[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 83 (Wednesday, May 17, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H2389-H2394]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SERVICE WEAPON PURCHASE ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. FRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H.R. 3091.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Flood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 398 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3091.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from California (Mr. Mike Garcia) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1223


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3091) to allow Federal law enforcement officers to purchase 
retired service weapons, and for other purposes, with Mr.  Mike Garcia 
of California in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 1 
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees.
  The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Fry) and the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Fry).
  Mr. FRY. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I rise to call on my colleagues to support H.R. 3091, the 
Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act.
  This week is National Police Week, and I applaud the majority's 
dedication to supporting and celebrating our Nation's law enforcement 
officers who risk their lives every single day to keep us safe.
  This bill is just one legislative commitment we are taking to support 
our brave men and women in blue. This legislation would allow current 
Federal law enforcement officers in good standing to purchase a retired 
service weapon at market value from a Federal agency.
  Current Federal regulations require all Federal agencies, such as the 
U.S. Secret Service or U.S. Customs and Border Protection, to destroy 
weapons after they have been retired from Federal use. That means that 
these retired firearms must be crushed, cut, broken, or deformed to 
ensure that they are rendered completely inoperable and cannot be used 
again.
  According to the Fraternal Order of Police, multiple law enforcement 
agencies are currently in the process of replacing their service 
weapons.
  This means that 20,000 firearms would be destroyed, an $8 million 
cost to the taxpayers. Taxpayers are paying for those weapons twice--
when they go into circulation and when they are retired.
  Not only does this legislation have the potential to save millions of 
dollars in waste, but it would offset the cost of purchasing new 
weapons and fund other agency expenses.
  I thank the cosponsors of the bill and strongly urge my colleagues to 
vote in favor of H.R. 3091.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, Federal regulations for the management of Federal property 
currently prohibit an agency from disposing of functional or repairable 
firearms by selling them. Under these regulations, when an agency no 
longer has a need for a firearm, it can transfer it to another law 
enforcement entity or destroy it.
  This regulation has served the important goal of ensuring that 
federally owned firearms do not fall into the wrong hands, but it also 
misses an opportunity to save money by selling an unneeded firearm to 
the law enforcement officer who has been using it.
  Last Congress, our colleague and former Orlando Police chief 
Congresswoman Val Demings recognized the opportunity for improvement in 
these regulations. She introduced the original version of this 
legislation, which allows a Federal agency to sell a retired handgun to 
the law enforcement officer who had been using it, transferring it from 
a service weapon to a weapon in the hands of a responsible gun owner 
who is trained to use it.
  Congresswoman Demings' legislation included two improvements that, 
unfortunately, have been removed from the current version of the bill.

  Her version required the law enforcement officer who was purchasing 
the gun to undergo a background check. This is a commonsense 
requirement, given that an officer would undergo a standard background 
check to purchase the weapon from any other sellers.
  Most background checks are practically instantaneous, often about 30 
seconds. I do not think that 30 seconds is too long to wait to ensure 
that a gun does not fall into the wrong hands.
  While I think it is notable that the majority stripped this 
reasonable and effortless requirement, the current version of the bill 
does require a purchasing officer to be in good standing.
  While this is not as thorough as Congresswoman Demings' legislation, 
the good-standing requirement should prevent unlawful transfers in most 
cases.
  Ms. Demings' bill also included a sense of Congress that the funds 
received by the government from selling a retired service weapon should 
be used to support evidence-based gun violence prevention or gun safety 
education and

[[Page H2390]]

