▶ 0:16:28He's a coach. He was a real successful high school coach, but he made all his money in running his camp. He gets 3,500 kids a camp or a summer at his camp all over the country up the road from us. And more important, he's made a ton of money in this. He's getting ready to sell it.
▶ 0:16:44This wrestling apparel, wrestling shoe, kind of nice He's got these venture capital guys now. We can get started.
▶ 0:17:13Committee will come to order without objection. The chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time pursuant to committee rule two, House rule 11, clause 2. The chairman may postpone further proceedings today on a question of approving any measure or matter or or adopting an amendment for which a recorded vote is ordered.
▶ 0:17:29I now recognize the gentleman from Alabama to lead us in the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Pursuant to notice, I call up HR60, the Knife Owners Protection Act of 2025, for purpose of markup and move that the committee report it favorably to the House.
▶ 0:17:59The clerk will report the bill HR6. Without objection, the bill be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Biggs, for an opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The bill currently before us, HR60, the Knife Owners Protection Act of 2025, or COPA, is a common sense solution to a real world problem. Knife laws vary widely from stateto state. For example, some states place restrictions on the type of knife and length of the blade that may be lawfully possessed.
▶ 0:18:29Some states also prohibit the concealment of a knife and at what age an individual may carry a knife. Other states have restrictions on carrying knives on school grounds. 24 states do not place any restrictions on the type of knife, its length and opening mechanisms, or whether the knife is evidently visible or hidden. Traveling across state lines with a knife can easily result in serious criminal penalties as what is legal in one state may be restricted or illegal in a neighboring state.
▶ 0:18:56COPA establishes certainty for knife owners by protecting the right of law-abiding citizens to transport knives between states. COPA allows non-prohibited individuals to transport a knife across state lines in a vehicle or airplane if the knife is not accessible to the passenger compartment. Not accessible to the passenger compartment or locked in a compartment box.
▶ 0:19:17Copa provides exceptions for an emergency knife to be carried interstate without being locked in a compartment box unless an individual is being subjected to security screening through TSA. Under COPA, if possession of a knife is legal in the states where the trip starts and ends and the knife is secured in accordance with the requirements outlined in the legislation, knife owners would not be subject to a state's criminal penalties while traveling from one state to another.
▶ 0:19:42COPA also establishes a strong right of action to allow individuals to seek damages from jurisdictions that violate COPA. I hope we all remember that the Second Amendment guarantees Americans the right to keep and bear arms to protect themselves, their families, their businesses, and Congress must ensure that those rights are protected. The Second Amendment protects an individual's right to not only purchase and possess firearms, but also knives.
▶ 0:20:05Like the Firearm Owners Protection Act that became law almost 50 years ago, the Knife Owners Protection Act will ensure that knife owners may travel from one state to another with a knife so long as it is transported in a safe manner and lawful to possess in the original jurisdiction and the jurisdiction that is the terminus without fear of undue prosecution. I urge my colleagues to support HR60 and Mr. Chairman, thank you and I yield back. Gentleman yields back. The chairman recognizes the ranking member for an opening statement. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
▶ 0:20:36Um, framed as protection for lawful knife owners, HR60, the Knife Owners Protection Act, is a confusing and unnecessarily broad bill that ends up threatening public safety and actually tying the hands of law enforcement. While we all support reasonable rights for responsible knife owners, this bill goes far beyond what's reasonable and what's responsible. Currently, a variety of federal, state, and local laws govern the sale, possession, manufacture, and transport of knives.
▶ 0:21:04Because these laws vary by jurisdiction, knife owners may indeed find it difficult to follow all of them as they travel across state lines. And while HR60 is meant to address these circumstances, just like the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 did for firearm owners, this bill goes way beyond allowing knife owners to travel safely between the states.
▶ 0:21:26HR60 veers far from its model by allowing knife owners to transport knives within the passenger compartment of their vehicle in a console or locked glove compartment if the vehicle does not have a separate compartment.
▶ 0:21:40Under this bill, an interstate traveler could have a knife inside of their car at arms length or right next to them and easily retrievable with the turn of a key, increasing the risk that the knife might be easy might be easily and quickly accessed and used to commit violence.
▶ 0:21:57Compare that to the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which strictly prohibits transporting firearms in this manner, providing that neither a firearm nor ammunition should be readily accessible or reachable from the passenger compartment of a moving vehicle. That legislation was passed in a bipartisan manner to allow responsible gun owners to safely and lawfully transport their firearms. And unlike the Firearm Owners Protection Act, this bill preempts not only state law, but federal law, too. Here's how it does that.
▶ 0:22:27The bill establishes the right to lawfully transport knives between states to quote any individual who is not otherwise prohibited by federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a knife or knives. But the preceding clause, the preeemption clause includes this phrase, quote, notwithstanding any provision of any law or any rule or regulation of the United States. That phrase is not included in the Firearm Owners Protection Act.
▶ 0:22:56So when you read them together, these clauses create a conflict in application that will be left for law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and ultimately judges to try to sort out and reconcile. Federal laws such as the federal Switchblade Act and the Ballistic Knife Prohibition Act prohibit the possession and transport of certain types of knives across state lines from switchblades and butterfly knives to knives with blades propelled by springs.
▶ 0:23:25And while this might not be the intent of the bill, as written, those federal laws would arguably not apply to someone caught possessing or transporting knives across state lines by operation of the odd and inscrable addition of the notwithstanding clause. The bill's conflicting and confusing language uh would have a negative effect on public safety.
▶ 0:23:50And because HR60 creates a private right of action for any person who's deprived of the rights, privileges, or immunities conferred by the bill, this confusion will almost certainly invite costly litigation. The uncertainty in the meaning of the statute, which is completely unnecessary, and the fear of litigation together would undermine public safety, placing both officers and the public at risk.
▶ 0:24:12If my colleagues would like to pass legislation to allow knife owners to travel freely with their knives, they should do so through a narrowly tailored common sense measure that keeps public safety in mind. There is one uh that is moving in the Senate. I oppose this legislation and I yield back to you, Mr. Uh gentleman yields back without objection. All other opening statements will be included in the record. The chair now recognizes a gentleman from Arizona for the purpose of offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
▶ 0:24:42I have an amendment at the desk. Clerk will report the amendment. Amendment in the nature of objection. Amendment in the nature of a substitute will be considered as read and shall be considered base text for the purpose of amendment. The chair recognized gentleman from Arizona to explain the amendment. Mr. Chairman, the this amendment simply removes the year in the title of the bill and does not substantively change the bill in any way and I support amendment. Yield back. Gentleman yields back. Who seeks recognition? Gentle from North Carolina is recognized. Um Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. report.
▶ 0:25:11Clerk will report the amendment order of order reserved by the gentleman from Arizona. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member Rasin to be Wait, wait, wait. We're going we're going to have the clerk report here and then we'll get we'll get to your statement. Amendment to the amendment and then objection. The amendment be considered as read. The gentle lady from North Carolina is recognized to explain the amendment. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Rasin.
▶ 0:25:37To be clear, I am strongly opposed to this bill for the reasons outlined by the ranking member, but my amendment is an attempt to make this backward legislation a little bit less terrible. It's simple. The amendment makes it clear that anyone convicted of a crime of domestic violence or subject to a court order relating to domestic violence is not covered by the protections in this bill.
▶ 0:26:04An FBI report indicated that almost 15% of domestic violence murder victims were killed with a knife and almost 19% of domestic violence related aggravated assault victims were assaulted with a knife. Without this amendment, domestic abusers would be free to carry these knives across state lines and continue to stalk, threaten, assault, and even kill their victims.
▶ 0:26:31My amendment mirrors existing and well settled federal law that prohibits anyone who has been convicted of a domestic of domestic violence or is subject to a court order relating to a domestic violence order from owning or transporting a firearm. There is no equivalent statute prohibiting the possession or transportation of knives for known abusers. And I hope that the committee supports this common sense amendment.
▶ 0:26:59If we're going to report this bill out, we cannot give stalkers and abusers free license to keep hurting victims. It's shameful that we are spending our time protecting the rights of people who would use their knives in domestic violence. And it's at the very least we should take action to protect survivors of domestic violence who've endured unspeakable trauma and ensure that we're not extending protections to violent individuals.
▶ 0:27:28Thank you and I yield back. Gentle yields back. Gentleman withdraw his point of order. Withdraw my point of order. Point of order is withdrawn. Gentleman from Arizona is recognized. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I uh I oppose this amendment. It's unnecessary. This bill already prevents prohibited users from uh the protections otherwise provided in HR60. Yield back. Gentleman yields back. Seeks recognition. Question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentle lady from North Carolina. All those in favor say I. I.
▶ 0:27:58Those opposed? No. No. In the opinion of the chair, the nose have it. The amendment is not adopted. Mr. Chairman, I ask for the A's and the the gentle lady at request the A's and Naz. The clerk will call the role. Mr. Jordan, no. Mr. Jordan votes no. Mr. Mr. Biggs. Mr. Bigs votes no. Mr. McCcleintok. Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Massie. Mr. Roy Mr. Roy votes no Mr.
▶ 0:28:29Fitzgerald Mr. Klein Mr. Klein votes no Mr. Gooden Mr. Gooden votes no Mr. Vandrew Mr. Nells Mr. Moore Mr. Moore votes no Mr. Kylie Miss Haggamman Lee Mr. Hunt Mr. Fry Mr. Gothman Mr. Knot Mr. Mr. Harris, Mr. Ander, Mr. Ander votes no.
▶ 0:28:59Schmidt, Mr. Gil, Mr. Bombgardner, Mr. Raskin, I. Mr. Raskin votes I. Mr. Nadler, I. Mr. Nadler votes I. Miss Laughrin. Miss Lafkin votes I. Mr. Cohen. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Swallwell. Mr. Lou. Jipal, Mr. Korea, Miss Scandlin, Miss Scanland votes I.
▶ 0:29:30Mr. Negus, Miss Mcbath. Miss McBth votes I. Miss Ross. Miss Ross votes I. Miss Ballot. Miss Balant votes I. Mr. Garcia. Mr. Garcia votes I. Miss Camlager Dove. Mr. Moscowitz. Mr. Mosquitz votes I. Mr. Goldman. Miss Crockett. Miss Crockett votes I.
▶ 0:30:49Mr. Isa, you're not recorded. Mr. rise of votes now.
▶ 0:32:51Mr. Massie, you're not recorded. Mr. Massie votes no.
▶ 0:33:33Mr. Bombgardner votes no. Clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, there are 10 eyes and 10 nos. The amendment is not agreed to. Who seeks recognition? question occurs on adoption from Florida. Gentleman from Florida is recognized.
▶ 0:34:04Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry. Appreciate the opportunity. So, I just I kind of just want to level set uh the bill for a second. So, while the American people are worried right now about losing Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, they're worried about raising, you know, the rising prices of goods. What What is Congress focused on? What are we focused on? Right?
▶ 0:34:34We should be focused on kitchen table issues. But actually, we are focused on kitchen table issues. We're focused on cutlery. Okay? But you know, look, this is this is a commitment. This is a commitment by my colleagues across the aisle. They're very committed to the kitchen. Very old-fashioned of them because remember gas stoves, dishwashers, and now cutlery. And so I I look, I I know there's more gas stove hearings.
▶ 0:35:03And so this fits right in uh I think with the priority list of what we're doing in our third hearing. I am interested to know how they feel about foreign knives, right? You know, like German knives and French knives, Ginsu knives. Can't forget the Swiss Army knife supporting a foreign army. Um are are we tariffing any of the foreign knives? Right? Are we tariffing the German knives or the French knives? Are the tariffs on? Are they off? Right? I don't know.
▶ 0:35:32Are there reciprocal knife tariffs? Uh perhaps. Are we going to impeach any of the knives? A lot of impeachment talk. A lot of impeachment talk by people of this committee. I don't know if the knives have done anything. We don't like recently. So, we might impeach some of the knives. Uh perhaps maybe me and the sponsor could talk offline how we feel about the Europe European knives.
▶ 0:35:54Maybe on signal later so that way like so that way like no one finds out how we really feel about the European knives, right? Maybe we can maybe maybe we can do that. And so again, we're here talking about cutlery, third hearing in Congress. For the American people out there who are really worried about what we're doing on the Hill, don't worry. We're worried about your knives. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, Gentleman uh yields back.
▶ 0:36:22Question occurs on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. This will be followed immediately by a vote on reporting the bill. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed, no. No. Independent chair the eyes have it and the amendment the nature of substitute is adopted. The question is unfavorably reporting the bill as amended. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed no. No. The eyes have it and the bill is order to be reported. Favor to the house. Members have two days to. We would like to request to record a vote. Mr. Chairman record a vote being requested. The clerk will call the role.
▶ 0:36:53Mr. Jordan. Yes. Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Isa. Mr. Biggs. Yes. Mr. Biggs votes yes. Mr. McClento, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Massie, yes. Mr. Massie votes yes. Mr. Roy. Mr. Roy votes I. Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Fitzgerald votes I. Mr. Klein, Mr. Gooden, Mr. Vandrew, Mr.
▶ 0:37:22Nells, Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore votes yes. Kylie, Miss Hagaman, Miss Lee, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Fry, Mr. Gothman, Mr. Gothamman votes I, Mr. Knot, Mr. Harris, Mr. Ander, Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Schmidt votes I, Mr.
▶ 0:37:53Gill, Mr. Bombgardner, Mr. Raskin, no. Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Nadler, no. Mr. Nadler votes no. Missrren. Miss votes no. Mr. Cohen, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Swallwell, Mr. Lou, Miss Gyipol, Mr. Korea, Miss Scandlin. Miss Scandlin votes no. Mr. Negus.
▶ 0:38:23Miss Mcbath. No. Miss McBth votes no. Miss Ross, no. Miss Ross votes no. Miss Ballot, Miss Balant votes no. Mr. Garcia, no. Mr. Garcia votes no. Miss Cam Loger Dove. Mr. Moscowitz. Mr. Mosquitz votes no. Mr. Goldman. Miss Crockett. Miss Crockett votes no. Mr. McClento votes I. Mr.
▶ 0:38:53Harris votes I. Mr. Herder votes I. Mr. for Kylie Bai.
▶ 0:40:53gentleman from Texas. Mr. Niles votes yes. Clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, there are 13 eyes and 10 nos. The eyes have it. The bill is ordered to be reported favor to the House. Members will have two days to submit views. Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment.
▶ 0:41:15The nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. Pursuant to notice, I call up HR2243, the Leosa Reform Act of 2025 for personal markup and move that the committee report it favorably favorably to the House. The clerk will report the bill. HR225. Without objection, the bill be considered as read and open for uh amendment at any point. Um chair recognizes as chair's recognized for an opening statement.
▶ 0:41:45Um the LEOSA reform act allows qualified active and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearm in national parks, school zones, public transportation, some federal facilities, and that that are open to the public. President George W. Bush signed LEOs into law in 2004 to exempt certain active and retired law enforcement officers carrying a LEOSA photographic identification card from local and state prohibitions on carrying of concealed firearms. In order to qualify under the law, active law enforcement officers must meet several requirements.
▶ 0:42:15For example, they must be authorized to carry a firearm by their agency. They can't be subject to disciplinary actions by the agency that could result in a loss of their police power. They have to meet certain firearms qualification standards. They can't be under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicating substance. And they must not be prohibited by federal law from receiving a firearm. Retired law enforcement officers must also meet a number of requirements in order to qualify under LEOSA. For example, they must have separated from service in good standing and served as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 10 years or more.
▶ 0:42:46They're also required to meet certain firearms training standards and must not be prohibited by federal law uh from receiving a firearm. The Leosa Reform Act will allow these officers to carry a concealed firearm in the same manner that many licensed citizens carry a firearm in their state. For example, the reform act will allow law enforcement officers qualified under LEOSA to carry firearms, concealed firearms in national parks, federal facilities that are open to the public on public transportation and in other areas.
▶ 0:43:12The bill also reduces the frequency that qualified retired law enforcement officers are required to obtain certain qualification standards. Many states allow state licensed concealed carry permit holders to carry a concealed firearm in gun-free school zones and on public transportation in the state in which they are licensed. This bill affords certain law enforcement officers that same privilege. We must support our active we should support our active uh and retired law enforcement officers and ensure that they have ability to protect themselves and others no matter where they are in our great country.
▶ 0:43:41urge my colleagues to support the bill and now yield to the ranking member for an opening for his opening statement. And thank you very much, Mr. Jordan. Uh in 2004, Congress passed LEOSA, the law enforcement officer Safety Act, a law that allows both offduty and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms anywhere in the country, irrespective of state laws.
