▶ 0:05:44this heartbreaks imaginable. As has been said by many, including me, Molly was a very radiant light within your family, and she left an indelible mark upon the hearts of everyone she met. It's good to hear see you beside us on the dis once more and again you and our family remain in our thoughts and prayers to today the rules committee is convening to consider three pieces of legislation HR 2240 HR
▶ 0:06:152243 and HR 2255 HR 2240 the bipartisan improving law enforcement officer safety and wellness This through data act requires the attorney general to develop reports relating to violent attacks against law enforcement officers and submit them to Congress.
▶ 0:06:36Some of the components of these reports include the number of attacks intentionally targeting police officers, a description of the federal response on attacks against law enforcement officers, and recommendations for improving responses to attacks.
▶ 0:06:51Further, this legislation requires the attorney general to submit to Congress a report that assesses the ability to implement a new category of reporting in the uniform online reporting system and the national incidentbased reporting system. Provides details on how to engage state and local law enforcement agencies in reporting the data as well disparities and offers additional legislative tools or authorities.
▶ 0:07:20helpful in deferring aggregate actions. HR 2243, the bipartisan LEOSA Reform Act 2024, amends Title 18, United States Code to improve the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act and provisions relating to the carrying of concealed weapons by law enforcement officers.
▶ 0:07:43This legislation provides necessary exemptions, clarifications, and certifications that would allow current and retired law enforcement officers certified under LEOSA to carry concealed firearm on public transportation and within national parks, gun-free school zones, as well as certain federal facilities.
▶ 0:08:05By clarifying the rights of qualified current law enforcement officers as well as retired officers, this legislation will augment existing public safety postures in critical locations across our nation. To quote former Senator Barbara Boxer, quote, "Law enforcement officers are never off duty. They are dedicated public servants who are sworn to protect public safety at any time and place where peace is threatened.
▶ 0:08:34They need all the help they can get." End quote. Finally, HR 2255, the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act of 2025, directs the administrator of the General Services Administration, GSA, to establish a program to allow current and retired federal law enforcement officers to purchase a retired firearm from the agency that issued the firearm to that officer.
▶ 0:09:06Current law requires federal agencies to destroy retired firearms, a process that remains costly. And that cost is ultimately borne by hardworking taxpayers across the nation. By recovering these costs and allowing current and retired federal law enforcement officers who remain in good standing to purchase these firearms, this legislation achieves pertinent aims that benefit law enforcement and hardworking taxpayers.
▶ 0:09:37This week is National Police Week and it's a perfect opportunity to advance these pieces of legislation that affirm our commitment to supporting the men and women of law enforcement. I invite our Democrat colleagues to join us in doing so. And before I yield to the ranking member, um please wish Mr. Negus a happy birthday when he comes in.
▶ 0:10:02Um, today is his birthday and we're glad he has the gift of spending it with the rules committee. Well, hopefully he's out Um, with that, I look forward to today's discussion. Now, yield to Mr. McGovern for any comments he wishes to make. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. And before I begin, I just want to thank you and all the members of this committee from the bottom of my heart for your prayers and gestures of kindness um over the last few weeks. Um, it means more to me and my family than you can imagine.
▶ 0:10:32So, I I appreciate um you know, all the u all the outreach. It's it it was comforting. Um and um Madam Chair, I'm not going to get into the details of the of all the bills that are we're considering today.
▶ 0:10:47I'll I'll leave it to the panelists to go into details, but um it is National Police Week and um I do want to express my my deep disappointment that uh that this house uh still has yet to proper properly acknowledge and honor those who defended our lives here on January 6th. Um I was in the chair that day. I took over for Speaker Pelosi. I was one of the last people off the House floor.
▶ 0:11:12Um, I saw uh the attackers that day um up close and um it was horrific and Speaker Johnson, for whatever reason, refuses uh refuses to put up a bronze plaque honoring the officers who defended this building that day. Congress passed a law in 2022 to put up a memorial. The plaque is already printed.
▶ 0:11:39It's just sitting somewhere on this campus ready to be installed. But the speaker won't do it. And I guess my question is why won't he do it? Can someone explain to me why a plaque that Congress voted uh to authorize honoring the bravery of those officers that day um is still not on display.
▶ 0:12:04It it really is a sign of disrespect and it is a slap in the face to the Capitol police who protect all of us each and every day. I think, you know, we we kind of can guess the answer. And I I think it's because a lot of people, a lot of Republicans, not all, but many want to downplay what happened that day. And to be clear, January 6 was a day where violent criminals broke into the capital. not political prisoners, as Trump likes to call them, or patriots.
▶ 0:12:34They were violent criminals. They brutally attacked our police, crushed officers and doorways, tased officers into cardiac arrest, and beat officers with anything they could get their hands on, including flag poles, bats, and fire There are law enforcement officers outside of this room right now who were attacked that day and continue to protect this building and protect members uh of of Congress.
▶ 0:13:02So I as as I will so as all all I will say to all of you is that if we're serious about police week and about honoring our police, you would tell Speaker Johnson to hang that plaque. You would say right here and now in clear and unequivocal terms that Donald Trump was wrong to pardon the January 6 criminals and you would call that day what it was, a insurrection.
▶ 0:13:27You know, um, you know, I um, again, I I'm I'm just it's beyond disappointment. I I I I'm outraged that we're even raising this issue uh after all this time. Uh and so I when people talk about honoring our police during police week, it rings a little hollow given um that omission.
▶ 0:13:50uh you know um unfortunately uh we're seeing in addition to that um not recognizing the officers on January 6, we have Republicans coming up with uh budgets that slashed $680 million in funding for the ATF and for DEA and for FBI into firing FBI employees. Uh you know, wiping out a billion dollars in funding for community policing grants and gutting civil rights enforcement.
▶ 0:14:19you know, uh, all while handing, uh, tax cuts to to billionaires. But if we want to celebrate and truly honor police during police week, um, we can start by telling the truth. And the truth is that the officers who protected the capital on January 6th are the heroes. They are the good guys. Uh, not the attackers, but the police who protected and saved countless lives on that day. Uh, and continue to do so, and I honor their service to us.
▶ 0:14:47Um uh and um and I and again I I I think it would be a meaningful gesture um and an acknowledgement that we all realize the seriousness of that day if we could finally put on display that plaque that Congress authorized. And with that, I thank the chair and I yield back. Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Without objection, any prepared statements that our witnesses may have will be included in the record.
▶ 0:15:16I now welcome our first panel, representative not and representative Rascin from and ranking member Rascin from the committee on the judiciary. Your full statement will be submitted for the record. We ask you summarize your statement in five minutes. Representative not I welcome your testimony. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. As you well know, it is National Police Week. More than 60 years ago, President John F.
▶ 0:15:43Kennedy signed a proclamation designating May 15th as Peace Officers Memorial Day and reserve the full week to rightfully honor law enforcement. Thousands of law enforcement officers are visiting Washington DC this week to honor their colleagues who have made the ultimate sacrifice while bravely and selflessly serving their communities in the line of duty.
▶ 0:16:06The three bills before us today will make communities safer and more importantly, they will show our appreciation for the men and women of law enforcement. Allow me to first discuss HR 2243, the the LEOSA Reform Act. Briefly. In 2004, President George W. Bush signed into law the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act.
▶ 0:16:28Leosa exempts certain active and retired law enforcement officers carrying a LEOSA photographic identification card from state and local prohibitions on the carrying of concealed firearms. Since its original passage in 2004, LEOSA has been amended twice in 2010 and then in 2013 to clarify who qualifies as an active or retired law enforcement officer.
▶ 0:16:55It also makes other small changes to the certification and compliance requirements for retired officers. The LEOs reform act would make small but important changes to LEOs to allow qualified active and retired officers to conceal carry in the same manner as many licensed citizens according to their state law.
▶ 0:17:16For example, the LEOSA Reform Act will allow law enforcement officers qualified under LEOSA to carry a firearm on public transportation in national parks, in gun-free zones, and in certain publicly accessible federal facilities. We must permit our active and retired law enforcement officers the ability to protect themselves and others no matter where they are here in the United States.
▶ 0:17:40The second bill we are considering is HR 2240, the Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness through Data Act. Police officers risk their lives every day to protect our communities. Unfortunately, they have faced an increase in unprovoked and ambush style attacks in recent years.
▶ 0:18:00While the government collects basic information on these attacks, such as when the attack occurred and what types of weapons were used, more information is needed to help law enforcement officers prepare for, identify, and to prevent future anti- police violence. This bill would fill in the identified gaps and reporting requirements on attacks targeting our law enforcement officers, allowing federal, state, and local governments to equip police with the resources necessary to safely execute their jobs.
▶ 0:18:29The third and final bill is HR2255, the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act of 2025. Under current policy, federal agencies must destroy retired firearms with no fewer than three witnesses to the destruction. In 2022, the Fraternal Order of Police notified Congress of multiple federal law enforcement agencies replacing their service weapons.