training programs. Again, this is a thoughtful provision that would 
have directed these funds toward a critical need in our communities and 
would have improved public safety.
  This provision should be totally noncontroversial, but our Republican 
colleagues have stripped it from the bill. The only logical conclusion 
is that they do not want a single additional dollar to go to gun 
violence prevention, even as it continues to tear our communities apart 
and imperil the lives of law enforcement officers.
  While I wish the majority had left Congresswoman Demings' bill 
intact, I nonetheless support this weakened version of her work.
  I want to make it very clear that if any of the Republican poison 
pill amendments pass, I will have to encourage my colleagues to vote 
``no.''
  The base text of this bill allows limited transfers of handguns to 
active Federal law enforcement officers in good standing for fair 
market value. The amendments subvert this purpose by allowing those who 
are not active law enforcement to purchase a weapon without a 
background check, allowing the government to sell military-style 
assault weapons without a background check and forcing taxpayers to 
subsidize these gun sales by selling them below their fair market 
value.
  Mr. Chair, I strongly urge all Members to oppose these amendments.
  I note, however, that I support Ms. Jacobs' very helpful amendment to 
further define the good-standing requirement and help ensure that 
retired weapons are only transferred to those who can be trusted with 
them.
  This bill had bipartisan support in committee, so it is unfortunate 
that the majority would rather politicize National Police Week with a 
radical gun agenda than pass a reasonable bipartisan bill.
  If the poison pill amendments fail, I will continue to support the 
bill. If any of them pass, I must urge my colleagues to oppose this 
legislation.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. FRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Van Drew).
  Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Chairman, I rise today during National Police Week 
in strong support of the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon 
Purchase Act.
  This bill, which I was proud to help move through the Judiciary 
Committee, is a practical measure and a declaration of our unwavering 
support for the Nation's law enforcement officers. They are the bedrock 
of our communities, and they ensure peace, order, and safety.
  By allowing Federal officers the opportunity to purchase retired 
service weapons, we can save taxpayer dollars and ensure officers have 
firearms with which they are the most comfortable.
  This bill and others like it this week present a clear question: Will 
we stand up for our police or will we stand idly by as unwarranted and 
inappropriate criticism continues to be thrown their way?
  I know what my answer is. I stand with our police.
  I extend my gratitude to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Fry), 
my colleague and good friend, for introducing this bill. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in voting in favor of this bill.
  Let's send an unmistakable message to our law enforcement officers 
across this Nation: We see you. We appreciate you. We stand by you. I 
particularly thank my friends and individuals in law enforcement that 
I've known so well over so many years in the great State of New Jersey 
for the work that they do. I am proud of them. I am proud of what they 
represent, and I am thankful for their sacrifice.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3091.
  We need to address police brutality and work on police accountability 
as our country continues to reckon with instances of brutality and 
distrust of law enforcement officers.
  Tyre Nichols, Breonna Taylor, and George Floyd's legacies demand more 
of us.
  I am disappointed to see the exclusion of two key measures from 
similar legislation introduced by Val Demings last Congress.
  I offered an amendment that would disqualify an officer from 
purchasing their weapon after retirement if they have instances of 
misconduct or unethical behavior in their personnel file. The good-
standing qualification in this bill is too subjective to accurately 
protect Americans, but my commonsense amendment was not accepted, and 
Republicans are not bringing it up for a vote.
  We need increased police accountability and community-based ideas 
around policing. We need to keep people alive, including law 
enforcement, and rebuild community trust.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Chair, I hope my GOP colleagues will join me 
in finding ways to create safer communities for everyday Americans 
because that is what all Americans want. They want to live and work and 
worship in communities that will keep them safe and build 
relationships, new relationships with law enforcement that understand 
and see them.
  Mr. FRY. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation improves government efficiency by 
allowing a Federal agency to sell a retired handgun to the law 
enforcement officer who had been using it. This was a good idea when it 
was introduced last Congress on a bipartisan basis by former 
Congresswoman Val Demings, and it continues to be one.
  I am disappointed that Republicans have chosen to move forward with a 
weaker version of her bill. Nonetheless, I support its passage unless 
it is further weakened by the Republican poison pill amendments I 
referred to in my opening statement.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRY. Mr. Chairman, I am proud that this legislation passed 
favorably out of the Judiciary Committee last week and already has a 
considerable number of cosponsors.
  As we celebrate, honor, and remember our men and women in uniform 
during National Police Week, I am proud to bring this legislation to 
the House floor for a vote that will allow Federal law enforcement 
officers to purchase retired service weapons and prevent wasteful 
spending.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on the Judiciary, printed in the bill, it shall be in 
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 118-5. That amendment 
in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 3091

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Law Enforcement 
     Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act''.