▶ 0:44:05Leosa preempted states judgments about what was best for their own communities and their residents, forcing all states to allow offduty and retired law enforcement personnel to carry concealed firearms under the term set by Congress.
▶ 0:44:19As Congress debated Leosa, members of this committee on both sides of the aisle, including the Republican chairman, expressed grave concerns about how the bill violated the essential principles of federalism and undermine the right of states to decide concealed carry gun policies for themselves under the 10th amendment and under the second amendment.
▶ 0:44:40The Republican chairman of the judiciary committee at the time, Congressman Sensen Benner Sensen Brener, strongly opposed Leosa and voted against it for this very reason. Several police groups also condemned the legislation and lobbied against it, expressing concerns about how it would affect officer safety, how it could create more confusion in responding to active shooters, how it might expose their agencies to more liability when officers carried under LEOSA,
▶ 0:45:11and how it failed to spell out the specific qualifications and requirements as they pertained to retired officers. Despite all of these objections, LEOSA became law. Um although it did at least include some significant limitations and imposed common sense training requirements which have now been in place for more than 20 years.
▶ 0:45:32The bill we're considering today, the LEOSA Reform Act, would wipe the slate clean in a way that will undoubtedly bring delight to the NRA, uh, ending whatever remaining discretion states have to limit the circumstances and places at which individuals can enjoy concealed carry under LEOSA.
▶ 0:45:53It would force states to permit retired and current officers to carry concealed firearms onto private property open to the public, including restaurants, bars, parks, and playgrounds. It would force states to allow offduty and retired officers to engage in concealed carry on buses, trains, and subways. Shockingly, it would even force states to allow for the concealed carry of firearms in gun-free school zones.
▶ 0:46:20It also allows offduty and retired law enforcement officers to completely disregard state laws prohibiting high-capacity magazines. This legislation not only supersedes the judgment in the policy discretion of the states, but it also threatens the safety and security of federal agencies by forcing them to allow concealed carry under LEOSA in many federal buildings. Forcing federal officers and buildings to allow concealed carry in these places is a completely unnecessary risk today.
▶ 0:46:49Another troubling aspect of this legislation is that it weakens training standards. Under current law, a person carrying under LEOSA must meet state training requirements every year. But this legislation would allow individuals to conceal carry with training certification as sparingly as every 3 years. This is troubling given that the bill extends nationwide concealed carry to retired officers who are no longer receiving the training that accompanies their employment.
▶ 0:47:15All of these expansions are risky given the large number of people this new law applies to. We know there are more than 700,000 active law enforcement officers nationwide. And while we don't know the exact number of retired officers, we know the number has increased significantly in recent years as many departments across the country have faced sharp increases in retirement rates. One study found that there are four retired officers and four resigned officers for every 100 active officers each year.
▶ 0:47:42So the universe of people this bill would apply to is substantial. Certainly um weighing in in the hundreds of thousands. And when it comes to the relaxed training requirements, we're ultimately talking about a lot of people, including many who are retired and no longer receiving regular training, all with the ability to carry concealed firearms in many more places. Of course, our colleagues wish it were the case that a good guy with a gun is the answer to a bad guy with a gun. But the research simply doesn't bear it out.
▶ 0:48:10Studies show that individuals successfully defend themselves with a gun in less than 1% of crimes involving personal contact. Members, gun accidents, and unnecessary escalation remain pervasive threats. We have dozens of proposals that we know would actually make our community safer, Mr. Chairman, while still respecting states rights. This bill is not one of them. I urge all of our colleagues to oppose this legislation on a bipartisan basis, as many members did the last time it came up in an even better form. Thank you, and I yield back. Gentlemen yields back.
▶ 0:48:40The chair offers an amendment in the nature of the substitute. The clerk will report the amendment. Amendment in the nature of a substitute. Objection. The amendment in the nature of substitute will be considered as read and shall be considered. Base text for purpose of the amendment. The chair is recognized to explain the amendment. This amendment simply removes the the year in the title of the bill is not intended in any way to alter the important purpose of the legislation. I support the amendment. I yield back. Who recognition? The question occurs then.
▶ 0:49:11what it is. Uh chair unanimous consent to enter into the record the sergeants benevolent association uh statement of support the national fraternal order of police statement of support um and a number of other law enforcement agencies who support the legislation. Now the question occurs on passage of the uh adoption of the amendment in nature of a substitute. This will be followed immediately by a vote on reporting the bill. All those in favor say I. I.
▶ 0:49:42Those opposed, no. No. The eyes definitely had it. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted. The questions on favorably reporting the bill as amendment. All those in favor say I. Those opposed? No. No. I think the eyes had it again, but I think that'll be recorded. Does Yes, Mr. Chairman. It's not that I don't trust your judgment, but I would like a recorded vote on that. The the clerk will call the role. Mr. Jordan, yes. Mr. Jordan votes yes.
▶ 0:50:12Mr. Isa, Mr. Begs. Mcccleintoch. Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Massie, Mr. Roy. Mr. Roy votes I. Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Fitzgerald votes I. Mr. Klene, Mr. Gooden, Mr. Van Drew, Mr. Nells, Mr. Mr. Nails votes yes. Mr. Moore, Mr. Moore votes yes. Mr.
▶ 0:50:39Kylie, Miss Hagaman, Miss Lee. Miss Lee votes I. Mr. Hunt, Mr. Fry, Mr. Gothman, Mr. Knot, Mr. Harris, Mr. Harris votes I. Mr. Ander, I. Mr. Herder votes I. Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Schmidt votes I. Mr. Gill, Mr. Bombgardner, Mr. Rascin, no. Mr. Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Nadler, Mr. Nadler votes no.
▶ 0:51:08Miss Lofrren, Miss Lofrren votes no. Mr. Cohen, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Swallwell, Mr. Lou, Miss Gyipol, Mr. Korea, Miss Scandlin, Mr. Nagus, Miss McBath, Miss McBth votes no. Miss Ross, no. Miss Ross votes no. Miss Balant Miss Balant votes no. Mr. Garcia.
▶ 0:51:38Mr. Garcia votes no. Miss Camlagger Dove. Miss Camager Dove votes no. Mr. Moscowitz. Mr. Goldman. Miss Crockett, no. Miss Crockett votes no. Mr. Isa, you're not recorded. Mr. Isa votes yes. Mr. Massie, you're not recorded. I. Mr. Massie votes I.
▶ 0:52:23Miss Ganley, you're not recorded. Miss Scan votes
▶ 0:53:22Mr. Bob Gardner votes yes. Mr. Gothman votes yes. clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, there are 13 eyes and 11 nos.
▶ 0:53:49the without objection, the bill will report as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute. Excuse me, the eyes have the bills ordered to be reported favor to the house. Members will have two days to submit views. Without objection, the bill report is a single amendment in nature for substitute incorporating all adopt amendments and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. Okay. Pursuant to notice, I call up HR2240, the improving law enforcement officer safety and wellness through data act of 2025 for purpose of markup. Uh I move that the committee report it favorably to the house.
▶ 0:54:19The clerk will report the bill HR224. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair is now recognized for an opening statement. The improving law enforcement officer safety and wellness through data act will help our men and women in blue. Police officers risk their lives every day to protect our communities. Unfortunately, they face the continued threat of unprovoked attacks. The defund the police movement continues to have ripple effects throughout the country as criminals remain brazen in their attacks against police officers.
▶ 0:54:45In New York City last year, a violent gang of migrants viciously attacked two NYPD officers, one of whom was back out on the street after a slap on the wrist jail sentence. Rogue prosecutors and left-wing bail reform policies continue to allow criminals back on the street with no accountability. We should be clear, the threat to officer safety is very real. In 2024, 342 officers were shot in the line of duty, including 61 and ambush style attacks.
▶ 0:55:092023 saw the highest number of officers shot in the line of duty recorded in a year with While 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 prevent future anti police activity. Again, this bill will help provide the tools for police officers to train for and prevent attacks that is so important in the environment our police officers live and work in today.
▶ 0:55:36Legislation will also shed light on the mental health impacts of aggressive activity or other trauma on law enforcement and it will help ascertain the availability and extent to which mental health resources for officers are used. Mental health resources are another crucial tool in the toolbox as law enforcement officers continue to risk their lives every day to comm to to keep their communities safe. We must take care of those who do so much to take care of us.
▶ 0:56:03This legislation is common sense, seeks to gather more information on an issue to then bring forward the best possible solutions for our law enforcement officers. We should work together to take a stand against attacks on law enforcement and support the men men and women who risk their lives every day. That I yield to the ranking member for an opening statement. And thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I support the improving law enforcement officer safety and wellness through data act.
▶ 0:56:25It purports to improve law enforcement officer safety and wellness by requiring that the attorney general and other federal officials issue reports on attacks on officers aggression against officers and officer mental health. The collection and reporting of information in general and this information is unobjectionable. But I do feel compelled to point out the obvious here. The legislation does nothing to actually make police officers safer. In fact, none of the bills we're marking up today would make law enforcement or anybody else in the country safer.
▶ 0:56:54And one of them, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, so-called, which is strongly opposed by law enforcement, would make everybody much less safe, including police officers. The reality is, although I'm going to support the legislation, we don't need another report to tell us what is the biggest threat to officer safety in America. We already know what it is. It's guns that are by far the most serious threat to police officer safety in America.
▶ 0:57:24We have a lot more firearms than we do people in the United States. We have a rate of gun homicide 20 times higher than the nations of the European Union. Seven times higher than the people of Canada. No wonder they don't want to take up Donald Trump's offer to become part of the United States. They're a lot safer with the gun laws in Canada than they would be under Donald Trump's gun laws.
▶ 0:57:48Uh, we have a rate of gun death 340 times higher than the people of the United Kingdom. Gun violence is now the number one cause of death for young people under 18 in the United States of America. Law enforcement officers in the US are far more likely to be fatally shot than police officers in any other developed nation on Earth.
▶ 0:58:15From 2012 to 2021, 456 police officers were shot and killed in our country. During that same 10-year period, 12 officers were shot and fatally in and shot to death in Canada. That is 456 in the United States, 12 in Canada. Only four were fatally shot in the United Kingdom.
▶ 0:58:37Those nations of course have common sense gun safety laws and they are not constantly being derailed by the National Rifle Association and the gun manufacturers. Guns are also the leading cause of police officer assaults. From 2012 to 2020, 735 officers were assaulted and injured with a gun in our country, accounting for 34 of line of duty assaults over this period.
▶ 0:59:06Officers face unacceptably high risks every single day as they do their jobs. It doesn't have to be like this. An analysis of state gun laws and police fatalities found that the states with the strongest gun laws had far fewer police officer fatalities than the states with the weakest gun laws that allow violent criminals to run a muck with guns.
▶ 0:59:28And yet, Republicans continue to want to pass laws that further weaken our gun laws and thus endanger law enforcement along with everybody else. Even when the police make it clear that they oppose those laws. In Texas, law enforcement opposed a bill to allow people to conceal carry without a permit. The Texas Police Chiefs Association said the bill posed a real threat to all law enforcement and the people.
▶ 0:59:55The Republican controlled Texas legislature passed it anyway. The same thing happened in four other states. Law enforcement in Alabama, Tennessee, Ohio, and Iowa all strongly opposed permitless carry bills. And in each state, GOP lawmakers simply ignored them and passed the bills anyway. In Ohio, law enforcement and teachers came together to oppose a law to arm teachers, to arm teachers, kindergarten through 12 teachers.
▶ 1:00:22But once again, Republicans passed the bill anyway over strong objections from the police. When Democrats had control of the House, we passed numerous bipartisan bills, Mr. Chairman, that were signed into law and are improving law enforcement safety and wellness right now. These bills include the Protecting America's First Responders Act, the Public Safety Officer Support Act, the Confidential Opportunities for Peer Support Cops Counseling Act, and the Law Enforcement Deescalation Training Act.
▶ 1:00:51And we passed laws that would make everybody in America safer by reducing gun violence, including the bipartisan safer communities act, which has saved thousands of lives. I encourage my colleagues across the aisle to join us in proposing and passing meaningful, substantive, common sense, constitutional legislation that offers real solutions to the challenges our cops face every day on the streets in America and make everybody safer.
▶ 1:01:18In the meantime, we have no opposition to collecting more information and reporting to Congress. I just hope our colleagues are prepared to take meaningful legislative action to improve officer safety. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Chair now offers an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The clerk will report amendment in the nature without objection. The amendment nature of substitute will be considered as read and shall be considered as base text for the purposes of amendment. Um, chair now is recognized to explain the amendment. The this amendment simply edits the short title of the bill.
▶ 1:01:45there's no substantive change to the bill or support for the amendment and uh yield back. Who seeks recognition? The gentle lady from George is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um and I would like to say that I do associate associate myself with all the comments of the ranking member. As we know, he spoken very candidly the truth of what we all know and especially myself um having experienced gun violence.
▶ 1:02:13I could not be more truthful and honest about what he has just said, but law enforcement officers do serve as our first line of defense against danger. And with this bill, we have an opportunity to equip the Department of Justice and Congress with crucial information to better understand and enhance officer safety. Law enforcement officers deserve to return home safely to their families, knowing their well-being is a priority.
▶ 1:02:38Our federal law enforcement officers face long hours, immense pressure, and unpredictable dangers. Over time, this constant strain can take a significant toll on their health and their welfare, in particular, their mental health. While the mental health resources currently available are a positive step, there is always more room for improvement.
▶ 1:03:03This report will provide invaluable insights into the challenges our officers face and what additional support that they need to remain physically and mentally safe. Federal law enforcement officers dedicate themselves to protecting our nation. And it is our responsibility to ensure they receive the protection and care that they deserve.
▶ 1:03:25I support this legislation even though it's not enough and I will hope that it provides information that we can use to develop bipartisan proposals that will improve officer safety and wellness. And I yield back gentle yields back. Who seeks Gentleman from Florida is recognized. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:03:51I think uh it's always good like when we have something that's bipartisan to to point it out because it happens so little around here uh anymore. But rather than giving like a really big long speech, I feel like I could just use this use this and this will tell you that I think it's good. Right? So like that's a fist American flag fire. So I'll just from now on when we do things where like we agree with I'll just hold this up rather than giving like a really big long speech. So job well done guys. Will the gentleman yield? Oh, sure.
▶ 1:04:21I'll yield. But I'm not sure everybody recognizes the reference there. Would you explain where that comes from? Yeah. Yeah. So, this is how we when we when we're in like a chat with friends, right? Where we're like having a casual chat about like where we're dropping missiles. Are you talking about a public chat room? Yeah. Yeah. But like and with with friends and we're just like, you know, you know, hamming about who we're going to bomb and and all of that. But we agree we we fist American flag fire. So, I just I'm holding this up.
▶ 1:04:46I think we could just keep the committee shorter if like when we agree we just hold like hold this up. No, I think I think you're supposed to have the flexed arm instead of the fist. No, it was just it No, no, it was just the fist. What signal chat are you in? But but I was on Twitter. If the gentleman would yield for an additional question, but what happens if there are reporters who might be there for that? Well, hopefully they support America as we said and that it's fire.
▶ 1:05:17So, you're telling me we can't have a bipartisan conversation among members of the committee without a journalist being there? Well, we can. We can, but if you don't add them is if you don't want them to know. And what if they just happen to show up somehow? Well, that's because somebody added them. Thank you. You're welcome. Does the gentleman yield back? I do. Gentle lady from the gentle lady from Texas is recognized.
▶ 1:05:45It is hard to follow up uh behind Mr. Moscow is on any given day. Um, but I did just kind of want to reiterate what the ranker talked about when he talked about Texas and he mentioned that permitless carry was something that went through the Texas House.
▶ 1:06:03And I can remember being on the floor and seeing all the law enforcement officers coming to Austin to lobby us and make sure that we did the right thing. and they also testified and they told their stories and they talked about how dangerous it was. And for whatever reason, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it all fell on deaf ears.
▶ 1:06:30And it made me wonder if Republicans really meant it when they said that they back the blue because when given an opportunity to back the blue, they didn't. And today we heard from the chairman that this is all about supporting law enforcement. And to be clear, I am going to also support this bill.
▶ 1:06:50But the idea that you can say on one hand, I support law enforcement while on the other hand, I am okay with January 6ers getting out who assaulted law enforcement. If you can say I support law enforcement, yet you still continue to pass bills that are causing more deaths not only to our precious children, but it makes it so much more dangerous.