▶ 0:18:53The replacement of these service weapons accounted for the destruction of approximately 20,000 firearms costing the American taxpayers roughly $8 million. This legislation would save that cost for agencies and taxpayer taxpayers while recouping part of the initial expense. Under this law, the administrator of the general services would establish a program to allow current and retired federal law enforcement officers to purchase a retired firearm issued to them by their agency.
▶ 0:19:24To be eligible to participate, the officer must be in good standing with the agency and any firearm sold through the program must be sold within six months of the firearms retirement. And finally, the firearm must be sold for salvage value. American taxpayers should not have to pay for a service weapon twice. First, when it is acquired and then secondly when it is destroyed. Thank you, Madam Chair. I look forward to the questions. Thank you, Mr.
▶ 0:19:54Not. Ranking member Raskin. Thank you, Madam Chair. Recognized. I appreciate it, Mr. Kn. And um to the ranking member, I know how tough it is for you to be back now, but please know that you are surrounded by the love of your colleagues, you and your family. Um we um honor the officers who've laid down their lives for their communities on police week and we recognize the challenges that officers fa face as they uh make our communities safer.
▶ 0:20:25Um, our state and local officers work together with our federal. Um, when the local officers trace a firearm, they turn to the ATF. When there's terrorism, they cooperate with the FBI. When they need funding to purchase life-saving equipment like bulletproof vests, they seek and obtain federal grants. When they find child abuse online, they report it to the federally funded Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces.
▶ 0:20:50And when they respond to domestic violence, they often use the training provided by federal grants and place victims in federally funded shelters. Um but um many of these resources have been severely cut already by Elon Musk, Doge, President Trump, and uh Republicans who refuse to intervene to stop it.
▶ 0:21:16The DOJ just terminated $500 million in grants to local police forces, victim services, juvenile justice and services, and uh other public safety mechanisms. We had an amendment to try to restore uh all of that funding, which our colleagues didn't verbally oppose, but they all voted against unfortunately.
▶ 0:21:39But, Madam Chair, you you can't back the blue while you're defunding and gutting essential law enforcement agencies and networks. Moreover, when police are violently attacked, wounded, maimed, and disfigured, as scores of officers were on January 6, 2021, um Donald Trump uh and his administration are letting the criminals go free.
▶ 0:22:06Many of the beneficiaries of the pardons of more than 1500 insurrectionists and rioters have already reaffended, have already been uh for crimes. Uh many have already been charged. Um this week we should be restoring the grants that Doge cut.
▶ 0:22:29We should be pushing the administration to release the funding that supports crucial programs like the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force program. We should be insisting, as the member observed, that the plaque honoring our police officers in the capital be put up. It's more than a year late.
▶ 0:22:50That's the very least we can do for people who risk their lives and some of them lost their lives defending us against the uh savage attack on the capital. But instead, we have a reporting bill today which collects data. We have no objection to that. And two bills that expand the ability of current and retired officers to buy more guns in more places. These two bills have big flaws.
▶ 0:23:16Even if they didn't, this package would be insulting in light of this administration's policies systematically undermining law enforcement and making the jobs of police officers harder. The Leosa Reform Act would preempt state concealed carry laws, forcing all 50 states to allow offduty and retired officers to carry concealed firearms on private property open to the public like restaurants, bars, parks, and playgrounds.
▶ 0:23:43It would require all states to allow off-duty and retired officers to carry concealed firearms on buses, trains, subways, and even in gun-free school zones. It would preempt laws passed by the states prohibiting high-capacity magazines. On top of all this, HR 2243 weakens training certification standards, which currently require training on an annual basis. That would be changed to every 3 years.
▶ 0:24:10We have dozens of proposals that we could be agreeing upon to make our communities safer uh without infringing on the rights of states at all. Uh but this bill is not one of them and we strongly oppose it. The federal law enforcement officer Service Weapon Purchase Act was once a sensible bipartisan bill led by our former colleague Val Demings.
▶ 0:24:29Her version allowed federal agencies to sell handguns no longer in use to active duty officers who previously carried them for their fair market value as long as they completed a background check as with any other gun sale. We supported that bill. We had bipartisan support. Then Republicans weakened it by stripping the background check requirement, but they still limited the bill to uh handgun sales to current law enforcement officers.
▶ 0:24:56We accepted that weakened compromise, but we took it. But when the bill came to the floor last Congress, then our colleagues decorated it with a managerie of extreme provisions. And that is the wild bill which is brought to us today.
▶ 0:25:10Now, the bill makes it so an officer could retire, commit a crime, then as a criminal, become a person who may not legally own firearms under federal law, and then buy from the federal government a semi-automatic assault weapon or assault off shotgun, even a grenade launcher at a substantial discount on the fair market value without passing any background check at all. And that's just a bridge way too far for us. We can't accept that.
▶ 0:25:37We tried to offer common sense changes to reform and improve this extravagantly dangerous bill, but our friends rejected everything we offered. We could have passed a reasonable bipartisan bill as we showed in the last Congress, but they didn't want to do that. Instead, we've got this very extreme version and we cannot support that. So, uh, I hope we could work on legislation we work on together.
▶ 0:26:01We call on all our colleagues to stand with law enforcement in word and in deed by restoring critical grants that have been cut by commemorating the bravery of our officers on January 6 and ensuring that our federal agencies can continue to provide critical assistance to state and local law enforcement. With that, uh, I yield back, Madam Chair, and I thank you for your indulgence. Um, thank you very much. Um, I yield to myself to ask questions. But before I do that, Mr.
▶ 0:26:32Noose, we acknowledged today is your birthday uh when we began. So now we will acknowledge it again. So we glad to have have you Well, we're we're glad to have you here on your birthday. Representative Knot, um, you worked as a federal prosecutor before coming to Congress and developed a strong relationship with our nation's law enforcement organizations. Can you tell us why law enforcement supports these pieces of legislation? Absolutely.
▶ 0:27:02Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Um, you know, these these bills are very uh simple in terms of the motivation behind them and the steps that they take legislatively. Uh starting with the Leosa Reform Act, all this does is essentially close needless bureaucratic burdens on law enforcement. Uh whether or not they're offduty or retired in the carrying of their service weapon. As we alluded to on uh both Mr.
▶ 0:27:26Raskin and myself, law enforcement has uh faced an undue and a severe increase in attacks while they're on duty, while they're off duty, and even after they leave the service. And there is nothing in this law that allows them to maintain the right to possess firearms if they break the law, if they're convicted of a certain crime, etc.
▶ 0:27:45But uh whether it is uh simply changing their addresses, whether it's a reporting requirement under LEOSA, it simply eases the bureaucratic burdens on their rights to carry a concealed weapon uh and protect themselves and their communities as they do when they are in service behind a badge.
▶ 0:28:03In regards to the uh the ability of law enforcement officers to purchase the firearms uh that are retired from service, again, law enforcement officers, whether they're federal, state, or local, are some of the finest people in our country. And law enforcement officers at every level undergo very rigorous background checks.
▶ 0:28:24They have to maintain very strict standards in how they utilize firearms and how they perform their duties with firearms and how they are able to proficiently use firearms even under duress. And the this bill simply allows for the GSA to form a program for qualified officers qualified officers to purchase their firearms when the firearm has been retired. Uh again, this is something that's important to law enforcement.
▶ 0:28:52Many law enforcement practice years with the same firearm. They become accustomed to it, how it feels, how it shoots. Uh they become very familiar with it and are very proficient with it. So enabling them to take those firearms home after the service uh retires the gun. Uh it's it's simply uh common sense and it's the right thing to do. In regards to uh hand grenades, bombs, or anything else that was alluded to by the previous statement, that is simply not true. First, those are not service weapons.
▶ 0:29:20The law requires uh or gives gives credence to the definition of a firearm. Uh and again, the GSA is not going to be selling any type of outlandish weaponry under this program as the law does not allow it. So, it's a common sense step to allow law enforcement officers to protect themselves once they leave the service. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying what Mr. Raskin said about sawoff shotguns and hand grenades because I was going to ask you about that.
▶ 0:29:49So, I appreciate you're clarifying that. Um, but you, as you know, there's been an escalation of assaults on police officers. Uh, Congressman, not the rate of assaults on American law enforcement officer enforcement reached a 10-year high in 2023, according to the FBI's report from last year.
▶ 0:30:10Do you believe that these campaigns against law enforcement, whether it be by defund activist or rugged prosecutors that failed to uphold the plain reading of the law, have created a climate of mistrust in some of our communities? And could that play a part in causing some of the alarming patterns we're seeing? Absolutely.
▶ 0:30:30Uh, you know, ever since I've come to Congress, Madame uh, chairwoman, the only crime that I've heard about from the other side of the aisle is January 6, and it contradicts what they have said about local law enforcement for years. I was working with federal law enforcement when the BLM riots took the country by storm, when there were billions of dollars of property damage that many on the other side of the aisle encouraged. I worked with federal law enforcement when they were targeted specifically by elected leaders.
▶ 0:31:00Um, and the systematic undoing of public trust in local law enforcement had a grave effect on men and women uh who worked behind the badge. And there is a very real distrust, a very real distrust in communities all over the country as it relates to law enforcement that is incredibly dangerous. It's incredibly undermining to law enforcement.
