stimulus we can all agree on. It is precisely the sort of stimulus spending that has very broad, near universal, bipartisan support. So it is fully consistent with the broad goals of the stimulus. With all that in mind, I would repeat a unanimous consent request that I proffered several days ago. Several days ago, I asked for unanimous consent that the Senate call up and pass S. 1344, my bill to use stimulus funds to protect the solvency of the highway trust fund. This request was objected to on the Democratic side. I would now renew that request and specifically ask unanimous consent that the Senate enter a unanimous consent agreement that would provide for a time certain, immediately following the conclusion and consideration of the Energy and Water appropriations bill, to consider this bill and allow for relevant amendments.

Mr. VITTER. Will the Senator yield before she gets off the floor?

Mr. VITTER. I ask the Senator, through the Chair, to consider the fact that if we don't take up this matter--however you want to fund it or consider it--take it up now, this week, then the argument will be made next week that we have to accede to whatever the House has done, and we cannot do anything differently. That includes a much shorter extension. I support the idea of an extension for 18 months, as does the distinguished chair of the authorizing committee. But the House is going to pass and is passing now a much shorter extension. Would the Senator not agree it is a good idea to take up the general matter now, immediately following the Energy and Water bill, and not have the terms of our action dictated to us next week simply because the House has gone out of session?

Mr. VITTER. I very much agree with that plan forward. In that cooperative spirit, I would amend my unanimous consent request and ask unanimous consent that immediately following consideration of the Energy and Water appropriations bill, the Democratic proposal the Senator is referring to, which has been hotlined, be made the order on the floor and a time certain to consider that bill and allow relevant amendments, including the Vitter amendment.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of amendment No. 1618. I am a proud cosponsor of this amendment, along with dozens of other Senators on a bipartisan basis. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment. The second amendment is a valued constitutional right. Thank God, the courts, particularly in recent years, have expressly recognized that. Of course, the Supreme Court, in the landmark Heller decision, ruled that ``the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation'' is a protected fundamental constitutional right. Even the very liberal Ninth Circuit Court, based in California, ruled that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms is ``deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition'' and has long been regarded as the ``true palladium of liberty.'' That court also wrote that ``nothing less than the security of the nation--a defense against both external and internal threats--rests on the provision [second amendment].'' That is why this amendment is a fundamental right. What does that mean in everyday terms? It means the ability of citizens, particularly those more vulnerable in our society, such as women, to protect themselves, people such as Sue Fontenot in Louisiana, who told me: When my family and I go out at night, it makes me feel safer just knowing I am able to have my concealed weapon. It is personal safety and security. It is a fundamental ability to protect one's self, one's family, and one's property. So if that is a fundamental right, and if we have reasonable laws and reasonable permitting processes, why shouldn't Sue Fontenot have that freedom, right, and security when she visits other States, which also allow concealed carry? This isn't just anecdotal quotes, this is also backed up by criminological studies. Studying crime trends around the country in the United States, John Lott and David Mustard concluded: Allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes. . . . When State concealed hand gun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 8.5 percent and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent. In the 1990s, Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz found guns were used for self-protection about 2.5 million times annually. That number, of course, dwarfs these tiny numbers and anecdotal evidence of limited, very tiny numbers of improper use of guns by folks with concealed carry permits. Responding to the Kleck and Gertz study, the late Marvin Wolfgang, self-described ``as strong a gun control advocate as can be found among criminologists in this country,'' said he agreed with the methodology of the study. Our amendment will simply allow law-abiding Americans to exercise their fundamental right to self-defense, by using the full faith and credit clause of our U.S. Constitution. As we do this, as we protect that fundamental individual right, we also protect States rights. I think it is very important to address some of the arguments with regard to States rights that have been made by the other side. We do not mandate the right to concealed carry in any State that does not allow the practice. Some States, such as Illinois and Wisconsin, fall into that category. We do not mandate a concealed carry right in those States. In addition, our amendment does not establish national standards for concealed carry. It does not provide a national concealed carry permit. It simply allows citizens who are able to carry in their home States to also carry in other States, but only if those other States have concealed carry permits. We also respect the law of those other States, in terms of where guns can be carried and where they cannot be carried. So we explicitly respect that State law by requiring that State laws concerning specific times and locations in which firearms may not be carried must be followed by the visiting individual, and that is very important. Finally, we absolutely protect and enshrine current Federal law, in terms of background checks and people with criminal problems or mental problem, who cannot carry guns. If an individual is prohibited by current Federal law from carrying a firearm, we absolutely protect and enshrine that. Let me say that again. If under current Federal law an individual is prohibited from carrying a gun, that is fully protected. At the end of the day, this is, again, a fundamental debate about what is the problem in terms of violent crime? Is the problem law- abiding citizens who follow the law, who take all of the time and all of the trouble needed to get concealed carry permits, go through background checks, fill out forms, and do everything that is required by their home States? Is that class of people the fundamental cause of violent crime or is the dominant, 99.9 percent fundamental problem in the violent crime arena people who don't follow the law, who ignore the law, who ignore a concealed carry law, ignore those requirements, as well as every other law on the books--unfortunately, including laws against murder and armed robbery and other violent crime? Clearly, in the minds of commonsense Americans, it is the latter category of folks that is the problem, not the former. The statistics and the evidence and the history bear that out. So concealed carry is a useful and essential tool for law-abiding citizens to be able to protect themselves and stop and deter violent crime. It is not any significant source of violent crime whatsoever. We have the numbers that bear that out. We have some States that allow reciprocity now. Ten States now allow reciprocity under their State law. Have they seen incidents of problems with concealed carry permits from other States? No. Have they seen spikes in violent crime because of this reciprocity? No. Again, because this is a fundamental right, and because it goes to people's security, because criminological and other studies are on our side and don't show any spike in violent crime by this but in fact show crimes prevented and deterred by concealed carry, I urge all of my colleagues to support this important reciprocity amendment. Groups around the country who respect the second amendment and find that a fundamental and important right are certainly supporting this amendment. The National Rifle Association, NRA, is a strong supporter of this amendment. I thank them for that and for their leadership. They are also specifically scoring this amendment in terms of Member votes. Gun Owners of America, another leading gun rights second amendment group, is a strong supporter of this amendment and is specifically pushing for passage and scoring Members' votes. The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, the Passenger-Cargo Security Group, and many other groups around the country are strong supporters of this amendment, because the second amendment is a fundamental right because concealed carry does work, because it prevents crimes and deters crime and doesn't significantly add, in any meaningful way, to the crime problem. Again, like with a lot of gun control debates, this comes down to a pretty fundamental question: Do you think the big problem with regard to violent crime is the law-abiding citizen, the one who takes the time and goes to the trouble of filling out the forms and following all the rules for concealed carry? I don't. Or do you think the fundamental problem--99.99 percent of the problem--is the criminal who doesn't respect that law, because he doesn't even respect laws against murder, armed robbery, and other violent crimes? That is the problem. Commonsense Americans know that. This amendment will protect law-abiding citizens and provide another effective and important tool against those criminals who are the problem. I yield the floor.