     SEC. 2. PURCHASE OF RETIRED HANDGUNS BY FEDERAL LAW 
                   ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of General Services 
     shall establish a program under which a Federal law 
     enforcement officer may purchase a retired handgun from the 
     Federal agency that issued the handgun to such officer.
       (b) Limitations.--A Federal law enforcement officer may 
     purchase a retired handgun under subsection (a) if--
       (1) the purchase is made during the six-month period 
     beginning on the date the handgun was so retired; and
       (2) with respect to such purchase, the officer is in good 
     standing with the Federal agency that employs such officer.
       (c) Cost.--A handgun purchased under this section shall be 
     sold at the fair market value for such handgun taking into 
     account the age and condition of the handgun.

[[Page H2391]]

       (d) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the term ``Federal law enforcement officer'' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 115(c)(1) of title 18, 
     United States Code;
       (2) the term ``handgun'' has the meaning given that term in 
     section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code; and
       (3) the term ``retired handgun'' means any handgun that has 
     been declared surplus by the applicable agency.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order, except those printed in part B of House 
Report 118-59. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
to a demand for division of the question.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Jacobs

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part B of House Report 118-59.
  Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 2, insert after line 6 the following (and redesignate 
     provisions accordingly):
       (c) Agency Procedures.--Not later than 1 year and 30 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, each Federal agency 
     that is required to make a determination under subsection 
     (b)(2), shall by rule establish procedures for making such a 
     determination.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 398, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Jacobs) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Chair, I rise today to protect public safety and 
honor the original intent of this bill through a simple, commonsense 
amendment.
  Many of us on both sides of the aisle agree with the goal of H.R. 
3091, to allow Federal law enforcement officers to buy retired 
handguns, many of which are already required to be destroyed.
  However, an oversight could enable domestic abusers, including those 
subject to restraining orders, to get firearms, which we all know can 
have deadly consequences.
  Police officers are human. They aren't immune from mental illness, 
domestic and family conflict, and other stressors that can lead to 
tragedies. We can and should have guardrails to prevent those 
tragedies.
  That is why my amendment simply ensures that each Federal law 
enforcement agency has procedures for determining whether an officer is 
in good standing to buy a firearm. Agencies would have the flexibility 
to tailor those determinations based on the qualifications of each 
agency, but these guidelines should be clear and concise.
  Existing Federal law already carves out special treatment for law 
enforcement officers by allowing them to have a gun even if they have a 
domestic violence restraining order. That is dangerous.
  All gun owners should meet the same standard, and law enforcement 
agencies shouldn't consider an officer who is perpetrating violence 
against a family or household member to be in good standing and able to 
buy a handgun.
  While I am thankful that the Committee on Rules supported my 
amendment, I am disappointed that they rejected my other amendment and 
several of my colleagues' amendments to provide additional guardrails 
for this buyback program.
  With this amendment, we have an opportunity to improve this 
legislation. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to save 
lives, protect public safety, and honor those who put their lives on 
the line for our communities.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRY. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRY. Mr. Chair, good standing is already universally understood 
by all Federal agencies. If an officer has been suspended, they 
surrender their badge and gun and do not have law enforcement 
authorities.
  This is not a new concept. In fact, the Law Enforcement Officers 
Safety Act, signed into law 19 years ago, requires a finding of good 
standing by the agencies in order for retired officers to be eligible 
to carry a concealed weapon.
  By requiring an agency to adopt standards to determine good standing 
for the purposes of this bill, her amendment would establish a double 
standard where a law enforcement officer could be in good standing for 
the purposes of their job, but the agency considers them not to be in 
good standing for the purposes of purchasing a retired service weapon. 
This potential two-track system is ripe for abuse.
  For these reasons, Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Chair, I will just note that there is a loophole 
where law enforcement officers can keep a gun even when they have a 
domestic violence restraining order.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, when Congresswoman Demings introduced her 
superior version of this legislation last Congress, it would require 
the law enforcement officer who is purchasing the gun to undergo a 
background check. This is a commonsense requirement, given that an 
officer would undergo a standard background check to purchase the 
weapon from any other sellers.
  My colleagues submitted amendments that would add this background 
check requirement back in. It is unfortunate that that strong and 
reasonable amendment was not made in order.
  This amendment, the Jacobs amendment, does the next best thing. It 
would further define the good-standing requirement and help ensure that 
retired weapons are only transferred to those who can be trusted with 
them.
  This amendment will help close the gap between what a NICS check 
would reveal and what an employing Federal law enforcement agency would 
find in making a determination that an officer is in good standing.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Chair, I would just like to add that by requiring 
agencies to have procedures to determine whether an officer is in good 
standing, this amendment would ensure that officers are treated fairly 
and only denied the purchase of their handgun for good and objective 
reasons.
  By establishing a deadline for Federal law enforcement agencies to 
establish these procedures, this amendment will ensure that an agency 
is not caught off guard when an officer who may have issues related to 
performance or behavior requests to purchase a weapon.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRY. Mr. Chair, I will just reiterate what we previously 
discussed.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Jacobs).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California will be 
postponed.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. McCormick