▶ 0:31:22And even in this current uh state when we have the previous administration who encouraged lawlessness at the border who encouraged people from all over the world to come into this country regardless of their criminal intent. Now that the current administration is trying to do something about that there is a demonizing of the ICE agents and local law enforcement who are working to protect this country. So there is a very real sense uh of distrust and uh it's imperative that we work together to stop that.
▶ 0:31:53Thank you very much. Mr. McGovern, you're recognized. Mr. Rask, before I ask my question, do you want to respond to any of this? Well, the I think that some of the conversation proceeded on the basis of a confusion of the two bills. Um, it is the second bill we're discussing today which allows the purchase of semi-automatic weapons and grenade launchers.
▶ 0:32:16And if not, I'd be very happy if we could either correct that by amendment right now or if people want to enter that in the record because right now all it says is the only thing that you can't buy as a retired officer is a machine gun. But do you take it to include also the grenade launchers and the semi-automatics? It makes it very clear in the law this is a service weapon and there's a program that shall be established by the GSA to assign the the the appropriate service weapons that can be sold. Right.
▶ 0:32:46But there's a c there's a categorical ban on the recovery the purchase of machine guns that is excluded by your legislation but not excluded is semi-automatic weapons. But I understood the chair to be saying that she thought it was excluded. Uh I I did and I believe Mr. Kn has said service weapon. Yes. Correct. Yes.
▶ 0:33:09But but machine gun is not a service weapon, but it's one that would be within the arsenal of the police, which is why they textually excluded it. So if you think that we should exclude the semi-automatic weapons, I agree with you entirely and I think we should add that by amendment now. And the grenade launchers, well, the very least, let's Mr. not clarify, but a semi-auto a semi-automatic weapon is um that's entirely too broad.
▶ 0:33:34Law enforcement carries semi-automatic weapons uh from from the state, local, and federal level across every jurisdiction, whether it's a handgun or or a semi-automatic rifle. That's the only type of firearm that they carry. So, if we did that, if we adopt that amendment as broadly as Mr. Raskin states, it would essentially render the bill moot. Mr. McGovern, it's your time. Okay. I forgot. I thought you had it. Okay. Um, Mr.
▶ 0:34:00Raskin, um, last month, President Trump's Department of Justice suddenly cut hundreds of millions of dollars in grant funding that supports law enforcement, crime prevention, and public safety programs from across the country. Um, what what what what is better uh for protecting people? Uh, what is what is better in terms of honoring our officers? uh reversing that or passing the bills that we're dealing with here today. Oh, I mean there there's no contest there.
▶ 0:34:30We're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars that go into local law enforcement assistance to victims of rape, sexual assault. And when we raised this at the judiciary committee, not only could we not find a single member who would speak for these terrible cuts made apparently by one employee of Doge, we couldn't even find anybody who knew anything about it.
▶ 0:34:55And yet our colleagues um although they wouldn't speak up in defense of those cuts, they all voted against our amendment to restore the money. So that is a very serious problem. I mean, this stuff we're talking about is minuscule in terms of its effect. It moves us basically uh in the wrong direction, but it and we've kind of done this before, I think. I mean, similar bills in the past. Yeah, there seems to be a performative dimension uh to the whole thing.
▶ 0:35:25Um but I would simply say the the first bill that we talked about is a major incursion on the prerogatives of state governments. If a state government wants to have um a gun-free school zone, if it wants to say no guns on public buses or trains or subways, why shouldn't they be able to do that without being overridden by this legislation?
▶ 0:35:51Um and you know, as to the other one, again, we pretty much had a compromise for that last year and the year before, but it's been riddled with all these riders. So it gets to the point where now it would say that um an officer could retire, commit a crime, and then as a criminal become a person who is not legally eligible to own firearms, but then buy from the government a a
▶ 0:36:21gun, including an assault rifle, as we just clarified, and as uh Mr. not defended that at a substantial discount without any background check at all. And that's not searching for any kind of common ground as small as this issue is. I mean, I'd much prefer if we were working on what 90% of the American people support, which is a universal violent criminal background check on all gun sales. And this is something that moves us measurably in the wrong direction here.
▶ 0:36:52Mr. not are you are you at all bothered by the fact that um a bronze plaque honoring the officers who defended this capital on January 6th um uh is that Congress authorized is is is not being displayed. Is that does that bother you at all? Mr. McGovern, I wasn't here on January 6th. I am I am here to talk about these three bills and this is obviously the the the speaker's prerogative. He's he's making his decisions accordingly. Well, this this is police week.
▶ 0:37:22It is. All right. And we supposed to honor our police. Don't do you believe the capital police should be honored at all? I I do believe that the Capitol police are are wonderful folks. What I what I completely disagree with is the undermining of local police all over this country. The only police that that the Democratic party seems to be focused on honoring are DC police.
▶ 0:37:41We we we passed a bill in we passed a bill in Congress that among other things authorized the creation of a plaque honoring the men and women who defended this capital on January 6th, who protected the lives of members and staff that day. Um that we we did that and it is done and yet we can't get an answer as to why it is. That's the speaker's prerogative, sir. That's the speaker's prerogative. As a as a it's the law. It's the law.
▶ 0:38:11And my question to you is, as a me member of Congress and as a Republican member of Congress, can you please ask the speaker, why the hell hasn't he hung that plaque up to honor the men and women who defended this campus on that day? I mean, I find it offensive. I I I I every chance I get, I thank the men and women who protect this building. And I was I again, I was the last person off the off the House floor.
▶ 0:38:35I saw them coming through into the speaker gallery, smashing windows, you know, banging, you know, hitting the the the police who were there to defend all of us. I just I think since it's police week and we're talking about I I mean I mean you know again it's police week and and yet the Trump administration is proposing cutting you know hundreds of millions of dollars and and and police funding which is one thing but I mean can we all agree that we should do what
▶ 0:39:05Congress you know voted to do? Mr. for asking. You know what one one significant correction I would make to what my friend from the judiciary committee said is this. It wasn't just DC local police. There were at least 50 officers from my county, Montgomery County, who came down and joined the front lines of that struggle. There were police from Prince George's County, and there were lots of police who came from the Commonwealth of Virginia. Absolutely.
▶ 0:39:33And there were police officers who came just because they heard what was going on on the radio or on TV and they came down like officer Michael Fenone who had a heart attack and begged for his life saying I have four daughters and thought that he was basically breathing his last breaths on that day. So uh the bravery and the valor are not just with the Capitol police and not just with the DC police as brave and as valiant as they were on that day. But I think your point seems elementary to me, Mr.
▶ 0:40:03McGovern. You could think that's the greatest bill in the world to set up the plaque. You could think it's the dumbest thing in the world. You could love what the officers did, or you could think that it's been exaggerated and blown up for political reasons, as some of our colleagues seem to think. Whatever you think of it, it is the law. That was supposed to been put up a year ago. You want to repeal the law, repeal the law. Otherwise, put up the plaque and let's honor the officers.
▶ 0:40:27And thank you for for making correcting the record because all of those um officers um all of those police officers are honored um in this plaque. They're all recognized in this bike. I know this is an easy question in my opinion. I this should be a reflect. Yes, we should hang it up. Yes, it should be it should be put up, you know, immediately. And yet it's it's like you can't get a straight answer from anybody on that. And again, we're going to keep on raising it. again, it is the law and I want to know why the hell the speaker of the house won't put it on display.
▶ 0:40:57Um, I think that is a sign of disrespect to men and women in law enforcement. Uh, and it's something that could be easily remedied and I again I don't understand what is the hesitation. What is the hesit why is this such a big deal? Um, and um, I have my theories which I won't get into.
▶ 0:41:17Uh but it it would be nice if we could say during police week that we are honoring the police officers who protected this capital, the members and the staff and everybody who was here that day. Yeah. I I think it would be the appropriate thing to do. It is what democratic governments do to honor the people who have fought to defend them whether it's abroad or at home against enemies foreign or domestic.
▶ 0:41:43Um, and not to do it would suggest that we're moving into some kind of authoritarianism where we compel historic amnesia about significant public events in order to rewrite them. And that's certainly not the direction I think America should be going in. Unfortunately, we we're getting too used to the to accepting a president who ignores the law, who ignores Congress, and now we're accepting a speaker of the house who is ignoring the laws that Congress passed. Um, I thank the chair and I yield back.
▶ 0:42:13Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Mr. Scott, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. I've listened to this for a while and um you know, a machine gun has a select fire switch. Is that correct? That's correct. Is that correct, Mr. Askin? We But I'm not sure I understood the language. I I don't know. A machine gun by definition has a select fire switch. Is that correct? Yes, it does. So, it's not a semi-automatic weapon. It's a fully automatic weapon. that that is the reason for the select fire switch. Correct.
▶ 0:42:43As I understand it, I defer to your expertise. Okay. Well, it's it's correct. It has a select fire switch. So So this this intentional confusion of with machine gun is is a little disingenuous at best. A a a machine gun a machine gun by definition is a fully automatic weapon.