▶ 1:07:15Right now, it is difficult to recruit law enforcement officers because of some of these crazy laws. A lot of law enforcement officers want to go to states that are smarter about their gun laws. So I'm just asking again I'm going to support this bill but if we are going to be amanable enough to say that you know what transparency and these numbers this is something that will be helpful for all of us to be able to evaluate.
▶ 1:07:44Why can't we have a real conversation on what it takes to actually keep us safe in this country? That's the only thing that I'm asking for is a real discourse, a real conversation about what does it look like to keep not only the streets in my district safe, but the streets in your district safe as well because we as Americans should want to be safe. We as elected officials carry the responsibility of making our streets safe.
▶ 1:08:13So with that, I will yield. Gentle yields back. Gentlemen from New Jersey is recognized. Thank you. I wasn't going to speak on this one because I thought we all agreed and I guess we do on the bill, but I just wanted to uh bring something up. I'm a gun owner. I have permit to carry. Um do everything right and never have had a problem. Thank God. Pray to God I never ever would have to use it.
▶ 1:08:40I qualify every single at least every 10 days. You only have to qualify once every two years. Um, and I'm re responsible. And that's the point. The majority of gun owners in America, legal gun owners are responsible. But, you know, murdering is against the law. Stealing a gun is now against the law. Violence with a gun is against the law. It doesn't matter what state you're in. Threatening somebody with a gun is against the law.
▶ 1:09:10Scraping the serial numbers, filing the serial numbers off a gun is against the law. You know, some things that should be against the law, prematurely releasing violent offenders back into the street over and over and over again, not doing anything when people show that they have a horrible history, that they commit crimes, that they've threatened people, they're online, what they look like online, their online character.
▶ 1:09:39But what we do is we inflict more and more regulations and jam up legal people that would never hurt anybody. And it's very easy. I'm going to tell you a story. It's true. And I got a lot of stories. Uh young woman though from Pennsylvania had a permit to carry. Never has even gotten a speeding ticket. Didn't have a problem at all. Single young African-American woman. She's driving into New Jersey. Drives over the bridge. Makes a mistake. Didn't realize she had to have another permit in New Jersey.
▶ 1:10:08Again, this is a person who never did anything bad and legally was carrying in the state of Pennsylvania. So, she gets stopped and she lets the police officer know and says, "Just so you know, officer, I have a gun. It's in my glove compartment. Wanted you to know that." It wasn't the officer's problem. He was in New Jersey. He had to abide by the law. He had to arrest her. Never had a speeding ticket, this woman, right? Had to arrest her. You know what they did to her? They gave her three years in prison.
▶ 1:10:39And fortunately, the governor stepped in and got her out. That's what we're Some of these laws we do are not going after the real cause of the problem. There are bad people out there. And you know what? When you pass more and more and more restrictive laws against legal gun owners, good people get in trouble. We should have some laws. I agree. But good but good people get in trouble. And I'm going to really lay this one everybody. And this is a big surprise.
▶ 1:11:06The bad people, the murderers, those that commit violence with guns, this may sound weird, but they don't care if they got a permit or not. Guess what? They steal their guns. They get their guns from illegal sources. They file the serial numbers off their guns. I was in the state senate in New Jersey. We were doing a bill on guns and one of the other state senators said to me, you know, why didn't you vote for this thing? And I said, be and I gave her the whole speech that I just said now. and she said, "Yeah, but this was a legal gun.
▶ 1:11:35It only had the serial numbers filed off. It was illegal. You can't do that. You already have these laws. Enforce the damn laws we have now. Go after the bad people. Go after the people that have severe psychiatric issues. Don't do this to good law-abiding Americans. This is a good bill. I'm sorry I got into this, but I couldn't help it because everybody else No. Reb, will you yield for friendly just questions? I can yield you. Yes, I'll yield you. Okay, perfect. Um, I'm licensed to carry as well.
▶ 1:12:05I'm a Texan, so I'm licensed to carry own firearms as well. Um, and so I appreciate that the bill that I was referring to through our state house, the concern for law enforcement was that anyone would be allowed to carry and they would not go through any type of training or anything like that. And would you agree with me? I don't know what licensing you went through specifically. I'm guessing it's New Jersey.
▶ 1:12:35Um, I have New Jersey, New York. I've got uh Washington DC. So, I've gone through a lot. But I'm sure in your trainings they talk about how to safely store the firearm. They talk about um things such as um you know, where you should aim when you're using it and like do not aim unless you plan to use it, especially when you're going to potentially use it on somebody. Correct. And those are good things. Correct. Reclaiming my time. Correct. Those are good things.
▶ 1:13:05I'm not arguing with that. Most everywhere has all that. In fact, I can't speak for every single state in the union. Uh and it's curious, too. Some states like Vermont that are generally 10 Democrat, and I'm not giving you a hard time, I promise. Um, but they they have very liberal philosophy on this. It's an individual state-by-state thing. But, uh, I I'll yield back to the chairman. Gentleman yields back.
▶ 1:13:29If there's no objection, I'm going to submit for the record a a survey um conducted by the National Association of Chiefs of Police. 86.4% of the US Chiefs of Police and Sheriff's support nationwide recognition of stateisssued concealed weapons permits. 76% of those same heads of departments believe that qualified, law-abiding armed citizens help law enforcement reduce violent criminal activity. See no objection. I submit that for the record. Who seeks recognition?
▶ 1:14:01Gentle lady from Vermont. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to keep this really brief. I um care deeply about the issues of mental health. It's one of the issues that I ran on and uh like my colleagues, I will be supporting this. But there is something that we could do today to help the mental health of our Capitol police.
▶ 1:14:25Today, there is a plaque that is waiting to be hung by the architect of the Capitol that is about sacrifices and the injuries and the vicious attacks that our Capitol police endured on January 6th. It is made. It is ready to be hung.
▶ 1:14:48and the speaker of the house will not it to the architect of the capital to be hung. We know where it's supposed to go. Everything is dotted. Everything is crossed. Why is it that this very simple gesture that we could make today to thank the Capitol Police for what they've done and to acknowledge the suffering that they've gone through? We can't even get that hung up.
▶ 1:15:19So, I will support this, but we actually could be putting pressure on some folks in our chamber to acknowledge what has happened to these officers who protect us every day. And I I just find it disgusting that we can't get this plaque hung up to acknowledge what they've been through. And I see the ranking member would like some time. And I yield to the ranking member.
▶ 1:15:46Thank you for yielding, Miss Balot, and thank you for that very important intervention in this discussion. Um, I wish that uh sorry, I wish our colleagues would uh talk to the House leadership about doing this. I heard from Glattis Siknic, Mrs.
▶ 1:16:07Siknik, who's the mother of the late Capitol officer Brian Siknic, who died on January 7th, 2021 after severe violent attacks. He suffered on January 6th. He had multiple strokes and he died um the very next day. But I I hear from Capitol officers all the time asking the question, when will the plaque go up? It's not that big a deal really.
▶ 1:16:35And given the extraordinary sacrifice which which members on both sides of the aisle have recognized verbally, um you think it would be the least that we could do to post this plaque in honor of the officers who fought for us on January 6th. And we saw members uh fleeing that day. No member was violently assaulted, although there were lots of injuries and lots of deaths.
▶ 1:17:04More than 140 of our officers were brutalized, wounded, injured, hospitalized, hit over the head, uh smashed in the face. Um people suffered broken noses, broken jaws, broken ribs. Um why is this not happening? The gentle lady from uh Vermont, I don't even think you were here with us back when that happened.
▶ 1:17:27She was not a member of Congress then, but I thank you for listening to the officers about this because it's uh a rather shocking situation um that people will come and mouth pieties about backing the blue, but when it comes right down to it, they're backing the coup instead in the way it's been retroactively uh and turned into Marty Gro as I think the new US attorney for the District of Columbia describes it.
▶ 1:17:56was Marty Gro, he said, and the president has said that uh his followers actually greeted our cops with hugs and kisses. He said it was a day of beauty. It was a day of love. Um he makes it sound like it was Woodstock. Uh Woodstock for the Proud Boys and the Oathkeeper. So come on, let's get serious. If we're if all if a lot of the legislation we're looking at today is about honoring the police officers, let's honor the cops who helped save our lives on that day.
▶ 1:18:26Uh and if you doubt that that was the case, go back and listen to our Republican leaders, including Speaker Johnson, who condemned the atrocious violence that took place on that day against our officers in an attempt to hang Mike Pence and assassinate Nancy Pelosi and overturn our system of government. And I yield back to you and thank you for yielding. And I yield the balance to um the member uh Miss Galen. And I just wanted to add, I mean, thank you for bringing that up.
▶ 1:18:54I think it's more important than ever that we get that plaque hung after the disgraceful pardoning of people who actually were convicted for attacking our Capitol police officers and our metropolitan police officers. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized.
▶ 1:19:17Well, seems like the Democrats have jumped the gun, so to speak, on the uh gun control bills because or uh gun rights bills. That's not the debate that we're having right here. But I I find it necessary to insert some facts into this dialogue because they have jumped the gun. U and I would point out that Ashley Babbot was the only person killed with a gun on January 6th. and that was by a police officer.
▶ 1:19:45Now, uh, a recent study of Ohio's constitutional carry law conducted by the Center for Justice Research shows that after constitutional carry was enacted in Ohio, the rates of crime involving a firearm decreased in six of Ohio's eight largest cities. So, this is, you know, I think Paul Harvey would say we need to deliver the rest of the story.
▶ 1:20:08There may have been opposition to these bills when they passed in the state legislatures, but there's no proof that they had a negative effect. And there's a proof that people are safer after this has happened. And then if we get to the effects on law enforcement, results of that same study in Ohio show that constitutional carry did not appear to have any appreciable effort on law enforcement injuries or deaths by firearms in Ohio's cities of interest.
▶ 1:20:36And then finally, u somebody earlier referenced that Ohio had a debate and u ultimately allowed some school districts to carry for people to carry in the schools of some of those districts. And this is the case nationwide. Again, for the for the rest of the story, people need to know who are watching this. There's never been a shooting, a mass school shooting in a school that allows people to carry in that school.
▶ 1:21:07And so with that, I'm going to That's the rest of the story. I'm going to yield back. Gentleman yields back. Who seeks recognition? Question is on the adoption of the amendment and nature of a substitute. This will be followed immediately by a vote on reporting the bill. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed, no. No. In the pin, the chair, the eyes have it. The amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted. The question is on favor reporting the bill as amended. All those in favor say I. I. Uh. Those opposed? No. No. The eyes have it. The bill is ordered to be reported. Favor to the house.
▶ 1:21:37Members will have two days to submit views. Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment. The nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. Pursuant to notice, I call up HR 255. the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act for purposes of markup and moved that the committee reported favorably to the House. The clerk will report the bill HR22.
▶ 1:22:06Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Fry, for an opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. HR2255, the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act of 2025, allows current and retired federal law enforcement officers to purchase retired service weapons issued by a federal agency to the officer at salvage value.
▶ 1:22:32Under this bill, the administrator of the GSA would be required to establish a program to allow current and retired law enforcement officers to purchase a retired firearm from the agency that issued that firearm to that officer. In order to be eligible to participate in the program, the officer must be in good standing with the agency they currently or formerly served. Any firearm sold through the program must be sold within 6 months of the date when the firearm was retired.
▶ 1:23:00Uh machine guns are not or are excluded uh from the list of eligible firearms. Furthermore, the firearm must be sold at salvage value. Under current policy, federal agencies are required to destroy retired firearms by crushing, cutting, breaking, deforming each firearm to ensure that they are rendered completely inoperable and incapable of being uh used um except for the recovery of basic material.
▶ 1:23:27Additionally, destruction quote destruction of firearms must be performed by an entity authorized end quote by the head of the agency and the destruction quote must be witnessed by two additional agency employees authorized by the agency head or designate. These actions all come at a cost to the American taxpayer. Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for the same firearm twice. First, when it is originally purchased, uh, and second, when it is needlessly destroyed.
▶ 1:23:54Not only would this legislation eliminate those unnecessary cost, but it would also recoup some taxpayer dollars from the initial purchase of that firearm. In 2022, the Fraternal Order of Police notified Congress that multiple federal law enforcement agencies were in the process of replacing their service weapons. These transition uh transitions accounted for the destruction of approximately 20,000 firearms costing the taxpayer roughly $8 million.
▶ 1:24:21Allowing current and retired uh federal law enforcement officers to purchase such firearms would save millions of dollars to the American taxpayer. Last Congress this legislation passed the House of Representatives with 232 votes. A bipartisan win. Uh 13 Democrats voted in favor of this bill, including some that serve on this committee. This bill uh was never un taken up by the majority leader Chuck Schumer for reasons that I do not know.
▶ 1:24:45Uh but I want to remind my colleagues across the aisle that the last Congress this bill was supported by leading law enforcement groups including the National Fraternal Order of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National Association of Police Organizations, and the the Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association, and Women in Law Enforcement. This bill uh is a priority for law enforcement and Congress must do its part in supporting those who risk their lives for the safety of our citizens.
▶ 1:25:11This legislation not only saves American taxpayers millions of dollars every year, but also creates a system in which law enforcement officers in good standing can exercise their Second Amendment rights. I'm confident that more of my colleagues across the aisle will recognize this bill not as a partisan measure, but as a common sense, cost-saving initiative that supports law enforcement and the American taxpayers.
▶ 1:25:32Once this bill passes the House, I urge uh my Senate colleagues uh to to put aside politics and and send this bill to President Trump's desk and do what's right to ensure that it passes in both chambers. I urge support and I yield back. Gentleman yields back. The chairman now recognize the ranking member for an opening statement. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Um, federal agencies are currently prohibited from selling functional or reparable uh, firearms that are no longer needed.
▶ 1:26:01Under uh, this regulation, when an agency no longer has a need for a firearm, it can either transfer it to another law enforcement entity or it can destroy it. This regulation helps ensure that federally owned firearms do not fall into the wrong hands. But it does miss an opportunity to save money by selling surplus firearms to the responsible law enforcement officers who use them.
▶ 1:26:22So in the 117th Congress, our former colleague, Congresswoman Val Demings from Orlando, who had been chief law enforcement officer there, introduced bipartisan legislation to allow a federal agency to sell at fair market value a surplus handgun to the officer who'd been using it on duty.
▶ 1:26:41Under the Demings bill, these sales would have required a background check and it would have required that the proceeds from the sales would have been used for gun violence prevention and for gun safety training. Last Congress, Congressman Fry introduced a bill similar to the Demings proposal, but it wasn't bipartisan. It did not require a background check, and it did not provide any direction about what the funds resulting from the sales should actually be used for.
▶ 1:27:08Still, Democratic members of this committee felt it was reasonable, not as good as the Demings version, but they felt it was reasonable, and it passed out of the committee on a voice vote. If our colleagues had simply stuck with that version, I suspect it would be receiving broad support on the floor and might very well have been signed into law by now. But they instead chose to substantially dilute and change the bill again by adopting new amendments when it was brought to the floor.
▶ 1:27:35One amendment changed the sale price from fair market value to salvage value, effectively setting up the federal government and the citizens to subsidize private gun sales. Another amendment expanded the bill significantly by allowing surplus firearms to be sold not only to active federal law enforcement officers in good standing, but also to retired law enforcement officers.
▶ 1:28:01Because the Fry bill had also eliminated the background check requirement. This would create the remarkable situation in which it would be possible for an officer to retire, commit a crime that makes him or her ineligible to purchase and possess firearms, but then still be able to buy a firearm from the federal government without getting a background check.
▶ 1:28:27agencies have no reason to track the behavior of their former law enforcement officers and are under no legal duty to do so. So, they could unwittingly sell a surplus firearm to someone who cannot lawfully buy a gun. And all of this would occur without a background check that might otherwise prevent an illegal sale from happening. Another amendment expanded the types of guns that agencies could sell.
▶ 1:28:53Originally, the bill just applied to surplus handguns that the officers used, but it was amended to apply to any surplus firearm other than machine guns, including assault weapons, destructive devices like grenades, and even firearms that are subject to heightened restrictions under the National Registration uh under the National Firearms Act.
▶ 1:29:14Given that the bill had already removed the background check provision, these amendments would make it so that current and retired law enforcement officers would be able to buy an assault weapon, a grenade, or a National Firearms Act weapon from the government at a discount and without a background check, opening up a significant loophole suddenly in the background check system. Uh, this we've come a long way from the original idea by Congresswoman Demings, uh, Chief Demings.