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
part B of House Report 118-59.
  Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 2, line 8, strike ``fair market value'' and insert 
     ``salvage value''.
       Page 2, line 16, strike ``and'' at the end.
       Page 2, line 19, strike the period at the end and insert 
     ``; and''.
       Page 2, insert after line 19 the following:
       (4) the term ``salvage value'' means the value of an asset 
     after it has become useless to the owner or the amount 
     expected to be obtained when a fixed asset is disposed of at 
     the end of its useful life

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 398, the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. McCormick) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.

[[Page H2392]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Chair, I am here today to discuss my amendment to 
H.R. 3091, the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase 
Act.
  Currently, firearms from agencies such as the Secret Service are 
destroyed once they are retired from service or replaced with new 
models. This is wasteful and makes no sense. Many law enforcement 
officers have a special connection to their firearms they use in the 
line of duty. They would like to take them home to cherish as family 
heirlooms.
  It is only fair to allow the courageous men and women of law 
enforcement to purchase their service weapons upon retirement, and we 
should let them do that at a low cost because these are going to be 
thrown out anyway.
  This shouldn't be a revenue-raising scheme for the government. Our 
law enforcement officers should be able to keep their firearms at a 
reasonable cost.
  My amendment simply changes H.R. 3091 by changing the term ``fair 
market value'' to ``salvage value,'' which is what would be done to the 
weapons anyway, salvaging it.
  Salvage value is defined as: ``The value of the asset after it 
becomes useless to the owner or the amount expected to be obtained when 
a fixed asset is disposed of at the end of its useful life,'' which is 
exactly what is happening here.
  This definition is for the lawyers, appraisers, and accountants, but 
what I want to talk about is what it means to our law enforcement 
officers.
  This change would allow them to purchase their retired service 
firearms, which in many cases they discharged in the line of duty to 
save lives, at a lower cost than the current ``fair market value,'' 
which it would not be disposed at.
  Under current policy, these firearms are destroyed, so the purchase 
is at salvage value by definition. It would still increase government 
revenues, because you are actually purchasing it at the same amount and 
you wouldn't have to actually have the expense of salvaging it, while 
allowing Federal law enforcement officers to purchase the service 
weapons that have protected them throughout their careers at a fair 
price.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, when Congresswoman Demings introduced a superior version 
of this legislation last Congress, it was premised on the principle of 
making the most of taxpayer dollars and recouping the values of weapons 
that were not at the end of their usable life.
  This amendment would require these weapons not at the end of their 
usable life to be sold at their salvage value, which by its terms, is 
below the fair market value of these weapons. This prevents the agency 
from recouping the full value of the weapon.
  The effect of this amendment is to sell firearms at a discount funded 
by taxpayers. Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize gun sales, 
which is contrary to the intended purpose of this bill that was 
introduced last Congress and is also contrary to the intent of the bill 
in the form it unanimously passed in the Judiciary Committee.
  Taxpayers should be funding the government, not subsidizing gun 
sales. This amendment is contrary to the intent of the bill, and I urge 
my colleagues to vote against the amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Chair, the basic premise is a misunderstanding of 