▶ 0:43:09It has a select fire switch, which means if you pull the trigger one time, it will fire multiple rounds. That that is that is that is a that is by definition machine gun. It is not a semi-automatic weapon. A machine gun is a fully automatic weapon. But I did not mean to conflate them or to to mislead you in any way. I was talking about the bill because the bill's language defines a firearm as any firearm except for machine guns.
▶ 0:43:36And so the the chair and I shared the same confusion because it seemed as if Mr. Not was saying that a semi-automatic weapon could not be accessed under this bill, but it could be. And so it had nothing to do with the majority of the majority of the weapons, the service weapons that a law enforcement officer carries is going to be a semi-automatic weapon. A semi-automatic weapon, not a machine gun. And and so there's some Exactly. Right.
▶ 0:44:05We all agree machine guns are excluded explicitly in in the language of the I I don't we we could be here all night arguing about this the definition of a machine gun. It has a select fire switch. It is fully automatic, not not a not a semi-automatic weapon. But I I want to point out and just correct me if I'm wrong on this, Mr. Nut, but the says a federal law enforcement officer, which means they're going to be a certified law enforcement officer. Correct. That's correct. That's correct. Okay.
▶ 0:44:34uh may purchase a retired firearm under section AF if two requirements. The purchase is made during the six-month period beginning on the date the firearm was so retired. That's correct. And not or and with respect to such purpose purchase, the officer is in good standing. So the officer is in good standing with the federal agency that employs or employed such officer.
▶ 0:44:59That's Nothing in this Nothing in this bill, as was alluded to, preempts existing law that would preclude possession of a firearm. And Mr. Scott, you hit the the correct point uh on that second subsection that the officer must be or the agent must be in good standing within the agency from which he's retiring to buy the firearm.
▶ 0:45:20So, this is not somebody who at one point was a certified peace officer who conducted bad faith and had their peace officer standards. And there's a second there's a second um layer of protection here. Again, when you look at at section A of this of this measure, the GSA is tasked with developing a program. That's right. So, hypothetically, even if someone is under arrest yet to be convicted of something, number one, they wouldn't be in good standing, as you alluded to. They'd be placed on some type of leave or administratively paused.
▶ 0:45:50But the administrative services or the general services could further protect from this scare tactic that the other side is painting. Well, I I just want to, you know, if anybody's watching this, uh, make sure that they understand that the officer must be in good standing with the agency and and with that I yield. That's correct. You yield, Mr. Scott. Okay.
▶ 0:46:19Thank you, Mr. Norman. You're recogniz I'm sorry, Miss Scan. I apologize. Thank you, Madam Chair. As we've mentioned, it's police week on Capitol Hill, and I would hope that we can all agree that Congress should honor our frontline public servants in law enforcement and also do more to make our community safer and ensure that members of law the law enforcement community are able to carry out their duties safely and to prevent and respond to crime effectively.
▶ 0:46:50We should be able to agree that this would be a good time to put forward bipartisan common sense solutions to achieve these goals. But as Mr. Rascin has already described, the bills before us have been altered from their prior bipartisan uh versions. And the bills before us this week seem to miss the mark.
▶ 0:47:10Regardless of whatever other goals they might have, the versions before us would undermine public safety and put more guns on our streets with fewer protections to ensure responsible and safe use. Police officers know that more guns on our streets make their jobs more dangerous and our communities less safe. These bills would allow offduty and retired police officers to bring guns into schools and onto playgrounds.
▶ 0:47:35It would allow former officers to bring weapons nearly anywhere, infringing on the rights of individual states to regulate their public spaces and raising the possibility of a tragic fatal encounter. What we should be doing is passing legislation to require universal background checks, to make sure that those who are a danger to themselves or others don't have access to firearms, to ensure that common sense gun safety laws are not undermined by exceptions that put law enforcement or others at risk, and to keep guns out of the
▶ 0:48:06hands of those seeking to commit senseless acts of violence, including by regulating ghost guns. probably the number one thing I hear in every meeting uh with our law enforcement across my community. We should also refocus on legislation that actually supports police officers, not just give them the ability to buy back service weapons. Legislation like the Honoring Our Fallen Heroes Act that would expand the public safety officers benefits program to cover service related cancers.
▶ 0:48:34Just last month, we witnessed the tragic passing of a police officer from California who developed melanoma after years of sun exposure in the line of duty. But because of the gap in the public safety officers benefits coverage, his family will not qualify for those benefits. There are countless cases like this and the surviving families of these officers deserve to receive those benefits. This is the kind of legislation we should be walking on.
▶ 0:49:00And one more thing, I share my colleagues frustration that while our Republican colleagues make a show of support for the police, they've consistently turned their backs on the Capitol police and the others who responded to the January 6 riots.
▶ 0:49:13They have denied the seriousness of that day, refusing to acknowledge the trauma the attack on our capital had on our nation and in particular on the brave members of the capital and metropolitan police and other forces, hundreds of whom were injured and several of whom lost their lives as a result of that violent mob that stormed the capital. For years, Republicans have refused to comply with a duly enacted federal law requiring the installation of a plaque honoring the police for their sacrifices on that day.
▶ 0:49:43The plaque was required to be installed by March 2023, two years ago. The plaque has been delivered, but by all reports, its installation has been blocked by the speaker. Not his prerogative, it's the law. This is disgraceful. It is a slap in the face to the capital police and other law enforcement. It's an insult to the families of those who died in the wake of January 6.
▶ 0:50:08So since this is police week, I would urge the speaker and our colleagues to do more than provide lip service to honoring the brave men and women in law enforcement who protect and defend this capital and our communities and to actually honor them with action starting with installation of the plaque to honor the police officers here. Um Mr. Mr. Raskin, you did mention the illegal impoundment of congressionally authorized funds to fight and prevent crime.
▶ 0:50:37Uh, one of the figures I saw was over 300 uh, criminal justice grants totaling $811 million in funding, including for victim services, for crime prevention, for law enforcement. Uh, and we've also seen egregious firings and cuts to the Department of Justice, proposals to cut Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms 25%.
▶ 0:51:01How is this going to impact law enforcement safety and safety in our Well, I've heard from a bunch of um law enforcement entities both in Maryland, but in other parts of the country, that this is going to be crippling to them. I've heard from organizations that work with the victims of rape and sexual assault who say that they may have to close up shop because they were depending on it. This is money that was appropriated on a bipartisan basis by Congress.
▶ 0:51:31It was programmed by the Department of Justice and it was awarded to these entities and then as far as I can tell, but the I would love it if somebody could tell me more about what happened, but from what I can tell, one person in Doge decided to slash all of those programs and get rid of them.
▶ 0:51:49one unelected junior person who had worked at Tesla and had worked for Elon Musk and then found his way into Doge and decided to just destroy and vanquish all of the funding for those programs. That's a really serious problem for us and it's a serious problem to our form of government because it's happening across the board. Now, there was a a federal district court opinion out of California on Friday night which said that all of that is illegal.
▶ 0:52:17that that's like a fourth branch of government which has decided to gut federal agencies and wipe out federal appropriations. There are now I thinkund more than 150 temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions against this lawlessness. But we're struggling to catch up and Congress cannot remain silent and just say we'll let the courts do their job. We've got to do our job too. And because Congress of course could quickly put an end to the Doge tactics if it chose to act, if it had the political will.
▶ 0:52:47It's an insult to us. We are the appropriating branch. We have the power of the purse. And it's very clear the executive branch cannot impound. It cannot redirect. It cannot divert. It cannot thwart the purposes of Congress. An appropriations act is a federal law just like a law saying you can't violently attack Capitol police officers or federal officers.
▶ 0:53:09You know, in addition to the funding for victim services, funding for law enforcement, for crime prevention, I'm really concerned about the cuts to funding to address opioid uh use and abuse and fentanyl abuse. We've seen multiple grants in um the region that I represent being cut.
▶ 0:53:28So, we're seeing just at a time when um there's so much attention to the fact that we have to tackle this opioid crisis, some of the really great programs that were dealing with the demand side of that crisis have been cut. It's a it's a massive problem. There were a bunch of uh opioid projects that were uh cut out and other kinds of substance abuse projects that were cut out.
▶ 0:53:52Um you you make another important point and this requires more investigation but um when we look at the projects that were cut, they were disproportionately not exclusively but disproportionately in blue states or blue areas. And we look and when we look at some of the ones that were restored by somebody getting in touch with the administration or getting in touch with Elon Musk that also had a significant political veilance to it.
▶ 0:54:21Uh that cannot be the way that the United States operates a modern democratic government. That's how a tinpot dictatorship operates which is you have a nationwide program then you basically gut it but then the people who are on your team get their funds back. that that's not going to work for the United States of America. And I would hope people across the aisle would denounce that.
▶ 0:54:44It shouldn't be that if you have a phone number of somebody who can get in touch with Elon Musk that you can be treated fairly and everybody else is just thrown to the wolves. I guess it isn't fair if everyone else gets thrown to the wolves. And and that is why we keep stressing the importance of the rule of law, that there are standards, that they're fair, that everyone has to live by them, and that you don't get things for your community just because of corruption or cronyism. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you, Miss Scandlin. Now, Mr. Norman, you're recognized.