▶ 1:29:41This led many Democrats to oppose the bill on final passage when it came up for a floor vote last Congress. All of these flawed amendments appear today in the version of the Fry bill that has now been recombined and all packed together. So, in place of a reasonable bipartisan bill, Republicans are digging in on a proposal that opens up significant loopholes in our gun laws, turning it into Swiss cheese.
▶ 1:30:07Um, it's disappointing that Republicans could not resist politicizing this traditionally bipartisan proposal that came originally from a Democrat. Because this bill creates unacess unacceptable risks of a dangerous weapon being sold to a person who may not legally have one, I must oppose this legislation in its current form. And I urge all of our colleagues to read it carefully and to do the same. I yield back to you, Mr. Gentleman yields back.
▶ 1:30:33Without objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record. Uh the chair now recognizes gentleman from South Carolina to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. Clerk will report amendment in the nature of objection. The amendment in the nature of substitute will be considered as read and shall be considered as base texts for the purposes of amendment. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina to explain the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment just adds the year of the uh title to of the bill.
▶ 1:31:03This amendment is not intended in any way to alter the substance or important purpose of this bill. Uh and I yield back. Prior to doing that though, I I do seek unanimous consent to submit a letter to the record in support of the HR2255 signed by the Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, Major City Chiefs Association, Major County Sheriffs of America, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Nar Narcotics Officers Association Coalition,
▶ 1:31:33and the Sergeants Benevolent Association, NYPD. Without objection, uh they'll be included in the record. who seeks recognition. Gentle lady from Georgia is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And once again, I I associate myself with the with the comments of the ranking member. But, Mr. Chairman, HR 2255, the Law Enforcement Service Weapon Purchase Act, misses an opportunity for a bipartisan bill and creates unacceptable loopholes in our gun laws.
▶ 1:32:01This bill would allow firearms sales to retired federal officers without a background check. One might think that those who have retired from federal law enforcement would be responsible individuals who can pass a background check. And undoubtedly, many of them are.
▶ 1:32:19But the bill creates an opportunity for someone to to be employed as a federal law enforce enforcement officer, retire, and then perhaps years later buy a gun from the federal government without a background check. The agency simply has no way to know what the person might have done in those intervening years.
▶ 1:32:42They could have become subject to a restraining order or addicted to illegal drugs, actions that would make it illegal for them to buy a gun and it would make it so that they would fail a background check, but their former employing agency would have no way to know that. Our colleagues might point out that the bill does require that a retired officer be in good standing in order to buy a gun under this bill, but that requirement is not defined.
▶ 1:33:11And that might be because this requirement simply doesn't make sense. Law enforcement agencies don't continue to track the lives of their employees after they retire. They do sometimes declare that law enforcement officers retired in good standing, but that's a determination made at the time that they're actually retiring. It gets us right back to the same issue. What happens after they retire?
▶ 1:33:38Background checks are the gold standard for ensuring someone is allowed to lawfully purchase a firearm. This issue could easily be solved by adding the background check provision back into this bill. and a background check would not be burdensome to officers and retired officers since the vast majority of background checks are completed within minutes. Our colleagues have continued to dig in their heels on a bill that creates an unacceptable loophole in the background check system.
▶ 1:34:07A loophole that could put a gun in the hands of a person who is not legally allowed to have one. And even one instance of this could have deadly consequences. This bill could be bipartisan as it was in the 117th Congress when it was led by my friend, my former colleague and former Orlando police chief Val Demings. Former Congresswoman Demings frequently reached across the aisle.
▶ 1:34:33Over 40% of her bills had bipartisan co-sponsorship in her last term in office. We should be following her example to lead with bipartisanship when possible and strive to work together to help improve our communities. This bill is being marked up in advance of police week, a time when we used to be able to work together to pass bills with broad bipartisan support.
▶ 1:34:58We should be looking for ways to help law enforcement make our communities safer in places that they live and ways to help law enforcement stay safe as they do their work. We should be investing in tools to help them be effective and directing resources towards solving violent crime. As ranking member of the subcommittee on crime, I hope we can still find a better way to do this.
▶ 1:35:25My door is always open to my colleagues on the other side, always open to those who want to work together in good faith. I must oppose this legislation for creating needless risks that could have deadly consequences. I call on my Republican colleagues, and I really mean this.
▶ 1:35:45I call on you to work with us on bipartisan bills that would give law enforcement the tools that they need instead of opening up loopholes in our background check system. And I yield Gentle lady uh yields back seeks The gentleman from New York and then we'll come to I have an amendment at the desk. Clerk will report.
▶ 1:36:19Gentleman from California. Gentleman from California reserves a point of order. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR2255 offer. Objection. The bill be considered as read. The gentleman from New York is recognized to explain his Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:36:35Um, this amendment does a simple uh but very important u restriction on the ability of a retired officer to purchase a retired firearm from his or her agency and that is to limit the number of firearms purchased by such officer to one.
▶ 1:36:56This bill does nothing to prohibit an officer from purchasing a num any number of firearms from his agency or her agency. Uh and then with the possibility of distributing them or uh selling them to to others outside of the normal background check uh requirements for federal firearm sellers.
▶ 1:37:23uh by limiting the number of firearms to one uh I believe that we are getting to the true purpose of this bill which is to allow retired officers to maintain a firearm that they used if if in good standing while in service.
▶ 1:37:45And if the rationale is, as uh my friend from South Carolina says, which is to simply allow retired officers to continue to um hold and possess their own firearm from uh while they were in service. There should be no objection to purchasing to limiting the number of firearms to one.
▶ 1:38:09Uh I think this amendment is uh eminently reasonable, gets to the heart of what uh the bill drafter is trying to get to and very importantly limits the possibility of further distribution of firearms without adhering to the guidelines uh that protect selling firearms and putting them in the hands of those uh who should not have them.
▶ 1:38:39and I yield back. Gentleman yields back. So, further discussion on the amendment, Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just in just just in response to the amendment, I oppose it. And here's the reason why. I mean, you've got a federal law enforcement officer in good standing, and we are continuing to perpetuate the existing scheme, which cost taxpayers $8 million a year.
▶ 1:39:01that somehow that they're limited if they are assigned a pistol, a long gun, and a shotgun, somehow they're limited by this amendment to just have one of those. Well, it doesn't make any sense to me that we're continuing to perpetuate the existing scheme that cost the taxpayers $8 million a year. This is common sense. It's it is easy to do and this amendment absolutely limits the intent of the bill and continues to cost the taxpayers needless dollars. Will the gentleman yield for a question? I yield back. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
▶ 1:39:31The gentleman is yielded back. Is there further discussion on the amen? I seek recognition. Gentleman's recognized. Sure. I I know the sponsor of of the bill just just left. Probably just a potty break, but um I'm just curious. He was not okay with one. What about two or three? He he gave the example of three. What if we set a limit at three? Would he would he be okay if that the amendment was three? I'm I'm just curious. you know, maybe we could try to make it bipartisan.
▶ 1:40:01I mean, what we're trying to do is we're just trying to not have an open-ended thing. And so, he gave an example of three. If three is the number, I'll I'll support that amendment if that if that's if that's okay. Does anyone on the side want to like have a have a conversation or or how about the the gentleman who brought the amendment? Well, I I I appreciate um the distinguished gentleman from Florida's point, which is uh which I think goes even further.
▶ 1:40:29Uh it is one thing for an onduty officer to maintain a pistol, a long gun, and a shotgun while in the service of duty.
▶ 1:40:44It is altogether another thing for a retired officer who would not be on any uh mission or any um to uh act in to protect anyone other than him or herself to have three guns.
▶ 1:41:03What is the point if this is just so that a retired officer can defend him or herself with the gun, a gun that he or she used while in service, why on earth would that officer need more than one gun? Would the gentleman yield for a question? Yes, of course.
▶ 1:41:22Is there anything in their legislation that would prevent a retired officer from reselling a gun or guns that they are able to purchase at the new salvage value? There is nothing in this bill that prohibits the distribution or selling of a firearm obtained by a retired officer uh from the agency where he or she served.
▶ 1:41:47So you you're telling me that a retired officer, if we don't accept your amendment, could purchase five guns or 10 guns or 20 guns at the new government uh price and then resell them at a fair market value price. In other words, they could make money on it through private sales. Is that right? Absolutely. And even worse, it wouldn't be it wouldn't be detected.
▶ 1:42:11it wouldn't go through it wouldn't be required to go through the normal background check procedures uh the tracing through the ATF to uh ensure that that sold gun does not fall into hands of someone who would otherwise be prohibited from owning a gun. If I could ask one other question of the distinguished gentleman from New York.
▶ 1:42:31It seems to me that we either have to adopt your amendment and this is certainly consistent with the way that Miss Demings first brought this up that it was the idea that the officer would be able to purchase their gun when they leave the service and uh that was clearly her intent.
▶ 1:42:47I either we've got to adopt that or if it's going to be unlimited that they can purchase at salvage value, whatever guns from the police force arsenal are being retired, then we've got to say that these guns cannot be resold on the private market because otherwise we're opening up a gaping new loophole in terms of guns entering uh into the market.
▶ 1:43:11And of course that's that it's that kind of permissiveness and laxness that has given America a rate of homicide, violence and death that is just unknown in the rest of the advanced countries of the world. Will the gentleman yield? Um I just I will yield in one second. I just want to respond. Um I actually considered an amendment to that to that effect as well.
▶ 1:43:32The problem, of course, is uh it is very hard to enforce and it would certainly cost more than $8 million to do so. Uh I'm kind of surprised that a justification for this bill is that we spend $8 million, not billion, not trillion, but $8 million, which is pennies compared to our budget.
▶ 1:44:00uh that that is some sort of motivation for why we should allow the sale of these firearms to the officers. And again, there's no good rationale why it should be more than one. I I yield to the chairman. I just wanted to point out that this is bill is self-limiting. It's limited to firearms that are actual have been issued to the um uh the law enforcement officer. It's not open-ended. So, just reclaiming my time, which kind of went around.
▶ 1:44:28So, so what what what you're what you're profering is that there is a limitation in the bill that that there is a limitation on how many we don't the bill only applies to firearms issued to the law enforcement officer. That could be any number. Uh gentleman's time is expired. Further discussion, Mr. Massie, the you know on the other side of the aisle there's an assertion or an assumption that's completely wrong about this bill that I heard expressed.
▶ 1:44:56They said this is so that police officers can protect themselves after they retire. No, they have decades of learning, of discernment, of training, of experience. And the incentive here is if you give if you let them have their firearm that they will continue to do that for the public on their own dime. They'll carry these firearms.
▶ 1:45:20They'll recogn they've been trained to recognize situations and it's a it's a way to get a safer safer environment for the public and all you're doing is is making it easier for this the law enforcement officer to carry their firearm into retirement. So I I reject the assertion that we're just doing this so that they can be safe for themselves. Will the gentleman will the gentleman yield? Sure. So I in the language and I'm not we're trying to like actually work this out.
▶ 1:45:49It doesn't say their firearm or the firearms issued to them. It says a firearm. And so that's where the that's where the discussion is going. If the intent of the language is that they can only purchase the firearms issued to them, then I think some of the concern uh that we have would go away. So if we just seeking that clarification. Will the gentleman yield? Yes.
▶ 1:46:18How you I mean the the the the the language is quite clear uh that the administrative general services shall establish a program under which a federal law enforcement officer may purchase a retired firearm from the federal agency that issued the firearm to such officer. Wait, would would the gentleman yield? Um well, Mr. Massiey's time. I yield back, Mr. Massie. Yeah, I think it's pretty clear here in the in the legislation.
▶ 1:46:44It says may purchase a retired firearm, a retired firearm from the federal agency that issued the firearm to such officer. Will the gentleman yield just for a question in just a second, but will you admit that what was just said is wrong that it doesn't say anywhere in the language that u it's one that was issued to this officer? Yes, I will uh I will I would like to correct that.
▶ 1:47:07All that does is it clarifies and specifies which agency the officer may purchase a retired firearm from. It does not say that it must be a retired firearm belonging to such officer. So maybe reclaiming my time reclaiming reclaiming my time. I want to point out here and I appreciate you uh clarifying what you said before.
▶ 1:47:34A retired firearm from the federal agency that issued the firearm to such officer. So the firearm is referring to the one that was that the officer was issued. It's modifying the federal agency. It's not the gun. The gun is a retired firearm.
▶ 1:47:59And then it's specifying that the retired firearm is from the federal agency that issued the firearm to such officer. So the firearm I think is clear here. But would the gentleman vote for this bill if we change a tothe in the first instance of fire of retired May may well if it I mean a I would I I would certainly uh be inclined to vote for this bill if you were to if it were to
▶ 1:48:29specify that a retired officer may purchase a firearm that had been distributed or had been issued to that officer. So in other words, it would have to change more than a to the.
▶ 1:48:47But yes, if your point is to say that only firearms that belong to that officer can be sold to that officer in retirement, then yes, I'll I'll offer the amendment if if uh the gentleman will vote for it and vote for the bill, the underlying bill. Yeah. All right. No, with will the gentleman yield. Um, yeah, I have 36 seconds. Okay.
▶ 1:49:17Um, so we're achieving some clarity here. Right now, it is written in such a way as to say that as long as the gun comes from the same agency that issued No, it's not. It it it says the officer may purchase a retired a retired firearm from the federal agency that issued the firearm to such officer. The firearm has to be issued to it. But it has to be issued to him and it's the firearm.
▶ 1:49:44No, but it's just saying that it's the federal agency that issued the firearm. I make you the same offer. Okay. Well, in any event, if if we can if we can agree to the point, the substance of it, I would support this if we include the background check. No, now you're moving the goalpost. No, no. I'm just I'm I'm restoring what we passed as a committee before. It's becoming off obvious that you're refusing to diagram the sentence and you're just being dilatory.
▶ 1:50:13The uh gentleman's time is expired. Is there a further discussion on the amendment by Mr. Goldman? Mr. chairman. Yeah, gentleman from Georgia is recognized. Thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman. You know, often times, uh, when a bad actor law enforcement officer, even from a federal agency, uh, does something that violates the rules of the agency, it may even violate the law.
▶ 1:50:42It may be related to excessive use of force. but such officer is allowed to resign in lie of termination. And in those kinds of situations where a bad police officer, a bad actor is being pressured to u resign or be fired and chooses to resign.
▶ 1:51:10uh that officer would probably be in good standing with the federal agency that employed that officer. Uh and then that officer would be in a position to uh at salvage value um whatever firearm was either issued to him or her as my colleagues are talking about or uh whatever firearm whether or not it was issued uh or
▶ 1:51:40not to that uh particular officer. But the point is that you have bad actors who would be able to purchase firearms uh under this legislation. Uh firearms that were either issued to them or may not have been issued to them.
▶ 1:51:57Uh that is creating a danger to society when you are unleashing uh these powerful weapons into the hands of someone who's being offered the opportunity to step down in lie of termination. Um because of that glaring loophole in this legislation, uh I would be opposed to it. And uh with that, I will uh yield back.
▶ 1:52:30Gentleman yields back. Does gentleman yields back? Further discussion on the amendment by Mr. Goldman, Mr. Vandrew. Thank you, chairman. Ju just quickly, I think maybe we're looking into this. How do I say this? I think we're overreading what's going on here. Overanalyzing. A police officer retires.
▶ 1:52:54When he retires, he wants to keep the gun that was issued to him over the years that he carried as a police officer. He would be able to buy that gun. And I don't think there's anything wrong with this at the salvage value. the least we can do for somebody that's dedicated their life to serving to protect others is that we're still charging them, but we charge the salvage value.
▶ 1:53:18Um, if you're trying to indicate, which I don't see here in the legislation that years later the police officer could buy other firearms from an agency, um, then I I think that a background check would be appropriate. I'm going to vote for this legislation either way. I don't like to vote for amendments on the fly um because usually they don't work out. They have to be thought through and I'm sure uh the sponsor of the bill, Mr.
▶ 1:53:45Fry, if he feels it's necessary along with the chairman would move forward if any amendments need to be done as we go to the floor. But nevertheless, we're overthinking this. A cop retires. The gun that he used, he wants to buy it. He buys it, yes, at a discount because it's a used gun, by the way, and it's the least we can do. He buys it at the salvage value and it's the gun that was issued to him. So, that's how I'm seeing this legislation. Uh, I yield back. Gentleman yields back.
▶ 1:54:15Is there further discussion on the amendment? Is there further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the adoption of the amendment by Mr. Goldman. Uh those in favor say I. Those opposed say no. No. The nos appear to have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Can we have a recorded vote on that? Mr. Chairman, recorded votes been requested. Clerk will call the role. Mr. Jordan. Okay.