what this is about.
  First of all, the weapon would otherwise be destroyed. The only money 
that would come from it is either the money that is spent on destroying 
the weapon or the money that was obtained from it by destroying the 
weapon which would be salvage monetary price, which would be 
approximately $100 for an average Glock. That is weapon scrap. That is 
what it is worth. That is how much you would get back from the 
government.
  The gentleman from New York talks about the government supplementing 
police officers who served an entire career. I was a career military 
person with over 20 years in the military. My father was a deputy 
sheriff. This isn't a money-making scheme. As a matter of fact, it is 
just the opposite. This isn't for the government to make money off of. 
This is to do the right thing.
  This is at best a neutral bill. This shouldn't be about the military 
people who just spent 20 years of their life paying money to expand the 
coffers of the American government when otherwise it would be worth 
about $100 as scrap metal.
  The misrepresentation that this should be money that our retirees 
spend on a weapon that would otherwise be destroyed--and nothing else 
would be done with that weapon, by the way. When the gentleman talks 
about fair market value, the fair market value in the market for this 
is salvage. It is what would be done with the weapon to begin with. The 
misnomer, the misrepresentation that retired officers that have spent 
their entire career protecting this Nation, bonding with something that 
saves their lives and protects other people, is actually kind of 
offensive to me as a guy who has carried around a service rifle and a 
service pistol, when I was overseas, in harm's way, the same way my 
father carried around his service pistol in harm's way.
  This is not to make money for the government. This is to do the right 
thing by those police officers and those law enforcement individuals 
who served their entire life doing nothing but serving their community. 
That is what this is about and nothing else.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I think the gentleman misunderstands the bill. 
This bill is not when the officer retires. It is when the gun is 
retired. When the gun is retired, perhaps because the law enforcement 
agency is upgrading to a more modern gun, it can be sold, and the money 
goes to the taxpayers, obviously. If it is not repairable, it can then 
be scrapped.
  This amendment would say that it can't be done. It would say that you 
could not recover the full market value of the weapon, and there is no 
reason the taxpayers shouldn't recover that.
  The amendment is an antitaxpayer amendment. It is not for the officer 
when he retires. It is when the weapon is retired, which may be before 
or long after the officer retires. It has nothing to do with that. So 
the amendment would simply cost the taxpayers money for no purpose at 
all, and I, therefore, oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Chair, I am going to define once again what this 
bill is about because I disagree wholeheartedly. If it is at the end of 
its service life, if it is no longer useful, it is going to be 
salvaged. Salvaged. We are defining what is happening at the end of a 
useful life value. Salvaged. It is going to be destroyed. That is what 
the government will do with it. The government is not going to sell it; 
the government is going to salvage it. The government is not going to 
put it on the market, the fair market for a used weapon, they are going 
to destroy it.
  Therefore, the value of the weapon is whatever it is destroyed for. 
That is the definition. That is clear in this bill, and that has been 
defined. Trying to mislead the public on what this is about is, once 
again, offensive to me.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. McCormick).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Luttrell

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
part B of House Report 118-59.
  Mr. LUTTRELL. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

[[Page H2393]]