▶ 0:55:16Thank you, Madam Chairman. You know, I think it's interesting. My friends on the left keep talking about January 6. Um, you know, what about the the 50 cities that got destroyed with no consequences when you had the sitting vice president put up bond money? What about the illegals in this country?
▶ 0:55:34We just had in South Carolina two days ago mother driving a car on a back road got assaulted by run off the road by three illegals killed. The mother would not go home to her children. You're talking about the opium crisis. What about the those coming across the border that brought the fentanyl? That's is that not lip service? That's what this president is doing is great.
▶ 0:56:01That's what Elon Musk is doing is identifying the ways fraud and abuse. You can say it's a dictatorship, but American people are thirsty to know where their tax dollars are. and law enforcement. Um, you know, I'm I thank you for bringing these and talk about these bills, Brad, because uh law enforcement, they don't do it because of the money. They do it because it's a service. That's right. On the reporting um to to Congress, is there some teeth to be able to do something with that once we get the facts?
▶ 0:56:30That'll probably come in a subsequent piece. Right now, the bill the the aim of this bill is to strictly gather data in a cohesive and unified way that the Department of Justice will undertake. And once that data is collected, um then perhaps a subsequent follow-up allocation could be passed by Congress. But right now, the the data is very localized. It's very spread out around the country. And Mr. Moore's bill here.
▶ 0:56:54It does seek to aggregate that led by the attorney general so that the uh the data can be set in the Department of Justice before the teeth are given to it. And these bills also let a retired police officer buy a gun from a federal agency which I guess previously they'd be destroyed. That's right.
▶ 0:57:15um buy a gun and then help protect the school children and and out of the schools that I talk with protection that local a lot of the times local authorities don't have the manpower to do it. So makes a great yeah the issues that we're hearing they're not it's not necessarily at all about public safety and I would remind uh this committee that that law enforcement is endorsing these three bills and the idea that um uniformly more guns is a bad thing is not supported by law enforcement.
▶ 0:57:42Criminals having guns is a bad thing, but law enforcement officers carrying a firearm in no way makes anyone less safe. Right. Guns don't shoot people by themselves. I mean, they can't jump up and kill anybody. So, it's really people. That's right. Okay. Thank you for presenting this and uh I yel back. Thank you, Mr. Norman. Mr. Noose, you're recognized. Thank you. Uh thank you, Madam Chair. Uh thank you, Raiki Member Rascin. Uh and Mr. Not, nice to meet you. Um happy birthday. Thanks.
▶ 0:58:11I appreciate that getting so many birthday salutations. I appreciate that. Um I guess I want to start on the point that my good friend from South Carolina referenced uh around some of the the challenges that we face as a country and in ways that I think the Congress ought to uh to step in to address some of these challenges. Uh one bill in particular HR 20 or 2240. So this is the reporting bill. Mr. Not.
▶ 0:58:39You'll see on the third page in the findings section, sub paragraph five, I'll just uh read it here, says, and I'll quote, "A data collection that represents the full circumstances surrounding violent attacks and ambush attacks on law enforcement officers is vital for the provision of needed federal resources to federal, state, and local law enforcement officers." Do you see that language? I did. All right. Um and I presume you agree with that. Sure. And I certainly agree with that as well.
▶ 0:59:09Have Republicans in the 119th Congress passed any legislation to support or increase funding for local law enforcement? To this point, I don't believe so. Have Republicans in the 119th Congress passed any legislation to support or increase funding for state law state law enforcement? Uh, to this point, I don't believe we have. No. Have Republicans in the 119th Congress passed any legislation to increase funding for federal law enforcement?
▶ 0:59:39Reallocated, but increased? No. Yeah. No increases. Yes. Right. So, no increases for the FBI, no increases for federal law enforcement, no increases for state law enforcement, no increases for local law enforcement in Colorado or North Carolina, of course, the state that you serve. This is police week. I I think we should be supporting local law enforcement. I think we should be supporting state law enforcement. I think we should be supporting federal law enforcement.
▶ 1:00:03I wish Republicans in Congress would have brought to this committee and to the full body some legislation that would increase resources for local, state, and federal law enforcement. But regrettably, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle uh have failed to do so. It's about midway through the first year of the 119th Congress, or the session of Congress, I should say. Uh if anything, I think as you're probably aware, Mr.
▶ 1:00:30Knott, the administration has done the exact opposite, right? So they have decreased funding for local law enforcement and state law enforcement, which I'm I suspect you're aware of. Well, they have decreased the amount of money that's going to Washington DC. The the amount of of of dollars that are going out into the states, uh it's actually forecasted to increase.
▶ 1:00:54For instance, the FBI, I believe it's roughly 30 to 40% of FBI dollars are concentrated in Washington DC. And Director Patel, the president, they are hoping that those dollars will go out into the community. Let's unpack. I've got some questions about the FBI in particular around just given your prior experience as a former federal prosecutor. But before we get to that, but getting out of Washington as a let me start with the state and local law enforcement piece because I want to make sure I understand this right.
▶ 1:01:20So, I you're aware earlier this year, this is just about 6 weeks ago, the Trump administration terminated 373 grants, law enforcement grants. This totals about $800 million worth of funding. Are you aware of that? Yes. Okay. Um, are you familiar with a program called the Rural Violent Crime Reduction The specifics of it, I'm not. Okay. No.
▶ 1:01:44So, the rural violent crime reduction initiative funds intermediate organiz intermediary organizations that deliver financial assistance directly to dozens of rural law enforcement agencies across the country. North Carolina, Colorado. This is a program that the Trump administration ended. Are you aware of that? Well, they they rescended the grant. They rescended the grant. Correct. Yes. Okay. And you're comfortable with that?
▶ 1:02:06Well, if there's duplicative dollars, if there's bureaucratic measures, if there's if there's wasteful spending to have your view that funding to rural law enforcement agencies, so these are sheriff's departments in my state or your state are duplicative. Well, I would have to look at the specifics of that particular grant.
▶ 1:02:20But I do know that I have spoken with law enforcement and often times a federal grant comes with more strings than they can count and the bureaucratic cuffs that are on those from Washington, especially over the last few years have been so has been so paralyzing they couldn't actually I will say that the law enforcement in your state um respectfully seems to have a different view than the law enforcement that I visited with in my state.
▶ 1:02:40These are rural sheriffs, rural counties that have benefited from programs like this that help law enforcement, frontline police officers and sheriff's deputies doing their job every day. We all support, Sir, let me finish on Well, we all support local law enforcement. I hear you. I'm not I'm not accusing you of not. I'm just simply saying you said that it sounds like, again, I'm not going to restate your testimony based on your conversations in your jurisdiction that some of them believe it's duplicative or there too many conditions and so forth.
▶ 1:03:08I'm simply saying in my state, law enforcement that I've visited with, they are very concerned that a rural law enforcement initiative funded by Republican and Democratic administrations for years has now been unceremoniously terminated by the Trump administration. And to them and to me and to my constituents, that's not supportive of law enforcement. But I'll give you another example. Uh this is an a program.
▶ 1:03:31It's called the Officer Robert Wilson III Preventing Violence Against Law Enforcement Officers and Ensuring Officer Resilience and Survivability Initiative, otherwise known as the Valor Initiative. This is a program designed uh to improve safety and wellness of law enforcement officers across the country. It's been in existence for 15 years. That includes the first Trump administration, includes the Obama administration, includes the Biden administration. This is a grant program that is designed to prevent suicide prevention among law enforcement officers.
▶ 1:04:02The Trump administration terminated it. You're aware of that? I am. And you're comfortable with that termination? Again, the specifics of that grant I have to do a deeper dive into and someone in the administration would probably be better able to explain why they did that. But I do know that there, as you were well aware, there is duplicative spending. There is wasteful spending. And if we're sending some dollars so they can better appropriate, write a better grant. If they can have a program that more efficiently designates dollars to those specific needs, that's a worthwhile undertaking.
▶ 1:04:31Well, no one is again, no, no one is for increasing a suicide rate. Obviously, no, no one's no one's accusing you of that, Mr. N. And I was very careful not to do that. Obviously, what I'm suggesting to you, and I hear you. I I'm not, you know, you're, as you said, obviously asking these questions of an OM official and of the administration officials is something I think the appropriations committee will certainly do. I'm just simply suggesting to you, $800 million. Yes. Almost a billion dollars in local law enforcement grants.
▶ 1:05:01And I'm not going to go through each line by line with you. Yes. But it feels like the same response I'm getting from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle as I walk through these terminations of grant programs that go to local law enforcement is the same answer that well these may be duplicative. They may be uh repetitive or you know bureaucratic and all the like. Again, I will just simply tell you real consequences. Sure.
▶ 1:05:25For local police departments and local sheriffs in rural parts of our country, including the areas that I represent and many of the areas that my colleagues represent. And I don't I think this is not a prudent or or sensical approach for the Trump administration to take. And the fact that um I I can't find I guess many of my any of my colleagues on this side of the aisle to to take issue with these recisions uh particularly during police week I think is regrettable. But Mr. Raskin has been wanting to jump in here. So let me May I respond briefly?