▶ 1:54:45Mr. Isa. Mr. Biggs. Mr. Biggs votes no. Mr. Mcccleintoch. No. Mr. Mcccleintoch votes no. Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Massie. No. Mr. Mr. Massie votes no. Mr. Roy. Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Klein. No. Mr. Klein votes no. Mr. Gooden. Mr. Gooden votes no. Mr. Vandrew, no. Mr. Vandrew votes no. Mr. Nells. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore votes no. Mr. Kylie.
▶ 1:55:15Mr. Kylie votes no. Miss Hagaman. Miss Lee. Mr. Hunt. Mr. Fry. Mr. Mr. Fry, no. Mr. Fry votes no. Mr. Gothman, Mr. Gman votes no. Mr. Knot, Mr. Knott votes no. Mr. Harris, Mr. Harris votes no. Mr. Her Mr. Herder votes no. Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Gail, Mr. Bombgardner, Mr.
▶ 1:55:46Bombgardner votes no. Mr. Rascin, I. Mr. Raskin votes I. Mr. Nadler, I. Mr. Nadler votes I. Miss Laughrren, Mr. Cohen Mr. Johnson Mr. Johnson votes I Mr. Swallwell Mr. Lou Miss Jipal Korea Miss Scanlin Miss Galen votes I Mr.
▶ 1:56:13Noose Miss Mcbath McBth votes I Miss Ross Miss Balant Mr. Garcia Mr. Mr. Garcia votes I. Miss Camager Dove. Miss Camelager Dove votes I. Mr. Moscowitz. Mr. Goldman. I. Mr. Goldman votes I. Miss Crockett. Miss Crockett votes yes. Am I recorded? Mr. Icy, you're not recorded. No. Mr.
▶ 1:56:42Isa votes no. Miss Ballot, you are not recorded. Miss Balot votes I. Clerk will
▶ 1:57:13report. Mr. Chairman, there are 10 eyes and 15 nos. say firearms. The vote being 10 in the affirmative, 15 in the negative. The amendment is not agreed to. Is there further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute? Miss Scan, firearms and I just wanted with respect to the underlying bill, I just wanted to associate myself with the remarks of the ranking member and with Miss Mcbath. I think they very eloquently stated the base points.
▶ 1:57:40But above all, um, we need to close loopholes, not create new loopholes. When I talk to our law enforcement officers in my district at every level, um they say they need help to make sure that we keep guns out of the hands that don't of people who shouldn't have them. So, um I I can't support the law because it does create um a new loophole. And with that, I yield back. Gentle lady yields back.
▶ 1:58:07Is there further discussion on the amendment in nature substitute? Mr. Rask. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Clerk will report. Gentleman from Arizona reserves a point of order. Substitute for the amendment and the nature of a substitute to HR2255 offered by Mr. Rascin of Maryland. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
▶ 1:58:37Thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would substitute for this unnecessarily politicized bill text the language that was voice voted unanimously as far as I could tell out of this committee without objection during the 118th Congress.
▶ 1:58:52The bill before us would allow law enforcement officers and retired officers to buy an assault weapon, a hand grenade, or a National Firearms Act weapon from the government at a sharp discount without a background check, opening up a significant and dangerous new loophole in the background check system.
▶ 1:59:10This is despite the fact that six in 10 Americans support stricter common sense gun safety laws to reduce the horrific gun- rellated death toll that we see all around us in the cities, in rural areas, and suburban areas. My amendment returns us to the version of the bill that was previously reported out of this committee and would likely yield substantial bipartisan support on the floor.
▶ 1:59:35It would ensure that only active law enforcement officers can purchase retired service weapons, significantly reducing the risk that a prohibited purchaser would be able to buy a gun as a result of our legislation. It would also limit purchases of retired weapons to handguns and ensure that taxpayers are not subsidizing the private purchase of weapons by requiring an officer to pay the fair market value of the weapon.
▶ 1:59:58I urge our colleagues to take yes for an answer to restore the bipartisan common ground legislation we all approved of last Congress um and which will achieve perhaps unanimous support on the House floor. I thank you Mr. Chairman and I yield back. Gentlemen yields back. Is there discussion on the amendment by the ranking member Mr. Kn? Uh Mr. Rasen, may I ask a question? Yeah, of course.
▶ 2:00:25uh what's what's the purpose from limiting this just to a handgun if if a uh if an officer or an agent is familiar with um you know AR-15s or whatever the uh the shotgun, long guns, whatever they may be. Uh what would be the purpose that you're seeking to achieve in precluding them from being able to take those weapons home? Well, the purpose is consistent with what I understood to be the original motivation behind the legislation that Congresswoman Demings had introduced.
▶ 2:00:51I was here on the committee and uh she talked about uh giving officers the right to purchase a gun that they had used for self-defense. And as the Supreme Court determined in Heler versus District of Columbia, that's a core second amendment right to be able to carry a handgun for May I Mr. Raskin? In regards to the the the threat to law or excuse me, the threat to the public, handguns are used in in far more crimes.
▶ 2:01:17They're responsible for far more deaths than um long guns, whether shotguns or AR-15s. Um does that alleviate any concerns you have about allowing federal agents or officers to take those guns with them at the in the same spirit as this language? Well, you know, we could check with Mr.
▶ 2:01:34Fry about it because this was his original legislation and um uh it is true that the the toll of handgun violence is uh extraordinary because we don't have a universal violent criminal background check and we have so many loopholes. Um so I I'm not certain I know the answer to that question. I think we could check with Mr. Fry who originally introduced it this way. It struck us as a reasonable common sense bipartisan compromise consistent with the original bill that had been introduced by Congressman Demings.
▶ 2:02:04Thank you for the discussion, sir. And I'll just state for the record, Mr. Chair, that uh having worked with law enforcement at every level, their training, their handling, their um abilities with those firearms. I've never seen uh a law enforcement officer act irresponsibly and allowing them to take home their service weapons. Um in the spirit of this law, I fully support. from North Carolina yields back. Is there further discussion on the Seeing none, the question is on I'm sorry, Mr. Massie.
▶ 2:02:35Um I I think there's a fair point here that Mr. Rascin has. I'm not going to vote for his amendment, but because uh our Jim our friend over here has a great point that long guns and shotguns are can be just as effective or more effective in certain circumstances for defending a person or the public. And so we shouldn't exclude those.
▶ 2:02:57But the but the point I believe you do have is that there may be uh some NFA National Firearms Act weapons that would be allowed under this that u might not be necessary for self-defense like hand grenades. Um so I plan to offer an amendment that takes care of that uh issue here after your amendment is voted Jenny backs further discussion in response to Mr.
▶ 2:03:27Goldman's concern. Does Mr. Massie yield to Mr. Rask? I I'll yield to Mr. Rask. Yeah. No, I appreciate that very much, Mr. Massie. Um, look, the the legislation that we adopted by voice vote last Congress uh was a compromise uh which articulated the basic common sense understanding that um an officer could essentially take a gun with them purchasing it at fair market value
▶ 2:03:57um in order to have self-defense. And then when we add in everything else, we do get hand grenades and you know semi-automatic assault weapons and all of these things which raises different kinds of issues and and uh strays far from the core meaning of a self-defense weapon. And so that's why I I think this again would pass overwhelmingly if not unanimously in the House if we just uh went back to that original compromise.
▶ 2:04:27But um it has been shot through with a a bunch of loopholes that uh are unnecessary. So uh you know I would view your suggestion as a second best solution to just going back to the compromise that we originally had. Thank you, Mr. Um reclaiming my time. I think we can make legislation better. We don't have to use the same stuff we had last year if we'd found a better way to do it.
▶ 2:04:54So, um, I'm and and oh, by the way, I think your amendment has something about the price of the gun that the officer has to pay. And and again, the motivation, I believe, behind this bill is if you encourage or make it easier for retired police officers who have decades in many cases of experience of defending the public, make it easier for them to carry their service weapon when they retire that they could provide that help.
▶ 2:05:21By the way, retired police officers are often used in school settings to um you know as the security um and so because they recognize there's training there, there's experience and there's uh decades of discernment. So I think charging more for the firearm doesn't help. And that's one reason that I I can't vote for yours.
▶ 2:05:45But I will try to address the concern that you have about NFA weapons with my amendment that I will offer next. Would the gentleman yield and will I yield to Mr. Vandrew? Just want to associate myself with the remarks by Mr. Na and Mr. Massie. I I think is one point about the hand grenade or something that wouldn't be appropriate is a good point.
▶ 2:06:08And his second point, why are we trying to squeeze police officers and say they have to pay more than the salvage value? Again, they serve, they're a long career. They put their lives on the line. We certainly can do this tiny tiny little thing for them. However, I think the legislation could be tightened up and I think that that would be an appropriate uh amendment. I would support that amendment, Mr. Massie. Just so you know, I think it's a good idea. And I yield back to you, Mr. Massie.
▶ 2:06:37I yield back to the chairman. Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment by Mr. Rascin? Does Ms. Mcbath seek recognition? Yes, I do, Mr. Chair. Um, and having good conversation with Mr. Goldman and also with ranking member. Um, I would be willing to to accept the amendments. I would be willing to have Rasin's amendment.
▶ 2:07:03Um I think the further discussion that we've had uh is amendable and it does close still continues to close some loopholes. I yield back. Further discussion on the amendment. Seeing none, the questions on the adoption of the amendment by Mr. Raskin. Those in favor say I. I. Those opposed say no. No. The nos appear to have it. Could we have a recorded vote? A recorded votes been requested. Clerk will call the role. Mr. Jordan. Mr. Mr.
▶ 2:07:32Isa, Mr. Biggs, Mr. McClentok, no. Mr. McClento votes no. Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Massie, no. Mr. Massie votes no. Mr. Roy, Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Klein, Mr. Klein votes no. Mr. Gooden, no. Mr. Gooden votes no. Mr. Vandrew, no. Mr. Van Drew votes no. Mr. Nells, Mr. Moore, Mr. Moore votes no.
▶ 2:08:01Kylie, Miss Haggamman, Miss Lee, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Fry, no. Mr. Fry votes no. Mr. Gothman. Mr. Gothamman votes no. Mr. Knot, no. Mr. Knott votes no. Mr. Harris, Mr. Harris votes no. Mr. Herder, no. Mr. Herder votes no. Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Gill, Mr. Bombgardner, Mr. Bombgardner votes no. Mr. Mr. Raskin I. Mr.
▶ 2:08:31Raskin votes I. Mr. Nadler I. Mr. Nadler votes I. Miss Lofrren Cohen Mr. Johnson Mr. Swallwell Mr. Mr. Lou Miss Gyipol Mr. Ka Miss Scandlin. Miss Garland votes I. Mr. Noose Miss McBth.
▶ 2:09:02Miss McBth votes I. Miss Ross. Miss Ballot. Hi. Miss Ballot votes I. Mr. Garcia. Mr. Garcia votes I. Miss Camlagger Dove. Miss Camager Dove votes I. Mr. Mosquitz. Mr. Mosquitz votes yes. Mr. Goldman. Mr. Goldman votes I. Miss Crockett. Miss Crockett votes I. Mr. Swallow, you're not recorded. Mr. Swallow votes I.
▶ 2:09:33Mr. Roy, you're not recorded. Mr. Roy votes nay. Mr. Fitzgerald votes no. Clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, there are 11 eyes and 14 nos.
▶ 2:10:01Vote being 11 in the affirmative and 14 in the negative. The amendment is not agreed to. Is there further discussion on M That was nice.
▶ 2:10:49was eating it.
▶ 2:11:24I mean that's Yeah. Yeah.
▶ 2:13:58Okay. Is there further discussion on the amendment the nature of a substitute? Mr. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Clerk will report amendments to the amendment and the nature of a substitute to HR2255 offered by Mr. Massie and Mr. Goldman. Page one, line 10 after quote firearm. Without objection, the amendment be considered as read. Chair recognizes Mr. Massie. In in the spirit of bipartisanship, um I want to recognize that Mr.
▶ 2:14:28Goldman and uh Mr. Rascin have identified ways to improve this bill. And so, um I want to offer an amendment to address their concerns. The uh it makes two changes to the bill. Page one line 10 after firearm in the first instance where it's me mentioned add quote issued to the federal law enforcement officer unquote.
▶ 2:14:53This takes away any ambiguity that might exist about whether the federal law enforcement officer is going to receive the weapon that was issued to that officer or whether it would be any weapon in the uh obviously after this it's obvious it doesn't include any weapon in the inventory of that agency.
▶ 2:15:13The second change that this amendment will affect on the bill is instead of just excluding machine guns, it will exclude all weapons and firearms covered by the National Firearms Act of 1934. So that would that would cover for instance the hand grenades that they mentioned or other destructive devices such as a saw off shotgun. Uh those would be excluded from the transfer to the law enforcement officer if it's a Yeah.
▶ 2:15:43Uh and of course machine guns are also included in that exclusion as well. We're keeping that exclusion. So um with that I and Mr. Goldman has worked with me on this. We've used his language and I'm offering this in the spirit of bipartisanship. If Mr. Goldman would like to speak on this, I would well I would yield. Yeah. Um thank you Mr. Massie. This certainly uh makes an improvement to the bill and I appreciate the fact that you know we're engaged in meaningful legislative discussion here.
▶ 2:16:13We've never had a hearing on this legislation specifically. So, I I appreciate the fact that the markup is an occasion for us to make some improvements, but um and it does uh in in terms of the the things that I've raised, it does take care of uh uh not just machine guns, but uh other you know, hand grenades, short railed rifles, saw off shotguns, other destructive devices that are um that are regulated by federal law.
▶ 2:16:43Um my problem is my essential problem though is a somewhat different one which is that um the retired officers um don't need to have a background check before they get um the whatever guns they're going to get. And that means the person could actually have committed crimes but we wouldn't know about it because we don't take the fiveinut uh time period to do a background check on it. And that that just doesn't make any sense.
▶ 2:17:12I mean, sometimes it takes two minutes to do a background check. And so, I think there's some confusion about the word retirement and the six-month period. When I first read it, it seemed like, okay, somebody retires and then within 6 months they can purchase the the gun, the the rifle, you know, what have you. But it's actually within six months of the retirement of the gun, not the retirement of the person. So, it could be 5 years later or eight years later or 10 years later.
▶ 2:17:40That's a lot of time in which a person conceivably could have crossed lines with the law. And so all we're saying is reclaiming my time. I I hope we've ameliated that concern somewhat by clarifying that it is the firearm that's being retired when and the officer that's retired and they are paired up. So it's not a a cart blanch uh open pass to go buy anything in the inventory at you know and it's reasonable to expect they're going to retire at the same time. the gun in the officer.
▶ 2:18:11Yeah. But you you're you're more much more of a gun guy than I am, Mr. Massie. So I I don't know what the average, you know, length or endurance of a gun is or a firearm is. Um, and I just don't see the problem with restoring the background check. If we take your very fine amendment and we add it to a background check, I think we're close to the common sense, common ground legislation we're looking for.
▶ 2:18:36My my problem with that is this officer probably likely has two or three decades of experience and there are 100,000 false denials in the background check system and it would add I think insult to injury to tell an officer, hey, you just your name is similar to somebody else and I'm sorry you can't have the gun you've carried for three decades. Yeah. With the ranking member and they would have to be in good standing when they retire. It's not like somebody was fired.
▶ 2:19:04Uh, I I'll yield to to Mr. Nat. Well, wouldn't an amend a further amendment that made clear that you're talking about the retirement of the officer, 6 months within retirement officer rather than the retirement of the gun take care of the problem. This this seems like we're in the weeds here. This is a common sense bill and I think to complicate it with that I'm bending over here quite a bit.
▶ 2:19:30Well, if if the gentleman would further yield just clarifying that we mean retirement of the officer doesn't impose any burden and would and and and and makes clear that that but what what I've just been informed the way the bill is written if the firearm is retired the officer can obtain it even if the officer is not retired. Yeah. But the problem with that is the problem that's exactly right. That's exactly correct.
▶ 2:19:59The problem with that is that the firearm may not be retired till 10 years after the officer retires. And maybe the officer when he retired, it's perfectly fine guy, but in the interim 10 years, he committed crimes and you wouldn't know that. So if we simply said five or rather 6 months from the time of the retirement of the gun, then well, you wouldn't have the problem. Re reclaiming my time, which doesn't really Mr. Nadler controls the time. Whose time is it? Mr. Adler, would you? Yeah. Okay.