  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 2, line 6, insert ``or employed'' before ``such 
     officer''.
       Page 2, line 13, insert before the semicolon at the end the 
     following: ``, and includes a retired Federal law enforcement 
     officer''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 398, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Luttrell) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. LUTTRELL. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 
3091, the Federal Law Enforcement Service Weapon Purchase Act.
  My amendment would expand those who can purchase retired service 
weapons to include those who have served their country faithfully and 
retired from Federal law enforcement. This amendment will allow for the 
brave men and women who retired from service in Federal law enforcement 
the ability to protect themselves and our communities, if necessary.
  By eliminating bureaucratic red tape currently preventing Federal law 
enforcement officers and retirees from purchasing their service 
weapons, we are equipping them with the ability to respond to 
emergencies equipped with the weapon they are well acquainted with. The 
best deterrent to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
  This measure will further protect the Second Amendment rights of our 
Federal law enforcement officers who have displayed valor and courage 
in making the ultimate sacrifice to keep us safe and protect our 
communities.
  Those who have served our Nation as law enforcement officers with 
dignity and honor and retired in good standing ought to have the same 
rights of those currently serving.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, when Congresswoman Demings introduced her superior version 
of this legislation last Congress, it required the law enforcement 
officer who was purchasing the gun to undergo a background check. This 
is a commonsense requirement, given that an officer would undergo a 
standard background check to purchase the weapon from many other 
sellers.
  My colleagues submitted amendments that would add this background 
check requirement back in. It is unfortunate that that strong and 
reasonable amendment was not made in order.
  The bill as passed in committee allows sales only to officers in good 
standing.
  This amendment allows retired Federal law enforcement officers to 
also be eligible to purchase surplus service weapons without the usual 
NICS background check or a certification of good standing.
  This amendment is contrary to existing law and could allow prohibited 
purchasers to buy a handgun. Retired officers have no standing with an 
agency. They are not subject to any of the oversight and employment 
rules of active Federal law enforcement.
  With this amendment, someone could retire, be convicted of a felony, 
and then purchase a handgun from the Federal Government, even though 
they would fail a NICS check because a NICS check is not required.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous amendment, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUTTRELL. Mr. Chair, we are talking about the same men and women 
that went through the rigorous background check before they retired. We 
are talking about the same men and women that served our country 
honorably. This amendment speaks in good faith and good faith only.
  I agree with my colleagues across the aisle that if there is an 
individual that has done something nefarious, absolutely, but this 
amendment alone speaks to the good faith of those men and women who 
served in uniform.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, a police officer can retire for many reasons. 
One of them is that he is being forced out for misconduct. An officer 
who is forced out for misconduct should not be permitted to buy a gun 
without a background check. The background check might show the 
misconduct--would show the misconduct that forced them out. If he 
committed a felony, it would show that.
  Under this amendment, a retired officer who was pushed out because of 
bad conduct, who was pushed out because he could not be trusted with a 
handgun, who subsequently commits a felony could still purchase a 
handgun without a background check. That is dangerous to the public and 
makes no sense at all.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUTTRELL. Mr. Chair, anyone who is guilty of what my colleague 
across the aisle is saying would have to go through--we are talking 
about weapon systems that are retired out of the Federal system and 
good-standing law enforcement officers purchasing those weapon systems.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, the gentleman is mistaken. There is a 
difference between the officer and the gun. The gun is being retired. 
The officer may have committed a felony--the ex-officer, I should say, 
may have committed a felony, may have been forced out for bad conduct, 
and under this amendment would be permitted to purchase the gun without 
a background check that would show his felony or whatever conduct 
caused him to be pushed out. It is dangerous.
  We are not talking about an officer upon retirement buying his gun. 
We are talking about an ex-officer who may have committed a felony, who 
may have been forced out for dangerous conduct now being permitted to 
purchase a gun without a background check that would show that this is 
a dangerous character.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUTTRELL. Mr. Chair, in closing, I urge my colleagues across the 
aisle to support this sensible measure that will afford law-abiding 
retired law enforcement officers the same treatment as those currently 
serving as defined in this bill.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Luttrell).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Rosendale

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in 
part B of House Report 118-59.
  Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 1, line 4, strike ``handguns'' and insert 
     ``firearms''.
       Strike ``handgun'' each place it appears and insert 
     ``firearm''.
       Page 2, line 16, insert before the semicolon the following: 
     ``, excluding any machinegun (as defined in section 
     921(a)(24) of such title) not lawfully possessed before 
     section 922(o) of such title took effect''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 398, the gentleman from 
Montana (Mr. Rosendale) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Montana.
  Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chair, in its current state, H.R. 3091 allows 
Federal law enforcement to purchase retired handguns from their agency, 
allowing the agency to recover some of the original costs of those 
handguns. However, handguns are not the only weapons in our Federal 
officers' arsenal.
  In recent years, about 30 percent of new firearm purchases by Federal 
agencies were rifles and shotguns. Current surpluses also show that 
there are similar numbers of pistols and rifles in agency stockpiles.
  My amendment would allow for our law enforcement officers to purchase 
these weapons, as well, so long as the rifle or shotgun is allowed 
legally for civilian use.