▶ 1:05:55May I respond briefly? Sure. Go ahead. If I if I may respond just just we as a party, we as a Congress, we must support local law enforcement. We are uh dependent upon local for local local law enforcement at every level and this administration despite the snippet that you just gave supports local law enforcement and federal law enforcement. Go ahead. This isn't a snippet. I mean sir there is one party there is one party that has advocated very consistently with the exception of January 6 at defunding local law enforcement. That is not this administration.
▶ 1:06:25It's not the Republican party. And so I think all of us would do better to get together and to collectively determine how we can best serve all of law enforcement. And I'm willing to do that at any time. And I and I u I appreciate the the exchange and you know the back and forth and I I would simply say first not a snippet what I was describing to you and I we can go through line by line but I don't the chairwoman uh has indulged me uh you know and so I don't want to abuse uh her generosity in terms of the time that I will take during my questioning but nearly
▶ 1:06:56a billion dollars in over 300 grants to local law enforcement in my view not a snippet. Secondly, I would just say well far more of that far more than 800 million was cut following the George Floyd riots at a local level. Let me finish my statement far more again. I wasn't asking you a question.
▶ 1:07:12So I will just also say this is a statement the fact that Republicans as you testified at the outset have not brought a single bill to the floor for consideration to increase support for local, state or federal law enforcement.
▶ 1:07:30And the fact that that has happened simultaneously to an administration that is gutting grants to local law enforcement does not suggest to me a position that is supportive of local and state law enforcement. I am here telling you as a member of the committee that we both serve on the judiciary committee. I am eager yes to increase funding for local and state law enforcement. I've I've introduced a bill project safe neighborhoods reauthorization bill. It's probably a program you're familiar with given your years as a prosec forward to looking at it. Yes.
▶ 1:08:00And that's a program that the Trump administration has unfortunately gutted, but uh it's an example of an effort that I think is worth pursuing. Mr. Raskin, I I apologize. I've I've neglected to give you an opportunity to to opine here on this as well. Thank you very much, Mr. Member. Just a couple of points here. The the first point we need to make is that the while our colleagues hypothesize a whole bunch of different potential justifications for these cuts. Fortunately, that's not how the US government usually works, right?
▶ 1:08:28We have appropriations committees in Congress. We have a judiciary committee, which I'm delighted to say Mr. Not serves on now. We're able to oversee all of this stuff, right? And we appropriated that money that went through the House. It went through the Senate. It was signed by the president. It went to the Department of Justice. It was programmed and it was allocated and it was awarded to all of these different entities. And something happened.
▶ 1:08:53And what happened was something called Doge, which my uh constituents call dissing our government employees or deranged oligarchs grabbing everything. But any event, this uh unauthorized federal agency or department, one person went and just smashed all of that. just broke it apart. I wrote a letter, a totally good faith letter to the attorney general saying, "Can you tell us what happened?" Because I'm being besieged by requests from around the country saying, "What happened to our grant?
▶ 1:09:24Where is our grant for our local police department? Where is our grant for our local uh opioid um deterrence uh agency? Where, you know, where are the grants?" And I couldn't get an answer from the Department of Justice. Where is the accountability? Where is the transparency? Where's the Democratic representativeness in that? Well, you say uh Mr.
▶ 1:09:47Nagus that or you were able to elicit the testimony from my friend that they've not introduced any money to in introduced any legislation to increase money to local police departments. I would be a slightly bit more impolite.
▶ 1:10:02The president introduced the 2026 budget, which as far as I can tell, an overwhelming number of our colleagues in the Republican side are supporting, which would cut $1 billion out of 40 Department of Justice grant programs, which support police departments to reduce violent crime, hate crime, and crime against women, sexual assault. A billion dollars, and they're about to go along with that.
▶ 1:10:24That's just formalizing what has just happened by Doge with Elon Musk's chainsaw that they've done somehow in the thick of night without our witness. So, um I think that supporting the police has got to be something more than rhetorical. It's got to be programmatic and budgetary and it's got to be smart. And so I I I take your point, Mr. Nagus. I yield back to you. I thank the ranking member. Um well, I'm I haven't I'm going to give you an opportunity except I got a question around the FBI. I thank the ranking member.
▶ 1:10:54I couldn't agree with you more. And Mr. Not, this goes to the I think the exchange we were having earlier regarding the president's uh quote unquote skinny budget for fiscal year 2026 and the what I would describe as staggering cuts to law enforcement, including 55 $545 million uh from the FBI.
▶ 1:11:15And I Why don't I give you first an opportunity because I think it sounded like you had an explanation you wanted to provide regarding the cuts to the FBI and then I can Well, I was just going to say I was going to correct the record. I believe that in the in the uh submission that we made for the reconciliation package, there were increases to various law enforcement departments, specifically the border patrol, ICE, etc. to deal with the uh immigration crisis. Mr. Not, before we get to the FBI, I I don't I hear you. I do.
▶ 1:11:41Do we have to go through the exercise again about So I ask you whether or not there's any legislation supporting local increase? I mean, let's I get it. I hear what you're saying about border security, but don't let's draw out the distinction here. I asked you a very specific series of questions around supporting local sheriffs, local police officers in North Carolina, state police in North Carolina, state police in Colorado, federal law enforcement such as the FBI or the ATF. We both agree that Republicans haven't proposed any bills to increase funding for those agencies, right? Well, that's not that isn't up for debate.
▶ 1:12:11I was I was I was uh I misheard said I thought I was under the assumption that you asked if we had passed any. We have not passed any. In our submissions last week in the committee, I believe there were increases to various portions of federal law enforcement. I again you're referencing ICE and CBP and I I hear you and I understand the argument you're making, but let's draw the distinction here. That's not the question I was asking about local law enforcement, state law enforcement or federal FBI, ATF. I understand your point about now with respect to the FBI.
▶ 1:12:41Yes. You go ahead if you'd like. I I guess the question I have is about the $545 million of cuts. So my understanding is according to the director of the FBI's testimony in front of the Senate that that's going to at a minimum result in 1300 people being fired, laid off from the FBI. You worked closely. I did. I presume with folks in the FBI as a a USA for many years. Yes.
▶ 1:13:09I guess I'm just asking if maybe you could level with the committee and and we could just kind of honestly talk about the fact that that's that is not a prudent way for us to achieve security on behalf of the citizens of our country to cut 1300 people from the FBI. Do you disagree with me on No, I do. I do.
▶ 1:13:27It's a very broad question, but I will say in my experience working with all law enforcement, local, state, and federal, some of those departments had excellent officers, deputies, and agents, and some of them had uh agents and officers that were not excellent. There were some people that were deservedly let go or should have been let go. Some served the taxpayers with unbelievable distinction and bravery. the the amount of cases that they that they were able to to carry and promulgate and see all the way through to a sentencing was astounding.
▶ 1:13:57And then there were some agents or deputies or policemen, etc. who did very little. And I do know that this administration is focusing on promoting and strengthening the agents who are productive, especially those in the field. And with the FBI again, there is a disproportionate number of agents who are in Washington DC and taking them from Washington and putting them out into the field so that they can do traditional police work. That is a priority and it's one that I support and I hear you and and Mr.
▶ 1:14:26Not I guess what I would just suggest to you is what you've just described Yes. is very different than taking a sledgehammer to the FBI and unceremoniously terminating 1300 people not based on performance, which is precisely what will happen if these cuts that President Trump has proposed materialize.
▶ 1:14:43And and I guess I just the reason why I am passionate about this and I suspect that you would be too as a former prosecutor is that I don't think there's a universe in which there are going to be field special agents in North Carolina who aren't terminated as a result of this budget. if this budget is ultimately approved by Republicans in Congress and the same will go in Colorado. That's very different than what you've described conceptually.
▶ 1:15:07And so I would just hope that those of you those of my colleagues in law enforcement would be willing to step forward and say, "Listen, this is a bridge too far." And that's what I was hoping I would uh perhaps many of the sounds like I'm not going to get. Well, many of the agents that I worked with for years uh support the efforts of the president to clean up law enforcement and to to debureaucratize law enforcement.
▶ 1:15:30I mean, the FBI especially does have a very tangled web of bureaucracy and uh you know, streamlining it, better rewarding the the agents who who who act with distinction. I hear you. The chairwoman has been very patient. Um I have two final questions. Just two two final questions. Two final questions. Well, they better be quick. Well, that depends on the answers, Madam Chair. But uh quick answer the uh Yes.
▶ 1:15:55As a federal prosecutor, I suspect that you worked on cases uh involving prosecutions of individuals who had assaulted federal law enforcement. Is that true? Quick question. Okay, that was question one. Question two is there were several people, several individuals, felons who were convicted of assaulting police officers, resisting arrest. Mhm. These are individuals from North Carolina.
▶ 1:16:25Two individuals in particular, one from Conover, one from Fort uh Bragg, a felony assault resisting. Where was the first place you said? What was that? What was the first place that you said? I'm sorry. Uh Conover. Okay. Yeah. Conover, North Carolina. an individual who was sentenced to 41 months in prison for felony assault resisting impeding officers felony obstruction official proceedings related to January 6th. A second individual felony assault resisting and impeding certain officers. He was sentenced to 44 months.