▶ 2:20:30They're not They're not going to have a safe a special safe for guns that officers might want 10 years later. The the gun is either going to get reassigned to another officer, i.e. not retired or it's going to get destroyed or disposed of some other way. They're not going to keep us reclaiming my time. It's not it's not um Dick Sporting Goods. Re hopefully reclaiming reclaiming my time.
▶ 2:20:56The Republicans had a common sense bill on the floor and it was uh it was filled on the floor with loopholes. This amendment would simply restore to the uh bill that the Republicans first the Rascin amendment would simply restore it to the uh to the to to the same bill that that the Republicans offered on the floor last year.
▶ 2:21:22should have adopted it and we should have adopted it and we could and if this amendment were adopted we could support it now. Would the gentleman yield? I will. Well, thank you. Um look look here's where I think we are on this and um the the public's getting a the inside view of the sausage factory here. Um we had uh a bipartisan bill that uh that the vast majority of people supported on the floor.
▶ 2:21:47Then it was revised with a whole bunch of uh new amendments that significantly broadened the bill and added loopholes that you have uh candidly acknowledged Mr. Massie with your amendment to take care of one of the problems.
▶ 2:22:04Um I to my mind it doesn't take care of the essential problem um which is that we don't want people being able to purchase firearms especially from the police without a background check and the vast majority of background checks take place in two or three minutes right and I know you you have a different perspective on that you think you've got some cases where people have been caught up in that and you know maybe there are some false positives or false negatives or what have you but in the vast majority of cases is it works
▶ 2:22:34and we're most Americans are willing to pay that price for the purposes of public safety. If we can if we can come together on that in addition to the amendment you have then we're back to the common sense common ground gun safety legislation that allows for this to happen that we agreed to la in the last Congress. So thank you for yielding Mr. Neler. Uh yeah uh I would hope that uh uh Mr.
▶ 2:23:02Massie could accept this further amendment to this could that we could support this. The ranking member said this would restore the common sense uh uh bill that the Republicans offered last year which we were going to support until it was filled with extraneous with loopholes.
▶ 2:23:22Um, and it would enable officers to uh who presumably had a background check while they were officers to take their gun to to possess their guns. And if someone had waited years to to try to do this after they retired, it would require a background check. um which should be the case because who knows the former police officer may in the ensuing years have committed crimes.
▶ 2:23:52Um and we ought to know that before we uh allow the possession of the firearm. So I so I I support Mr. Rasking's amendment and I yield back. Gentleman yields back. So further discussion on the amendment by Mr. Massie. Gentleman from Wisconsin. Uh move to strike glass for gentleman's recognized. I yield my time to Mr.
▶ 2:24:11I I think the the basic problem there's two basic problems here is what you're saying is you don't trust police officers, retired police officers, a federal police officer or the federal agency who may be giving them the firearm. They have to be in good standing to receive it. Here's and here's my problem. Over 99% of Nick's denials are are false denials.
▶ 2:24:34Now, I know you you assign value to the 1% and you say that's better than the it's worth stopping the 1% that Nicks may be uh accurate for which is actually probably smaller than that and burdening the public with the 99% false denials. It to me we shouldn't put a federal law enforcement officer in that kind of jeopardy. The other problem that I have here or that I'm seeing this is not this is not exactly the same bill.
▶ 2:25:04This is a better bill and u the problems that have been identified I'm going to I'm addressing with this amendment and I believe there will be some on your aisle who recognize that. I would hope you would vote for my amendment u those on the other side of the aisle. But you know I worked with Mr. Goldman on this. Would the gentleman yield for? And I think I and I'm sure you you all have worked on this with people on this side.
▶ 2:25:29You'll find we've got reasonable people and some days we've got unreasonable people, but what I found is somebody who's reasonable over there who wants to work with us and improve the bill. So that's what I've done. The gentleman yield for a moment. It's Mr. Fitzgerald's time. Yield to Mr. Nandler. Yes. I just want to point out that uh Mr. Massie, I think, was mistaken. 99% of denials are correct, 1% are incorrect, not the other way around. Can I yield back?
▶ 2:25:58Well, reclaiming yield, Mr. Many. Okay. For the year that we have data, u there were 12 prosecutions, federal prosecutions, and 11 and 10,000 denials. So, if and by the way, if you are denied, if you're rightfully denied, that means you tried to illegally purchase a firearm.
▶ 2:26:18you a prohibited person who lied on the form or u and those should have been if it 99% accurate denials there should be tens of thousands of prosecutions from those denials but instead there are 12 in in a given year and in the best year no more than two dozen will the gentleman yield it's oh I would yield well but I believe there is a scient requirement there's a specific intent requirement I don't know why they're not bringing all of those cases But
▶ 2:26:48it doesn't follow. It seems to me to be a nonsequator to say because they didn't bring prosecutions in all of those cases, those people were actually qualified. Reclaiming yield, Mr. Okay. So, here's the spectre of what happens when you're denied. You you can appeal and if that appeal doesn't work, then you have to hire a lawyer and now you're spending money, which defeats the whole purpose of this thing. And by the way, of all the denials ever, I suspect never was one a retired police officer.
▶ 2:27:17I mean, I don't know that, but common sense would tell you that. So, um, it's it defeats the purpose if you're if you're going to put the officer in jeopardy of having to hire a lawyer to get past the second denial of the background check, uh, if it's not overturned on the first appeal, which and the purpose of this is we trust law enforcement officers. We've trusted them with our lives. They're in charge of public safety. They've spent decades doing it.
▶ 2:27:46It's the ultimate background check. You you have put your life on the line. You have carried this firearm loaded for 365 days a year in many cases for 30 years, 20 years. That is the ultimate background check. We don't need to put them through some system that's hobbled with all sorts of inaccuracies. And let's just keep the intent of the bill.
▶ 2:28:12Let's clarify the uh the the objections that you had. I think that uh Mr. Goldman and these I think you shared these objections, Mr. Raskin, that I'm addressing in this amendment. We're fixing two, not one of the and um let's get this bill done. Back to the gentleman discussion on the amendment by Mr. Massie, Mr. Goldman. Uh first, I just want to thank my uh my colleague, Mr.
▶ 2:28:41Massie, for engaging in this good faith uh effort to reach a resolution. I I will say that uh as part of my discussions, I was under the impression, the wrong impression that uh the officer would have to purchase the retired firearm within 6 months of the officer's retirement.
▶ 2:29:02If that were the case, uh I do not worry nearly as much about a background check since the officer would be in good standing upon retirement and then would purchase the firearm within 6 months. I think it is very unlikely that 10 years there are many officers who purchase their own firearm 10 years later.
▶ 2:29:23Um, but I do think that the uh open-ended time frame for an officer to purchase the firearm uh is potentially problematic. And I agree with Mr. Massie that it is the ultimate background check, which is why I have no problem if the officer has 6 months to purchase the firearm.
▶ 2:29:47Um, but I I think that we run into potential issues and I would hate for some an officer 10 years out, a retired officer um to have, you know, purchased to be able to purchase a firearm that a another civilian would not have been able to purchase um and god forbid do something uh terrible with the firearm. I I am willing to continue to work with uh Mr.
▶ 2:30:16Massie, if if 6 months uh is not uh reasonable given that firearms may be retired after the officer's retired, I understand there may be additional issues, but if there were some guard rails on the length of time, and I I'm not requiring 6 months, but if there were some guardrails on the length of time so that it wasn't open-ended, uh I would certainly support this amendment and I would support the underlying bill as well. Would would the gentleman yield? Yes, of course. Um, I think you're correct.
▶ 2:30:46It's highly unlikely that 10 years later that the gun is still going to be in inventory and that the officer is still going to be interested in it. It's going to wake up day one day and say, "Oh, you know that colt I had? Boy, I miss it. It's been 10 years since I held that baby." Uh, and it has it belongs in my safe or on my side. I just don't see that happening. I think you don't either.
▶ 2:31:07Um, I ultimately what I need to know is if you're going to vote for the bill, if this amendment passes, I thought we had an agreement. I was working in good faith. I've modified this thing uh to ailarate your first concern and then you said you had another concern which you brought to me. And so I sent everybody back there to change the amendment again for your second concern. And so I'm all out of concerns.
▶ 2:31:38Uh if you if you can't after I've addressed, you know, the two concerns that you've had, if you can't vote for the bill with this amendment as part of it, I will withdraw the amendment and we'll we'll have the partisan vote that we were going to that it seemed we were doomed to on the way in that I was trying to avoid. And I reclaim my time. And uh you are correct. You did address the two concerns I raised.
▶ 2:32:00As I said, I was under the uh that there was a uh time limit on the amount of time that an officer can can uh do this. Um I I am not prepared in this exact moment to tell you whether I will vote on the underlying bill. I understand that that is a concern of yours.
▶ 2:32:23Um I I given the fact that we haven't had hearings on on this bill and that we are doing this in real time, uh I would ask the chairman to uh to table this amendment and this bill uh until later so that um we can have some further uh internal and uh bipartisan discussion. Will the gentleman yield? Yes, I yield. Just to add to one more concern, Mr. Massie.
▶ 2:32:51Um, first of all, I hope you don't withdraw your amendment. I thought you were introducing the amendment in order to improve the bill, which it does so people aren't getting hand grenades uh and other, you know, dangerous destructive devices. But in any event, if you look at page two on the amendment in the nature of substitute, uh, I'm just confused about this because it begins with the limitations. A federal law enforcement officer may purchase a retired firearm under subsection A if the purchase is made during the six-month period beginning on the date the firearm was so retired.
▶ 2:33:21And then the top page two with respect to such per purchase the officer is in good standing with the federal agency that employees are employed such officer. What does it mean for a retired officer to be in good standing with the federal agency? And that that's why what I'm insisting on is the background check. I just don't know what that means. The gentleman's time is expired. The chair claims time and yields to Mr. Massie. Um, Mr.
▶ 2:33:49Chairman, I thought I was working in good faith with the other side of the aisle. Uh, there was a legitimate concern, some ambiguity in the language. I I committed to fixing that and I thought had at least one person who said if I fixed that, they would vote for it. But then he had another concern and he said, "Okay, well, I've got this other concern. I need it fixed, too, and then I'll vote for it." And I fixed the other concern. And I we had an agreement.
▶ 2:34:18Uh this isn't a backroom deal. This is all played out here in front of the public. You can watch us communicating with each other. And since the agreement is now, uh, broken, uh, I regrettably am going to withdraw the amendment. And this will diminish my appetite for trying to work with the other side of the aisle in good faith because will the gentleman yield? It has not worked out. It's Mr. Mcccleintoch's time. Will the I yield back to Mr. Mint?
▶ 2:34:48I'll I'll yield. Thank you. Um, I I I understand your frustration, uh, Mr. Massie. I I want to be very clear that uh I was also engaging very much in good faith as I said to you and and I take responsibility for this. I thought the time frame of 6 months was the retired officer, not the retired firearm.
▶ 2:35:09I uh that changes the calculus a little bit for me uh because I did not think that a background check would be necessary within a six-month time frame. If we are now talking about 10 years or more, I just want to have an opportunity to think about this. You are certainly welcome to withdraw the amendment. Um, but this is not a trivial matter and I I think that given that this is playing out in real time.
▶ 2:35:36uh we ought to take a few minutes to uh consider it uh speak to some experts and make sure that uh I am not uh I don't have another misimpression about what we're doing here. But I do just want to emphasize uh in response to your insinuation that I was not acting in good faith.
▶ 2:35:57I very much was and just simply uh was under a misimpression on the parameters that we were that are in the bill already that uh I thought provided guard rails that it turned out do not. So I I'm reclaiming my time and yielding to Mr. Mass. I withdraw the amendment. Mr. and so if I understand it there's no debate at the gentleman is begs leave to withdraw the amendment. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
▶ 2:36:26The question is on the So, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Mr. Raskin, but my amendment uh the Raskin amendment is newly re general suspend for a moment. Yeah. Clerk will report the amendment. Reserve a point of order. Gentleman reserves a point of order.
▶ 2:36:58Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR. Objection. The amendment is considered read. Chair recognizes Mr. Raskin for five minutes. Mr. Chairman, thank you very kindly. Um this uh amendment formerly known as the Massie amendment is now the Rascin amendment. Um and it will do two primary things here. First, it will make clear, as I think we all agreed, that the firearms denominated in the legislation is the one that was actually issued to the federal law enforcement officer. And I want to thank um Mr.
▶ 2:37:28Goldman for raising the issue. I want to thank Mr. Massie for giving us the language to clarify that it is the firearm issued to the law enforcement officer. And secondly, um it makes certain that what can be purchased by the officer or in the newly expanded version, the retired officer is um a uh a handgun, a pistol, a rifle, but not weapons and firearms covered by the National Firearms Act of 1934.
▶ 2:37:57And as uh the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky candidly acknowledged, we don't want to create this uh gaping new loophole where people can get a hold of hand grenades, sought off shotguns, and other types of firearms that have been regulated for decades uh in America. So, uh but I'm sorry that um that he and Mr.
▶ 2:38:18Goldman um uh fell out of love there uh briefly, but in any event, this is all about advancing public policy legislation and we want to make sure we make the improvements that came through in actual legislative discussion. We had no hearing on this legislation. So, we're essentially uh doing an impromptu hearing through the markup and this will at least uh make what I think is a potentially very risky bill uh somewhat better. And I want to thank everybody who was involved in this.
▶ 2:38:45And so I I recommend that we adopt this unanimously in the committee. From Kentucky is recognized. I appreciate what the ranking member is trying to do here, but the amendment was offered with a a co-committant uh promise to vote for this to have a Democrat on the other side of the aisle vote for the underlying bill if this amendment became incorporated as part of the bill. And that's no longer the case.
▶ 2:39:14It's no longer the case. It was a comp It was a compromise. U I I apologize to the originator of the bill for trying to amend his bill, which I think actually was was fine. U and we were going to come to the other side of the aisle here, which I did twice. And so if you want to offer this amendment, that's great. I will I will not be voting for it because it's a it's half of the bargain.
▶ 2:39:45It's the half that I offered without the half that your side offered. So, it sounds pretty clever, but it's really not. It's very uh I I don't want to characterize the motives behind it, but I'll just say that I'm a no. And with that, I yield Gentleman yields. Okay. Gentleman from Florida is recognized. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 2:40:10So, I I just want to make sure I'm following and it's good that we're having these discussions. The American people want to actually see this, right? And and it's okay that sometimes a deal falls apart. Uh, but but obviously I think you you agreed that there isn't that issue in the bill. And regardless of the vote in here, Mr. Massie, there will be a vote on the floor.
▶ 2:40:32And I do think that language, that language that you proposed would achieve the goal you were trying to achieve, which would be making it bipartisan on the floor because remember this this bill could still be amended beforehand, right? And um you know, as it was last time and so it's, you know, I I I would ask that you reconsider either your own amendment if you want your name on it or uh the new Rascin amendment.
▶ 2:41:02Another thought I had, by the way, while I was sitting here is that, you know, we're talking about an officer being able to buy a gun from the agency that issued it. I mean, the way things are going, I mean, you got members that actually want to eliminate the agencies that issued the gun in general. So, this this could be moot anyway, right? If you eliminate the ATF and you eliminate the FBI, the officer won't be able to buy the gun anyway. So, you know, maybe moot at to to the point, but will the gentleman yield? I will. Thank you kindly. I wanted to respond to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky.
▶ 2:41:32Um in the first place um there was no deal with the Democratic side. I think there were two discussions taking place. No, it was with Mr. Goldman. Okay. So the first one was w was um in discussion with Mr. Goldman about an ambiguity in the language which both of you recognized. And the ambiguity was whether or not the uh retired law enforcement officer could purchase any gun from the agency where the person had worked or just the specific gun.
▶ 2:42:00And what you were doing, I understand, was clarifying what everybody understood the intent of the legislation was, which is to give the officer the right to buy the guns that they actually used. So all you were doing there was clarifying what was the commonly understood intent of it. Now on the other thing you I think and the and the record will bear this out as you said the whole country is watching this.
▶ 2:42:24You said that I had correctly and accurately identified a real problem in the legislation as it was brought to us without a hearing. And that problem is that people could purchase hand grenades hand grenades and sought off shotguns. and you said nobody thinks that that's that's what we should be doing. So that wasn't a deal. You and I arrived at the same conclusion about the problem with the bill.
▶ 2:42:46So basically everybody has agreed at one point or another in this conversation that this amendment will dramatically improve the legislation. Now I don't think in a fit of peak towards Mr. Goldman, you should oppose the legislation that you wrote. You wrote this amendment. You were about to oppose the amendment that you wrote in front of the entire country and I hope it hasn't gotten to be that bad. Thank you for yielding. Would you Okay. Well, let's start.