[[Page H2394]]

  The current practice of destroying retired firearms costs taxpayers 
money when they could be providing a service to their Federal law 
enforcement and creating some revenue in the process.
  Many of our Nation's law enforcement are avid recreation and sports 
shooters in their free time, and they deserve the added benefit of 
being allowed to purchase high-quality firearms at a reduced cost.
  Americans trust police to protect them with these very firearms every 
single day. Why should these well-trained officers not have the right 
to defend their own family with these same weapons.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment expands the types of weapons 
officers are allowed to purchase to include all retired firearms. The 
amendment radically extends the bill and runs counter to its original 
purpose.
  This amendment would allow semiautomatic assault weapons, sniper 
rifles, and military-grade weaponry to be purchased without a 
background check. While Federal law enforcement has a need for these 
weapons, they have no place in our communities.
  Though the amendment excludes machine guns, it does not exclude other 
firearms subject to heightened regulation under the National Firearms 
Act, such as short-barreled rifles and even grenade launchers. The 
Federal Government should not be selling these dangerous weapons to 
people operating in their civilian capacity.
  Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues 
to oppose it, as well.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chair, I point to the amendment where it refers to 
section 921(a)(24) of the title, which is going to keep weapons that 
are currently not allowed in civilian hands out of civilian hands.
  Our law enforcement officials are highly trained. Whether they are 
using an AR-15 or whether they are using a similar high-powered rifle 
with a high-intensity scope, they are trained to do such.
  I have lots of friends and family who use these weapons on a daily 
basis for sport shooting and other purposes.
  If our law enforcement officers, if they have served their time and 
are retiring from that duty of protecting the civilians across this 
Nation, want to purchase a weapon that they have been utilizing for who 
knows how much time, they should be able to do so.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, the provision that the gentleman refers to 
refers only to machine guns. It does not exclude other firearms, as I 
mentioned, such as short-barreled rifles and even grenade launchers, 
and these are too dangerous.
  We should not be selling these dangerous weapons to people operating 
in their civilian capacity. That is why this amendment is dangerous and 
radically changes the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chair, again, I refuse to accept the premise that 
a grenade launcher is going to be purchased and allowed to be purchased 
by a former law enforcement official. That is just not realistic. It is 
not true, and it is very misleading to this body.
  When we have people who have risked their lives to defend folks 
across this country in our communities, then they should be able to 
purchase these retired weapons.
  We have heard them called retired weapons. Because the value has been 
dramatically reduced, they are going to be put into a stockpile. They 
are going to be salvaged. They are going to be destroyed.
  Allow us to generate some revenue, and allow the people who have used 
them the longest and the safest to continue their use.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, section 5845, definitions, reads as 
follows: ``(a) Firearm, the term `firearm' means (1) a shotgun having a 
barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (2) a weapon made 
from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less 
than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; 
(3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in 
length; (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has 
an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less 
than 16 inches in length; (5) any other weapon, as defined in 
subsection (e); (6) a machine gun''--which is the only thing the 
gentleman excludes from his amendment--``(7) any silencer (as defined . 
. . ); and (8) a destructive device,'' like a grenade launcher, like a 
grenade.
  Therefore, when I say that this amendment would ban only machine guns 
but would permit all these other things, including grenades and weapons 
of destruction, it is right here in the statute. The gentleman's 
amendment would permit all of these. Those are the kinds of weapons.
  Grenade launchers and short-barreled rifles should not be in the 
possession of civilians, even retired police officers.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chair, again, I refuse to accept the premise that 
you are going to have grenade launchers that are going to be purchased 
by Federal law enforcement. They are not utilizing those, and they are 
not going to be purchased by them.
  We are talking about the handguns and the rifles that are currently 
allowed to be possessed by civilians. Those are the only ones that are 
going to be able to be purchased.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Moylan). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rosendale).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Montana will 
be postponed.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.  
Mike Garcia of California) having assumed the chair, Mr. Moylan, Acting 
Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 3091) to allow Federal law enforcement officers to purchase 
retired service weapons, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________