▶ 1:16:51Both of these felons from North Carolina were pardoned by President Trump. Do you agree with those pardons? You know, on a broad level, I I believe that anyone I believe that anyone who commits a crime should be punished appropriately. And the president, it's his prerogative to pardon. He campaigned on it, and he did exactly what he said he would do after he was voted into office. But I'll reiterate, I do regret that the contempt for crime and support for police is limited to January 6.
▶ 1:17:22And if this if this um passion was spread throughout the country, we would not have the crime problems in every corner that we have. Mr. Not so easy. It's just so easy to say, you know what, I disagree with those two pardons. The individuals attacked police officers. They're felons. They shouldn't have been pardoned. But um that's you have a different view. I yield back. Thank you. Um getting into the issue of pardons is probably not something your side wants to do.
▶ 1:17:51Miss Ledger Fernandez, you're Thank you, Madam Chair. And you know, as somebody who represents a world district, I can speak firsthand that as a Democrat, uh, I have supported and I am incredibly grateful for the incredible work my sheriffs do, uh, my city police do, the tribal law enforcement does, but they also rely on the FBI. They rely on these federal grants.
▶ 1:18:22And in fact, they are not duplicative in my district. in my district, they are so hungry for uh that to if I went back and I told them that members of Congress are saying that you really shouldn't get these grants because they're duplicative or maybe you uh they're wasteful. They would look at the state of their cars which can't keep up.
▶ 1:18:52which is why me and my fellow Democrats have actually done a lot in terms of increasing support, increasing funding for law enforcement when we were in charge. And in fact, I have taken a lot of community projects to the sheriff's as a Democrat.
▶ 1:19:09So I actually take umbrage when I hear that somebody saying Democrats don't support law enforcement because we have shown it not just by talking about it but by actually funding those programs. And ranking member Rascin when uh we saw the dodgy committee in my area we talk about as being a dodgy committee because it just seems to dodge any kind of oversight. It's very not transparent. or who knows what it's doing.
▶ 1:19:40When we saw them firing people, were they based on sort of reviews and performance reviews or they seem to be sort of across the board? Nobody ever looked at what anybody does did because it was just somebody from Tesla just firing everybody with mass emails. Is that correct?
▶ 1:20:02Well, this is why the administration has been struck down by judges across the country in pretty much uh a majority of the federal circuits in dozens of different courts and by Republican presidential appointees and Democratic presidential appointees. Um you know, the the one that they're very angry at here in Washington, Judge Boseberg, was a Bush appointee.
▶ 1:20:24People are calling for his impeachment because he wants to hold the administration in contempt for um deliberately defying the orders of a federal court. But there was a decision on Friday from the Northern District of California finding that Doge was basically an illegal operation. And to your point, uh they are completely overriding civil service protections. The whole point of the civil service is you can't be fired for political reasons. You can't be fired for partisan reason.
▶ 1:20:54When we go back to the idea of that getting rid of all those FBI agents, many of whom my rural districts rely on for the investigation because they have so few resources that these kinds of cuts that we heard about tonight really are not based on performance or what's needed out in the field. They are just sort of dictated from above without any consideration of what's needed on the ground. That's how it looks like to I can't get any information from the administration about it.
▶ 1:21:21Nobody in Congress uh seemed to know anything about it. Even our Republican colleagues didn't know anything about it. The administration won't own up to it. And there was appeared to be one employee in Doge who was responsible for completely taking uh Elon Musk's chainsaw to 373 different grant programs against the United States of America serving millions of people. Like that's keeping So, so he is not keeping us safe.
▶ 1:21:50he is actually making us less safe. And many of these programs actually, you know, as chair of the Democratic Women's Caucus, I'm very concerned about the cutting of the law enforcement programs that actually support women and children who've been subject to rape and abuse. And I have received calls after call when those cuts came through and they are terrified about the additional cuts uh to the Department of Justice uh that they see coming down the line.
▶ 1:22:18But I wanted to talk a little bit about what does it mean to be uh a sheriff who has to respond to calls in like some of my counties like I in Rioa County uh I have sheriffs responding to an area that is 5,896 square miles. That's bigger than the entire state of Connecticut and they have less than two dozen police officers. They would not say that any federal funds would be duplicative.
▶ 1:22:48In fact, they are very grateful for the community funding I've brought to them. But they've also talked to me about the importance of what does it mean when you are out there responding to a car accidents, responding to victims of violent crime and the ability to get them to an emergency room, to get them to health care.
▶ 1:23:14And what Republicans are doing just across the street here is they are gutting Medicaid as we sit here. They are sitting in a committee room and they are gutting Medicaid. And when they do that over $700 billion dollars worth of cuts to Medicaid, what they're going to be doing is actually gutting the ability of my sheriffs to take somebody to an emergency room in a rural community,
▶ 1:23:45to take them to a tribal uh a tribally uh operated health clinic because Medicaid is at the basis of keeping that those operations. functioning.
▶ 1:23:58And I think that that's an important piece that we can't just sit here on, you know, some of these bills that don't connect with, we don't think about what is it like to actually serve in rural communities, to provide law enforcement in rural communities. You need to be able to have an emergency room, have a health clinic to take these victims to, whether it be a car accident or not.
▶ 1:24:23Um, Madam Chair, I'd like to seek unanimous consent to enter into the record an article titled, "Med Medicaid cuts would threaten rural hospitals." The article notes that 190 rural hospitals in 34 Medicaid expansion states are at immediate risk of closure. Slashing Medicaid would put them over the edge.
▶ 1:24:45without objection and this is a hypothetical article of course but we'll we'll take it into the record right it is it is based on a lot of research which I think is this is really an important piece is when you base what you're doing on data and research and analysis rather than a chainsaw right in North Carolina uh there are actually seven rural hospitals that are potential at risk so you know that's just I think how all of this sits Well, you know, I
▶ 1:25:15know that you had wanted to respond to some other things. I'm the last Democrat uh when we go down the line here, so this is your chance to respond to any of the No, thank you, Congresswoman Leer Fernandez. She was talking to me, so I was looking at me. So, um, look, we've got the list of programs that were uh deleted and dismembered by this Doge employee. A lot of them do relate to sexual assault and rape assistance to victims in different parts of the country.
▶ 1:25:44But look, our federalism is a delicate network of different programs. Um, it's the people on the ground who know best what are the problems taking place in a particular community in New Mexico or Pennsylvania or North Carolina or Massachusetts. And that's why we have the federal money that can flow to them.
▶ 1:26:05and suddenly one person just deleted all of it and now that hundreds of millions of dollars have been cut off to those programs. Uh and you know I think it is a bit of an insult uh for uh my colleague to say there's only one crime that Democrats care about. First of all, it was hundreds of crimes that took place. It was more than a thousand crimes that took place on January 6th. And forgive us if we're a little sensitive about it, but we were here and people died that day.
▶ 1:26:35But in any event, it's an insult to Democratic district attorneys across the country, Democratic sheriffs, Democratic cops, Democratic victims of crime because we are equally uh my friend Mr. Kn as you are in stopping violent crime in America. And to my friend Mr.
▶ 1:26:54Norman, if you think that there's some case where there was any Democrat that incited someone to violence uh in attacking a police officer in uh the summer of 2020, please bring it forward and tell us about it because we will denounce those people just like we've denounced President Trump and I hope you would for inciting a violent insurrection against the police here. And I and please show me the Democratic governor who's pardoned one person who attacked a police officer in the summer of 2020.
▶ 1:27:24I would love to see it. Well, we just saw the pardon of more than 1,500 people, hundreds of whom violently attacked our police officers. So, I reject the analogy, my friend, Mr. Norman. Thank you for the opportunity to respond. Yeah. And I think it comes back to that supporting law enforcement means voting for funding and respecting their work and their sacrifice. So supporting law enforcement means condemning Trump's pardoning of the violent offenders.
▶ 1:27:52Supporting law enforcement means condemning Trump when he cuts the funding for law enforcement. It means all of those things. And I'm really proud of my Democratic colleagues and those few Republicans who've also done those things. And with that, Madam Chair, I will yield back. Thank you, Miss Leisure Fernandez. and um I'll I'll resist the urge. Mr.
▶ 1:28:22Jack, you're recognized. Uh thank you, Madam Chair, and and I just want to first and foremost commend my colleague in the freshman class, Mr. Knots, I hope. Thank you, Mr. Raskin. He's already distinguished himself as a effective member of your committee. And uh at the same time too, want to thank you for your service to our country as an assistant pro US prosecutor. And um now the only question I have and and I'm just curious. I know there was been some conversation about some of the weapons that law enforcement officers can purchase from the government.
▶ 1:28:50Without that potential, what would happen to those weapons after they're eventually out of service? It's a great question. Thank you, uh Mr. Jack. But uh essentially there's a there's a process by law where those firearms are aggregated and then systematically destroyed with a certain witness threshold. And uh so they're they're rendered useless. They're not re uh recirculated. Uh the officers have no optionality there. They they are taken by the agency and destroyed physically. So they are no longer operable.