▶ 2:43:16I was mllifying concerns. I think the language was pretty clear, but if there was any doubt in the first instance of whether it was the of something assigned to the officer or something just randomly in inventory, I think the language was clear. I did tell you I thought the language was clear. I may have poratively said you refused to diagram the sentence and I apologize for that. I love diagramming sentences, but I think you I think you diagrammed it well. Yeah.
▶ 2:43:46So the other thing here is okay the instance of the grenades there is some concern there but the reality is federal officers aren't issued grenades. You don't take the grenade home and keep it in your glove box like these are things that are issued. So even though I knew your example was somewhat ludicrous that a federal officer would be issued a grenades. These are not army officers we're talking about. We're talking about law enforcement officers. Okay.
▶ 2:44:14So I thought, well, if Raskcin thinks they're issued hand grenades to take home in the glove box, let's take care of that concern. But that's not the way it works. And then you're act you're like, "This is a free transaction." It's actually not. You may have gained something in this amendment that I didn't mean to give up or that I didn't want to give up. Reclaiming my time. What if I put a balanced budget amendment in there and we have Would Would Would Would Would I get Mr. Massie support back? No, that's a that's a fake fight.
▶ 2:44:41I vote against the balanced amendment because I I I mean you could go back and look in the record. I think I belongs to the gentleman from Florida. Gentleman from Florida yields the gentleman from Kentucky. So anyways, there's there's also the question of and I'll tell you one reason I'm not going to vote for the amendment. When you throw all NFA items in there, you may be including suppressors, which are legitimate. you know, they shouldn't be categorized as weapons, but they may be under the NFA act.
▶ 2:45:12And those are typically paired with the firearm. If an officer has carried a firearm with a suppressor on it, u then they would it wouldn't really make sense to divorce those two items. But yet, you you may have accomplished that um in this amendment in the amendment that I wrote. So, it wasn't a free transaction. Something was given up here. That's why I'll vote against it. Time from the time has expired. Given up in exchange for a vote which is not has been revoked.
▶ 2:45:41Chairman, the gentleman from New York is recognized. Move to strike the last word. Gentleman's recognized. I yield to Mr. Raskin. Thank you. Uh Mr. Nadler, um I will continue to stand up for the Massie compromise even if Mr. Massie will not. And so I urge everybody to vote for this And reclaiming my time, I do the same. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. May I be recognized briefly? The gentleman. Oh.
▶ 2:46:10Uh, I think so. Gentle lady's recognized to yield to the gentleman from New York. Um, Mr. Massie, I I thank you because yielded to me, right? Okay, good. I thank you because right now it seems like we can't work together on anything. And so the fact that you put forth the effort, it matters to me even though I wasn't engaged in this conversation. If you would for me just riddle me this.
▶ 2:46:42Do you understand that we have fears that say someone could retire as a law enforcement officer today and on tomorrow could go and commit some heinous crime or some crime that would prevent them from being able to walk into a store and buy a firearm. It's the reason that the gun show loophole is a big deal for us. And so, do you understand that? We understand that anything can happen on any given day.
▶ 2:47:12I I'm asking if you don't want to answer, it's okay. Oh, no. I'd love to answer. If it's a heinous crime, they should be in prison. If it's a a notorious crime, the federal agency would know that and it would be on its face ridiculous to issue that firearm to them. They would there they are now then a prohibited person. Okay? So just because they don't go under undergo a background check doesn't mean you're not breaking the law if you give that person a weapon. You are in fact breaking the law.
▶ 2:47:41The federal agency would not be issuing a a firearm to somebody who's broken the law or they would be in violation of the law as well. So let me regardless of the background check. Now I yield back to you. Thank you so much. So, one of the things that we used to have to deal with more so on the state level in Texas is that someone would get arrested for an offense, whether it's domestic violence or whether it's something um that is a felony, but because they had not been found guilty, um the
▶ 2:48:11judges oftent times would have to issue an order telling them to give up their firearms, list all their firearms, and it was really difficult to enforce that order because you're relying on a person who's just been incarcerated.
▶ 2:48:26And I personally know of a number of cases where someone would say arrested for domestic violence, they then end up getting out, they did not turn in their firearms, and then they go out and they do something like u uh the murder suicide situation.
▶ 2:48:44So, so I guess my question is more so what is the problem with a guard rail that you see and is there another way that we could categorize the guard rail the guard rail that would be amanable such as um there is no other law that prevents or precludes the officer from possessing a firearm.
▶ 2:49:10so that we could maybe have an enhancement if for some reason that officer say did end up catching a case and they caught the case in some other state and law enforcement was unaware. This isn't a background check so it wouldn't be anything that would prevent them, but it would um allow for the potential of an increased penalty if for some reason they should not been they should not have been allowed to possess that firearm.
▶ 2:49:39Would you be amanable to any language like that? It still would allow them to go it they could still go get the gun. Gentle lady, I'm just trying because you're the only person that I've seen honestly since I've been in Congress that is trying and so I want to work. That's it. Yeah. I don't think we need to go modify federal statutes that are already clear that say it's a crime if you give a prohibited person a firearm. It's a crime to receive it. It's a crime to give it.
▶ 2:50:09And a a federal law enforcement agency is not going to be committing crimes. They're just not. If we if we can't trust a federal law enforcement agency with the discernment to not give out guns to former federal officers who've committed crimes, which is a completely hypothetical situation, u then I don't we got bigger problems and I yield back. You want the remainder? Gentle lady, I yield.
▶ 2:50:40Yield back or yield to the gentleman from New York. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I um my concern is a little bit different than my colleague from Texas because I I I tend to agree that the likelihood of someone committing a heinous crime and then purchasing a firearm from their agency is is very low. What I am concerned about um and and I would love for my colleague from Kansas to uh to address this. I'm concerned about domestic violence.
▶ 2:51:10Um, domestic violence is something that does not always lead to a conviction, uh, but oftentimes will lead to an order of protection and in many states prohibits, um, any someone from purchasing a gun because of the danger to uh, the domestic partner.
▶ 2:51:33And I I I think I just want to be clear that that is the derivation of uh of my personal concern that uh I think the statistics show that there are as with any sector se sector of the population a uh a portion of retired federal law enforcement officers who uh would be prohibited from purchasing guns because of domestic violence incidents.
▶ 2:52:00Um, and that may not be known by the agency, uh, but would, I think, uh, be very problematic. And so, just so the record is clear, um, Mr. Massie, that's, uh, that's where my concern, uh, stems from. Let me guess, if I, uh, modify my amendment to address domestic violence, you will vote for this until I offer the amendment, and then at which point you'll have another concern. Then I have to withdraw the amendment. I I Mr.
▶ 2:52:31If you add domestic violence, I will vote for the amendment and I will vote for the underlying bill. So, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I've I've fallen for it twice. I won't do it a third time. I hope the public sees that I've tried to work in good faith here. There's an infinite number of concerns.
▶ 2:52:52There are all these scenarios that are being dreamed up on the other side of the aisle which basically have to imagine that federal agencies are are uh not trustworthy and that former federal officers aren't either. I reclaim my time. I reclaim my I I want to be really clear that's not what I'm saying.
▶ 2:53:12I I agree with you that um if somebody commits a crime and then tries to uh buy a a firearm from an agency that the agency is not going to allow it. That's not that's not my my concern. Um but there is data that shows that retired that officers retired officers do engage in domestic violence incidents which would prohibit them from purchasing firearms on if they if there were a background check.
▶ 2:53:42Um this is not a hypothetical. This is real. There's data on this and I I want to just ground this conversation in the data. But that is my concern and given that there's no time limit within which a federal officer can purchase a uh his or her own firearm from the agency. Uh and the fact that an order of protection would not necessarily be known by the agency.
▶ 2:54:11Um that is why that sixmonth time limit was originally uh very important to me when I was under the misimpression that it applied. And that is what my concern is without having a background check. As I said, if you want to address domestic violence, which I think would be the m vast vast majority of circumstances when an officer would otherwise be prohibited from buying a gun in a in any state, uh I am happy to support this amendment.
▶ 2:54:38And I'm uh give you and the American people my word that I will vote for the underlying bill. Will the gentleman yield? Yes. Um the the uh distinguished gentleman from Kentucky implies that uh you know he's somehow like Charlie Brown and you keep on pulling the uh the football away from him every time he's about to kick a field goal. Um in fact we never had a hearing on this bill. So this markup session has become a hearing. But here's the bottom line, Mr. Massie.
▶ 2:55:05We had a deal in committee last Congress. It passed by voice vote unanimously as far as I can tell. Everybody supported it and then it was tanked on the floor with all of these amendments which riddled it with loopholes and now uh we are discovering what the public safety consequences are of those loopholes and you did at least briefly during this hearing hearing recognize them and you agreed to change the language and yet um you know you seem to uh
▶ 2:55:35be more invested in your spat with Mr. Goldman as opposed to advancing public policy here. Let's pass my amendment which used to be your amendment which everybody can agree to and let's make this better legislation. I yield back. Gentleman's time is expired. Is there further discussion on the amendment by Mr. Raskin? I think I would uh somebody does Mr. Nod I yield to Mr. Massie. I just I would just point out that even Mr. Goldman is not satisfied that your amendment goes far enough at the point at this point.
▶ 2:56:09reclaiming. I yield back. Yields back. Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of the Rascan amendment. But I would uh again point out the fact that, you know, law enforcement is a brotherhood. They protect each other.
▶ 2:56:30Uh when one has a problem, say alcoholism or uh you know a somebody gets a call from the wife of a officer calling his supervisor saying my husband just assaulted me and uh or an officer could be undergoing PTSD and experiencing uh trauma that causes them to act out on the job.
▶ 2:56:59And because law enforcement is a brotherhood, the agency allows that officer who's having trouble uh to uh resign in lie of termination.
▶ 2:57:12Or that officer could have even uh more uh pressing issues like the uh use of excessive force repeatedly uh just or or maybe even theft of uh government property, some kind of issue involving the criminal law. But yet the brotherhood in an effort to protect that officer, one of the brothers allows that officer to resign in lie of termination.
▶ 2:57:43Well, that officer when he or she resigns is in good status with the agency and under this legislation, they would be able to purchase their firearm. And I don't know why we're treating firearms like say police dogs when you have a police dog that is assigned to you and you and that dog work together over the years and then you retire and you have a relationship with this dog and you want
▶ 2:58:13to take that dog. We all understand that. But how can you have a a relationship with a firearm? apparently some folks do and that's what gives rise to this legislation and um you know because it potentially puts a loving firearm in the hand of someone who is not so loving uh I'm going to be voting against this legislation but I think the amendment
▶ 2:58:44uh makes the legislation a little better so I'll be supporting the amendment and with that along with my condolences is to the many officers who are forced to retire with no way of being able to connect with that precious firearm that they have lived with for you know 10 12 years. Uh my condolences to them. Thank you and I yield back. Gentleman yields back.
▶ 2:59:13Question occurs on the amendment offered by the ranking member. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed no. No. The pin of the chair the nos have it. can we have a recorded vote, please? The the the sponsor asked for a recorded vote. The clerk, call the role. Mr. Jordan, no. Mr. Jordan votes no. Mr. Isa, Mr. Biggs. Mr. Mcccleintoch. Mr. Mcccleintoch votes no. Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Massie, no. Mr. Massie votes no. Mr. Roy, no. Mr. Roy votes no.
▶ 2:59:43Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Fitzgerald votes no. Mr. Klein, Mr. Klein votes no. Mr. Gooden. Mr. Vandrew, Mr. Nells, Mr. Moore, Mr. Moore votes no. Kylie, Miss Hagamman, Miss Lee, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Fry, Mr. Fry votes no. Mr. Gothamman. Mr. Gothamman votes no. Mr. Knot, Mr. Knot votes no. Mr.
▶ 3:00:13Harris, Mr. Harris votes no. Mr. Herder, Mr. Herder votes no. Mr. Mr. Gil, Mr. Bumgardner. Mr. Bombgardner votes no. Mr. Raskin I. Mr. Rascin votes I. Mr. Nadler. Mr. Nadler vots I. Miss Lofrren Mr. Cohen. Mr. Johnson. I. Mr. Johnson votes I. Mr. Swallwell. Mr. Lou. Miss.
▶ 3:00:43Gi. Mr. Korea. Miss Scanland, Miss Scanland votes I. Negus, Miss Mcbath, Miss Ross, Miss Ross votes I. Miss Ballot, Garcia, Miss Camlager, Dove, Mr. Mosquitz, I. Mr. Mosquitz votes I. Mr. Goldman. Mr. Goldman votes I. Miss Crockett. Miss Crockett votes I.
▶ 3:01:14Miss Ballot, you are not recorded. Miss Ballot votes I. Mr. Vandrew, you are not recorded. Mr. Vandrew votes no. Miss Hagman, you are not recorded. Miss Hagman vets now.
▶ 3:01:47Mr. Chairman, there are nine eyes's and 15 nos. The amendment is not adopted. Question now occurs on the amend on on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. This will be followed immediately by a vote on reporting the bill. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed, no. No. In the pin, the chair is the eyes have it. The amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted. Uh the questions on favorably reporting the bill. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed, no. No. The eyes have it. And the bill is ordered to be reported favored to the house. Members will have two days to submit views. We have a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 3:02:17Recorded vote requested by the uh ranking member. The clerk will call the role. Mr. Jordan, yes. Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Isa Mr. Biggs Mr. Mcccleintok Mr. Mcccleintoch votes I Mr. Tiffany Mr. Massie Mr. Massie votes I Mr. Roy Mr. Fitzgerald Mr. Klein Mr. Klein votes I Gooden Mr.
▶ 3:02:46Van Drew Mr. Nells Mr. Moore Mr. Mr. Morvitz. Yes. Mr. Kylie. Miss Hegman. I think we'll go to Massiey's next building. Miss Lee. Mr. Hunt. Mr. Fry. Hi. Mr. Fry votes I. Mr. Gothamman. Mr. Gothamman votes I. Mr. Kn. Mr. Knots I. Mr. Harris. Hi. Mr. Harris votes I. Mr. Ander. Hi. Mr. Herder votes I. Mr. Schmidt.
▶ 3:03:16Mr. Gill. Mr. Bombgardner. Mr. Bombgardner votes I. Mr. Raskin. No. Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Nadler, no. Mr. Nadler votes no. Miss Laughrin. Mr. Cohen. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Swallwell. Mr. Lou. Miss Gipalaw. Mr. Korea. Miss Scandlin.
▶ 3:03:46Miss Scandlin votes no. Mr. Nagus. Miss McBath. Miss McBth votes no. Miss Ross, no. Miss Ross votes no. Miss Balant. Miss Balant votes no. Mr. Miss Cam Loger Dove. Mr. Moscowitz. Mr. Goldman. Mr. Goldman votes no. Miss Crockett. Miss Crockett votes no. Mr. Vandrew, you are not recorded.
▶ 3:04:16Yes. Mr. Vandrew votes yes.
▶ 3:06:11Miss Haggamman, you are not recorded. Miss Haggamman votes yes. Mr. Roy, you're not recorded. Mr. Roy votes yes. properly. Uh the clerk will report.
▶ 3:06:42Mr. Chairman, there are 14 eyes and nine nos. The eyes have it. The bill is ordered to be reported favorably to the house. Members will have two days to submit views. Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. Pursuant to notice, I call up HR 2267, the NYX data reporting act for purposes of markup and move the committee report it favorably to the House. The clerk will report the bill. HR2267.
▶ 3:07:10Without objection, the bill is considered will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Massie for his opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The NYX Data Reporting Act is a simple and straightforward piece of legislation that many of our colleagues here today have voted for on both sides of the aisle. Um, it simply requires the attorney general to submit to Congress a report that includes the demographic data that they already collect when they do the background check.
▶ 3:07:39They collect this data on 4473s such as race. Uh, and you know when in sales they say when you've got to sell, quit selling. And so I don't want to oversell this because we've got this is the identical language that we've all voted on before, but it did pass as an amendment to u a bill introduced by Mr. Nadler.
▶ 3:08:04These were the golden days uh when we worked in bipartisan fashion and I offered an amendment and we we got this done on the uh and that bill actually passed the floor of the house. So it was a Democrat bill. You all incorporated my amendment and it passed the floor of the house. Um then last Congress, this committee also unanimously reported this bill out and hopefully we can advance it out of this committee.