▶ 1:29:16The only thing they can be used for in the future is recycled metal scrap essentially. Got it. Yes, sir. Well, every other question I had, Madam Chair, has already come up. So with that, I yield back to you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Um um seeing no members having any further questions for our witnesses here on this first panel. You welcome. Thank you. We thank you again and uh Mr.
▶ 1:29:45Rathken I want to say to you as you know how I feel about you personally for your loss Thank you. And may I say for the record that Mr. Raskin has been nothing but cordial to me on the judiciary committee as a new member. He's been very very nice. I appreciate it. Certainly. Thank you. And I I should say for the record, Mr. Knut's a pretty good guy, too. So, we we've got to be careful about these positive things.
▶ 1:30:16Um, thank you both very much, Miss Miss Gillan, you're recognized and as I said earlier, any prepared testimony that you have will be entered into the record, but we welcome your testimony. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Ranking Member McGovern.
▶ 1:30:46I'm grateful for the opportunity to appear before you all today in support of my amendment to HR 2240, the improving law enforcement officer safety and wellness through data act. Let me start by saying I'm grateful to my colleagues for advancing this important bipartisan legislation through the judiciary committee and I strongly support the bill and I appreciate the rules committee uh and all the members here for letting members like me offer constructive amendments.
▶ 1:31:16Madame Chair, each and every day our brave law enforcement officers in my district in Nassau County on Long Island and across our country put their lives on the line to protect and serve our communities. We all have a responsibility to do everything we can to support them so they can do their job safely and effectively and also they deserve support and access to resources when they need to be safe and healthy when they return home to their loved ones.
▶ 1:31:42I'm here today to lend my voice to a very important issue um which is the issue of mental health for our law enforcement officers. This issue deeply affects my community in Nassau County where this year we've tragically lost two of our own Nassau County police officers to suicide. In fact, my first district period, I had to go and attend uh the su the funeral for a young police officer who lived in a neighboring town who committed suicide.
▶ 1:32:09It's hard to describe the pain and the impact that the loss of these officers has on their family and on our communities. And in recent weeks, I've had the opportunity to talk with some of my colleagues as well as leaders in the law enforcement uh industry. And even on the way over here, I was walking with some lieutenants from the Port Authority Police of New York. We were talking about the mental health issue. And they were saying how in law enforcement there's this feeling where you have to be the strong guy, the tough guy or the tough woman.
▶ 1:32:39Um and sometimes it's hard to reach out for the help that you need. Um, so I'd like to recognize Tommy Chevlin who's the head of the president of the Nassau County PBA and he's been a real leader on this issue um and addressing the stigma that sometime people in law enforcement feel with seeking the help that they need and he's been advocating for legislation um at the state level to encourage peer-to-peer counseling for law officers to meet this need.
▶ 1:33:06And in that spirit, I offer the amendment um to the mental health and wellness reporting requirement under section five of the bill. And what my amendment does is simply ensure that the attorney general's report to Congress will include information on effective strategies to help reduce stigma um and encourage officers to access the mental health screening, peer-to-peer counseling, and the help that they need that can help them deal with tough situations.
▶ 1:33:33We just need to send a clear message, Madam Chair and ranking member, that if you're a police officer who's dealing with a tough situation, it's okay to talk about it and to ask for help. Sometimes that's the thing that can make the difference, breaking down barriers and ultimately saving lives. Um, so if there are best practices and programs that have proven effective in certain law enforcement communities, it's great if we can know about them and we can deploy them in law enforcement communities across the country. So, I urge support for my amendment.
▶ 1:34:03I look forward to working together with each and every one of you and our colleagues to do everything we can to support our police officers and our first responders who make such extraordinary sacrifices every day to protect us. Thank you. And with that, I yield back. Thank you very much, Miss Gillan. I um have no questions. Uh Mr. Scott, do you have any questions? Mr. McGovern, I want to thank you for your excellent uh testimony.
▶ 1:34:29This is an important subject and I support making your amendment in Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Mr. Jack, do you have any questions? Okay. Thank you, Miss Scan. No questions. Um, Mr. Norman, no. Miss Leure Fernandez. Thank you. and Mr.
▶ 1:35:00Roy. Thank you, Miss Gillan. We thank you very much for coming and u invite you back again. Thank you.
▶ 1:35:46Madam Chair, I move the committee grant closed rules for HR2240, the Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness through Data HR2243, Leosa Reform Act, and HR2255, the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act of 2025. The rule waves all points of order against consider consideration of each bill. The rule provides that the respective amendments in the nature of substitute recommended by the committee on the judiciary now printed in each bill shall be considered as adopted and each bill as amended shall be considered as read. The rule waves all points of order against provisions in each bill as amended.
▶ 1:36:16The rule provides one hour of general debate on each bill equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary of their respective design. Finally, the rule provides each bill one motion to recommit. Thank you very much. You now heard the motion. Is there any discussion or amendment to the rule? Mr. McGovern, you're recognized. Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule.
▶ 1:36:35I move the committee make an order amendment number one to HR2240 uh offered by Representative Gillan, which adds reporting on effective strategies to reduce stigma and encourage law enforcement officers to access mental health screening and peer-to-peer counseling. As we just heard from her testimony, um uh being part of law enforcement can be quite stressful.
▶ 1:36:57Um and um I'm a little bit puzzled because I I would I would like to think this is something we all agree on uh what this amendment would call for and it's certainly germanine to the legislation. Um and so I uh I'm just trying to figure out why why wasn't it made why wasn't it made in order because it is Germaine I
▶ 1:37:37Just a moment. Question. I was asking a question. I I want to ask for a vote on this, but I I was I'm just This was a Germaine amendment and I'm just curious. We we you know me this is totally appropriate the way she testified. This is a subject matter I think we all agree on. It's not I'm just trying to understand what the rationale was for not making an order. Yeah.
▶ 1:38:07You asked for amendments and this is the only amendment that we have offered here and it's Germaine. We're happy to entertain debate on the issue.
▶ 1:38:28So, um we're uh if you'd like to say anything else on the Well, then we should Yeah, we can have debate on the floor. So, yeah. I All right, then. I will ask for a roll call. Thank you. Could I speak to the amendment as well? Yes. Okay. Go ahead, M. Okay. Thank you.
▶ 1:38:50Um, I spent a decade or more working with law enforcement officers, providing them with free estate planning services through the Wills for Heroes Foundation. And what uh, Representative Gillan just testified to is is very true that the stigma associated with asking for help among law enforcement, you know, it it prevents them from getting mental health assistance. it prevents them from actually getting wills which their families need if the worst does happen.
▶ 1:39:20So it's a very real issue and the type of support that she's proposed here um would actually be a real service. So since it is a germanine amendment I would recommend that we include it and and I would just urge if you guys don't know why you're blocking it why don't you go for it. I back. Thank you. Any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none. The questions on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Those opposed say no. No.
▶ 1:39:50In the opinion the chair of the nose have it. The amendments not agree to. Roll call. Mr. McGovern asked for a roll call. The clerk will call the role. Mrs. Fishbach. Mr. Norman. Mr. Norman. No. Mr. Roy. Mr. Roy. No. Mrs. Houchin. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott. No. Mr. Griffith. Mr. Jack Mr. Jack No. Mr. McGovern I Mr. McGovern I Miss Gallon I Miss Gallon I Mr. Goose. Miss Ledger Fernandez.
▶ 1:40:22Miss Ledger Fernandez. I Madam Chair, no. Madam Chair, no. The clerk will report the tally. Three yays. Five nays. Um the amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments to the um bills hearing? Hearing no further discussion. The questions on the motion uh from the gentleman from Texas. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Those opposed say no. No.
▶ 1:40:51In the opinion of chair, the eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. Ask for a roll call. Mr. McGovern asked for a roll call. Uh, a recorded votes been requested. The clerk will call the role. Mrs. Fedbach. Mr. Norman. Mr. Norman. I. Mr. Roy. I. Mr. Roy. I. Mrs. Hchin. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Scott. Hi. Mr. Scott. I Mr. Griffith. Mr. Jack. I Mr. Jack. I Mr. McGovern. No. Mr. McGovern.
▶ 1:41:21No. Miss Scan. No. Scan. No. Mr. Negus. Miss Ledger Fernandez. M. Ledger Fernandez. No. Madam Chair. I. Madam Chair. I Mrs. Fishbach is not recorded. No. Mrs. Fishbach. Yes. Mrs. Fish by tight.
▶ 1:41:50The clerk will report the tally. Six yays, three nays. The um the uh motion is a is re is approved. The eyes have it. The motion to report is agreed to. Accordingly, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Roy, will be managing this rule for the majority. And Miss Ledger Fernandez for the minority. Thank you very much. There being no further business, Madam Chair. Yes, Mr. Roy.
▶ 1:42:19Um I just um having come in late, I just wanted to reiterate um our thoughts uh with the ranking member um and um my apologies if if this was discussed earlier, but just uh just know that we've been uh praying for you and your family and um and thinking about you a lot. So, thank you. Back and I appreciate your words um and um not only today but previously as well. So, thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. Without objection, the committee is adjourned.