▶ 3:08:29Now, let me tell you what the bill does or the concern that we're that we have and what I'm trying to address. And Mr. Ivy spoke to this last Congress. He shared the concern. Um, it was actually our late colleague, Miss Jackson Lee, who also shared this concern with me and spoke for this uh this bill. Here's the concern.
▶ 3:08:53When you undergo a NYX background check, if you have a name and andor birthday that's similar to somebody who's been convicted of a crime, a disqualifying crime for firearms ownership, you could be falsely denied. Now, this happens.
▶ 3:09:10We understand, but we estimate that it happens three times more frequently for blacks and twice as frequently for Hispanics because within ethnic and racial groups, you share first names and surnames as well. And uh and there is a a large population of of blacks that is incarcerated or has committed crimes and have been convicted. and um because they share these names.
▶ 3:09:39And by the way, probably I'll say this from my side of the aisle, incarcerated. Uh and so it's not fair. It's built into the system and it needs to be fixed, but to fix something, we need to see the data. And um that's what this would do. This would require publishing the data so that we can all look at it and see what happens. Because if once you're denied, your options for owning a firearm are to go to somebody else, not through a background check.
▶ 3:10:09It's the only it's the only way you could do it. If if on appeal you don't succeed and if on first appeal you don't succeed, you have to hire lawyers. Becomes expensive and you may be deprived of your Second Amendment rights simply because you had a surname and a first name that were similar to somebody who was incarcerated or had been convicted. So, um, hopefully hope to get this passed out of here without much, uh, debate or discussion.
▶ 3:10:37I want you to note that in the in the bill, it asked for the ATF to report sex and gender. Now, uh, this isn't because I've gone woke. It's because the ATF used to ask for sex and then they changed it to gender or vice versa on the form. And so, we need to know that data.
▶ 3:10:57Uh there were some conservative groups who were concerned that I'm asking for sex and gender for some liberal reasons, but it's maybe I just took a reason away for y'all to vote for it. But the reality is on the form it changed from sex to gender or gender to sex and we need to collect that information. Also, we're not asking for more information to be collected on the form 4473 when you undergo a background check. We're just asking for them to report the data that they uh already collect.
▶ 3:11:27And we're not asking for personally identifiable information. This is not to create a registry. We just want to know to what degree this is a problem. And um so with that, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and I yield back. Gentlemen yields back. The chair now recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Raskin, for an opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. um to to prove to my friend that bipartisanship is not dead and the the spirit of common ground common sense legislation still works.
▶ 3:11:55I will support the NYX Data Reporting Act and recommend that we all support it. Um I do have this question after your uh your interesting preface to filing it. Um Mr. Massie, do you think um the attorney general will even be allowed to write the report that you're talking about? Will she be allowed to publish it given the the war on so-called DEI and race and gender discussion and description?
▶ 3:12:25Because um I mean I've got constituents who are being fired for reasons like this. I had one constituent, her job was to assemble patient pools for drug cancer tests. in one sentence in her job description said and to do outreach to diverse constituencies in order to make sure that there was a cross-section of uh patients being tested and she was fired as a DEI employee.
▶ 3:12:51So those words are radioactive now in the administration and I'm just wondering um you know what the practical effect will be and um you know you seem to gesture at this a little bit. you you hastened to assure everybody you hadn't gone woke, but you still thought it was important for us to get this information. Um, I don't think that uh we should ever be afraid of information or facts or data.
▶ 3:13:16Uh, despite the full-blown war that is taking place against facts and data at the National Weather Service, at Noah, at the NIH, um, and throughout at the EPA, the Department of Agriculture, throughout the government. So, I I I'm asking with all seriousness whether you think the attorney general would even comply with what it is you're asking them to do. And I don't know if it's appropriate in my opening statement to be able to yield to you, but I would yield to No, it's not the general recognized for an opening statement. Okay.
▶ 3:13:45So, therefore, but but I agree with it. Um, I think that uh the political perils uh of the gentleman from Kucky's amendment demonstrate uh what a serious situation we're in in America right now where it seems like certain words have become forbidden or illegal. The Associated Press was banned from certain parts of the White House because they dared to call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of Mexico.
▶ 3:14:11Um, and there's some other real bad words out there now under the Trump uh Musk regime, including uh equity and diversity and I think the the the general women, gender uh but I have some constituents, Mr. chairman uh who are in the military service in Germany.
▶ 3:14:29Um and they were sent a memo which I actually showed in this committee um saying that the school libraries for the kids of military families would be closed for 7 to 10 days in order to make sure that the books and the learning materials in the libraries conformed to the new executive order against equity ideology. I thought the Declaration of Independence was equity ideology. I thought that was the whole premise of American democracy, that all of us are created equal.
▶ 3:14:59But in any event, that seems to be a basis now for purging books from the library in complete violation of the First Amendment, a special insult to the people who are serving us all over the world. So, in any event, I just have that question. I hope at some point Mr. Massie will be able to answer it because he's uh moved perilously close to committing a thought crime under the new Trump administration uh simply by asking the question of what the what the racial effects and the gender effects are of particular legislation.
▶ 3:15:28Having said that, I'm happy to support it and I hope all our colleagues will. Without objection, the gentleman yields back. Without objection, all other opening statements be included in the record. Chair now recognizes gentleman from Kentucky to offer an amendment in the nature of a Um I offer the amendment in nature of substitute. Okay. Clerk will report the amendment. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR2267 offered by Mr. Without objection.
▶ 3:15:54The amendment in the nature of a substitute be considered is read and shall be considered base text for the purposes of amendment. The chair now recognizes a gentleman from Kentucky to explain his amendment. So um as I said before, it's a very simple bill.
▶ 3:16:09Um, we're just asking the ATA or sorry, the FBI and DOJ to report the statistics that are collected on the 4473 to to basically quantify the degree of racial disparity that may result in these NYX background checks. And um, that's as simple as it is. It's passed before, it's passed here unanimously, twice out of this committee, passed on the floor once. Um, I urge support for it. And to answer uh Mr.
▶ 3:16:39Rascin's question in his opening statement, we always have a problem with the uh whether it's Republican or Democrat getting them to respond to Congress and if they do I expect this administration to follow the law and if they are tardy and report giving this report to us when the attorney general comes to this uh to this committee to testify it'll be the first question I ask if it's not and submitted
▶ 3:17:09to us this report and I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Mr. Johnson? Yeah, I I you know I mean on its face the legislation seems innocuous but I'm wondering why is it necessary? What is going to be accomplished? Here's the gentleman. Yes. Allow me to ask question answer a question.
▶ 3:17:36I'm I'm concerned that there are inaccuracies in the Nyx database. The way it works, for instance, if u if you have a your name is spelled phonetically, if your name is phonetically similar to somebody in the database, it will catch you. It will flag you. If your birthday is similar, not exact.
▶ 3:17:56And if you did this, let's say you were hiring bank tellers at a bank and you had a background check system that ended up flagging three times as many people in inappropriately of a certain race versus another race, you would be sued out of existence. But the federal government can get away with this.
▶ 3:18:15And what I would prefer to see is if we're going to have a background check system that it work accurately that it deprive those who shouldn't be allowed to have a firearm but it doesn't deprive those who should be. Does the gentleman believe that that is a very persistent problem today?
▶ 3:18:35Um th this idea came from somebody I know who worked at the DOJ was not able to publish data but could see it there as well. And that person believes that uh there's just a horde of people who have who should be eligible to uh purchase a firearm but were rendered ineligible due to a deficient background check.
▶ 3:19:01We do have a GAO report on this and in 2017 there were 112,000 denials and um only 12 federal prosecutions even though the ATF referred thousands of those for for investigation. So it's clear there are a lot of false denials.
▶ 3:19:19Now they can be appealed but if it's a it's a tiered appeal process and u if you don't re get a remedy in the first appeal it be it starts becoming expensive. So it does exist and it is it happens thousands tens of thousands of times every year there are false denials and those denials I believe have a racial disparity that's built in.
▶ 3:19:45Does this legislation uh call for the disclosure of um false denials? Yes, it would disclose denials. Not u and then appeals false denials. You will know the false denials when you see the number of appeals that are uh granted. No. So the answer is no. No, we can. So it they will have to report uh how many initial denials by race.
▶ 3:20:15Then they will have to report uh on appeal how many were denied and subsequent denials. If you for instance have a 100,000 denials and 50,000 are appealed well and overturned, then those were false denials.
▶ 3:20:36Well, I I don't see any language in the bill that would call for a disclosure of false denials, just demographic data on uh all denials. Let correct.
▶ 3:20:51Let me I'm working in good faith here and I think it's a I want to explain if if somebody appealed their conviction and the uh appeal was granted and the conviction was overturned, I would characterize that as a false conviction.
▶ 3:21:12And so that's how we'll know false denials by race because you if it's a if it was a legitimate denial, the appeal wouldn't have been granted. So this legislation all also calls for the uh identification of of the person who was denied. Does it call for personally? No, there would be no personal identification.
▶ 3:21:43It's just broad categories of uh folks denied. And so if it should occur, if if it should appear after this legislation is passed and reports are submitted that uh there were uh more let's say black people in the country or people who are identified as being uh black than whites. um then what would you do with that information? What would that information mean?
▶ 3:22:12You would try to improve the system and instead of using phonetically similar names, you would use exact spellings, instead of using approximate birthdays, you would try to use accurate birthdays. Uh you would do what they would do in the private sector, which is to try to make sure you don't falsely deny somebody and that their system isn't set up to biased for race or ethnicity. Gentleman's time is expired. Further discussion on the amendment. Mr. Thank you.
▶ 3:22:41Um and I'm going to be guilty of the same sin I guess the ranking member was because I want to say I support the legislation. I'm not sure why anybody would not. But he then went on a tirade about equity and equality. And I had two choices. One was to sit there and just listen. I don't want people who the few people that happen to be watching this still to think that means that we agree or we don't have an answer. Um so to answer Mr.
▶ 3:23:07Raskin the ranking member uh there is a difference between equity and equality equality we are absolutely granted in the United States of America. It means that you have the chance to compete that you are given equal access that you if you work as hard or are as smart or do as much or whenever the case may be that you have that opportunity.
▶ 3:23:30It should be a nation of equality and we when we are not we have to fight to make sure that we do get to that point. Equity means you get the same result regardless of what you have what you do who you're just going to always get the same result. That isn't life. That isn't the way it works. And what's happened is especially in government and in education and even spread to the private sector as well.
▶ 3:23:55Um, every department, every agency, every division uh was hiring not always based on the best, the brightest, the most focused and talented, but on this artificial construct uh this mechanism that we had to have all different kinds of balance. Um, I'm not even sure what the balance meant. You know, I'm gonna tell a story. I'm not making this up.
▶ 3:24:19You're not going to believe it, but a nurse and a midwife in my state, in the state of New Jersey, this is a state law. Let me be clear. It's not a federal law. Um, contacted my office and they sent over a form that's given to parents with a newborn. This is a newborn. The baby's just born. For anybody that has children, you can relate to this. Your baby's born. You're there, husband and wife, whatever the case may be. and that baby's born, they ask if the baby is transgender.
▶ 3:24:49They ask if the baby is LGBTQ plus, heterosexual, uh, and questions along those lines that are in depth. A little baby, you can't, they're trying to be so woke and so perfect. I I couldn't believe that they asked those questions of parents when they have a newborn. And it wasn't for the parents. It was for the newborn baby. How do you know that with a newborn baby? This is crazy stuff.
▶ 3:25:18This all gets classified under crazy and too extreme. And American people don't like it and they don't believe it. So there are a small percentage of people that think that's that we want to completely restructure America in this way. It doesn't make sense. Uh and that doesn't mean any that we should do anything harmful to people that are different. It doesn't mean that these people don't have a right to succeed as well.
▶ 3:25:42It simply means that we all compete together and then you let the chips fall where they may. That the best rises to the top regardless of race or color or creed. We had it in our transportation. We had it in the EPA. We had it in, like I said, every division, agency, department. I mean, it was unbelievable. And guess what, folks? It costs billions upon billions of dollars to do that.
▶ 3:26:10Billions that don't go for better education. Billions that don't go for more schools. Billions that don't go to help veterans. Billions that don't go to help senior citizens on nonsense. It doesn't make sense. And that's what I want to say back to the ranking member. Um it's not a desire to take freedom away. It's just a a desire to return to some level of normal. That's all it is.
▶ 3:26:40With that, I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion from Wyoming? Gentle lady from Wyoming is recognized. Thank you. I yield my time to the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Massie. I thank the gentle lady from Wyoming. Um, in response to the gentleman from Georgia's question, how prevalent it is, there were 22,615 appeals challenging a Nick's denial uh with the FBI. This was in 2023.
▶ 3:27:11Of those appeals, 6,263 resulted in a denial being overturned. And there's so it's happened at least 6,263 times in a year. And the way when we go look at the initial denials and then you look at the ones that were overturned and you go in and separate that by race.
▶ 3:27:35If you find out that there were more denials overturned for people within a certain race, then we can infer things from that. And the first denial, uh, 93% of denials are are dropped because you do a paperwork check and then they find out it was a false denial, which results in there's no lawyers involved.
▶ 3:27:57But if that first paperwork check doesn't fix it for you, um, and by the way, some people may just walk away and not exercise their Second Amendment on that first denial, but another 2% are dropped with at the regional offices. they just do an additional check.
▶ 3:28:14If we just compared the race and sex of those who are initially denied with the race and sex of those cases that have been dropped at each of those first two stages, then we can we can from that divine whether this process of the next database process has a problem that results in a racial disparity. And I yield back to the gentle lady from Wyoming. Would the gentle lady yield for a question? Yes. Thank you.
▶ 3:28:43Um, does the legislation call for the reason for the denial to be listed along with the demographic information uh requested? Um, if the gentle lady would yield to me to answer. They they already um disclose Nick's data by category. they uh the problem is they don't include race within that.
▶ 3:29:10So for instance, some of the categories could be a fugitive from justice, misdemeanor, crime of domestic violence, uh illegal alien, dishonorable discharge. We have that data, but we don't have it uh we don't have the racial data. Would you be able to link it to the uh information provided uh under this legislation? This this just asked them to report the race, sex, and and whatnot by category.
▶ 3:29:38Not not like you couldn't go in and divine something from the the form 4473 to get personally identifiable information. Seems like it would be sensible to to know the basis for the denial along with uh this other information that is sought uh under this legislation. Yeah, we can we can getting a report from them is the first part.
▶ 3:30:05We could work with them to get that report um with the FBI. Well, why don't we amend the uh legislation for the disclosure of uh the reason why the um I'm open to your amendment and I I'd certainly uh I'd certainly support that amendment.
▶ 3:30:32We could we could um do that on the floor or if you want to offer an amendment right now, uh we could do it. But maybe there's maybe want some time to think about what it would be. Okay. Well, I'd love to work with you as this legislation proceeds to the floor. There would be nothing more disappointing to me than to get this bill passed, get the president to sign it, and then to get a report that doesn't give us the information that we need. So, if you have ideas for improving it, I would absolutely be open to that. Thank you.
▶ 3:31:02Thank you. And I yield back to gentle lady from Wyoming. Thank you. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Is there further Gentleman from Texas are recognized. I'm just going to speak very briefly in support of my friend from KY's um uh bill. I think it is important. I'm glad there's bipartisan support for it. Um I would note similar to my friend from New Jersey, uh the extraordinary difference in what is attempted being done here.
▶ 3:31:28um contra the uh ranking members assertion uh I mean this is focused on ensuring that the power of government is not being used against its citizenry um for in this case reasons that would be um and I think that's a real core distinction we can have our debates about DEI all day long but debates about what the executive orders about the president what we're doing on DEI I agree with the president's executive orders that's trying to pair back uh discrim disccriminatory practice
▶ 3:31:59in our view. But all this is doing is simply saying where the power of the government is at its zenith to be used against the people to deny them a fundamental right that is enshrined in the constitution uh that we ought to be mindful of how it's being used. Collect the data. Again, follow uh you know the truth wherever it may lead. Let's get the facts. I support the bill. I yield back. Gentlemen yields back. Is there further discussion? Question. Seeing none, the question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
▶ 3:32:29This will be followed immediately by a vote on reporting the bill. Those in favor say I. Those opposed say no. The opinion of the chairs the eye has have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted. The question is on favorably reporting the bill as amended. Those in favor say I. I. Those opposed say no. The eyes have it and the bill is ordered to be reported favorably to the house. Members will have two days to submit views.
▶ 3:32:56Without objection, the bill be reported as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. Chair understands that votes will soon be called on the floor. Committee stands in recess. Chair understands that votes are about to be called on the floor and therefore the committee will stand in recess.