[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 81 (Wednesday, May 14, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H2024-H2027]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1415
LEOSA REFORM ACT
Mr. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 405, I call up
the bill (H.R. 2243) to amend title 18, United States Code, to improve
the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act and provisions relating to the
carrying of concealed weapons by law enforcement officers, and for
other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fine). Pursuant to House Resolution 405,
the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on the Judiciary, printed in the bill, is adopted and the
bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 2243
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 ``LEOSA Reform Act''.
SEC. 2. CONFORMING THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SAFETY ACT AND
THE GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES ACT OF 1990.
Section 922(q)(2)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (vi);
(2) by striking the period at the end of clause (vii) and
inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(viii) by an individual authorized by section 926B or
926C to carry a concealed firearm.''.
SEC. 3. MAKING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
SAFETY ACT.
(a) Each of sections 926B(a) and 926C(a) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``or any other
provision of Federal law, or any regulation prescribed by the
Secretary of the Interior pertaining to a unit of the
National Park System'' after ``thereof''.
(b) Each of sections 926B(b) and 926C(b) of such title are
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, except to the extent
that the laws apply on property used by a common or contract
carrier to transport people or property by land, rail, or
water or on property open to the public (whether or not a fee
is charged to enter the property)'' before the semicolon; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``, except to the extent
that the laws apply on property used by a common or contract
carrier to transport people or property by land, rail, or
water or on property open to the public (whether or not a fee
is charged to enter the property)'' before the period.
(c) Each of sections 926B(e)(2) and 926C(e)(1)(B) of such
title is amended by inserting ``any magazine and'' after
``includes''.
(d) Section 926C(c)(4) of such title is amended to read as
follows:
``(4) has met the standards for qualification in firearms
training during the most recent period of 12 months (or, at
the option of the State in which the individual resides, a
greater number of months, not exceeding 36 months), and for
purposes of this paragraph, the term `standards for
qualification in firearms training' means--
``(A) the standards for active duty law enforcement
officers as established by the former agency of the
individual;
``(B) the standards for active duty law enforcement
officers as established by the State in which the individual
resides;
``(C) the standards for active duty law enforcement
officers employed by any law enforcement agency in the State
in which the individual resides; or
``(D) any standard for active duty law enforcement officers
for firearms qualification conducted by any certified
firearms instructor within the State in which the individual
resides;''.
(e) Section 926C(d) of such title is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``not less recently than
one year before the date the individual is carrying the
concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the
agency to meet the active duty standards for qualification in
firearms training as established by the agency to carry'' and
inserting ``met the standards for qualification in firearms
training required by subsection (c)(4) for''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking subparagraph (B) and
inserting the following:
``(B) a certification issued by the former agency of the
individual, the State in which the individual resides, any
law enforcement agency within the State in which the
individual resides, or any certified firearms instructor
within the State in which the individual resides that
indicates that the individual has met the standards for
qualification in firearms training required by subsection
(c)(4).''.
SEC. 4. PERMITTING QUALIFIED CURRENT AND RETIRED LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO CARRY FIREARMS IN
CERTAIN FEDERAL FACILITIES.
Section 930 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) the possession of a firearm or ammunition in a
Facility Security Level I or II civilian public access
facility by a qualified law enforcement officer (as defined
in section 926B(c)) or a qualified retired law enforcement
officer (as defined in section 926C(c)).''; and
(2) in subsection (g), by adding at the end the following:
``(4) The term `Facility Security Level' means a security
risk assessment level assigned to a Federal facility by the
security agency of the facility in accordance with the
biannually issued Interagency Security Committee Standard.
``(5) The term `civilian public access facility' means a
facility open to the general public.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee of the Judiciary, or their respective
designees.
The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Schmidt) and the gentleman from
[[Page H2025]]
Maryland (Mr. Raskin) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Schmidt).
General Leave
Mr. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2243.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kansas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2243, the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Reform
Act, which reforms the LEOSA, makes important updates to the existing
LEOSA program.
In 2004, President George W. Bush signed LEOSA into law. The law
exempts certain active and retired law enforcement officers from local
and State prohibitions on the carrying of concealed firearms.
In order to qualify under LEOSA, active law enforcement officers must
meet several important requirements. For example, they must be
authorized to carry a firearm by their agency. They cannot be subject
to disciplinary actions by the agency that could result in the loss of
their police power. They must meet certain firearms qualification
standards. They cannot be under the influence of alcohol or other
intoxicating substances, and they must not be prohibited by Federal law
from possessing a firearm.
Retired law enforcement officers must also meet several 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. They also are required to meet
certain firearms training standards and must not be prohibited by
Federal law from possessing a firearm.
The LEOSA Reform Act will allow these officers to carry a concealed
firearm in the same manner many licensed citizens carry a firearm in
their State.
For example, the LEOSA Reform Act will allow law enforcement officers
qualified under LEOSA to carry concealed firearms in national parks,
certain Federal facilities that are open to the public, on public
transportation, in school zones, and in other areas.
The bill also reduces the frequency that qualified retired law
enforcement officers are required to meet 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 qualified law enforcement officers the same privilege.
This legislation improves public safety as our officers face
increasingly greater dangers, and current restrictions hinder their
ability to carry firearms and protect themselves and others.
At a time when violent crime continues to plague our Nation, we must
support our active and retired law enforcement officers and ensure they
are able to protect themselves and to protect others no matter where
they are in the United States.
This legislation is supported by the Association of State Criminal
Investigative Agencies, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers
Association, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Major County
Sheriffs of America, the National Association of Police Organizations,
the National Narcotics Officers' Associations' Coalition, the National
Sheriffs' Association, and the Sergeants Benevolent Association NYPD.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is Police Week. In colloquial terms, it is Law
Enforcement Week. Traditionally, we do two things in Law Enforcement
Week. One, we recognize the valor, the sacrifices, and the commitment
of the police officers who serve our communities, who serve us in
Congress, and who serve across the country.
Two, we try to think of ways we actually can assist them in doing
their jobs better so we can make their work more effective and safer,
and we can make the police function generally more efficacious for the
American people.
Unfortunately, with this bill, we are not doing either. In fact, the
majority is really falling down on the job in terms of both of those
major objectives.
In 2022, on March 15, we passed H.R. 2471, to post in the Capitol on
the west side of the Capitol a plaque in honor of the hundreds of
police officers who nobly served us on January 6, 2021 when our
institution, when our democracy, came under attack by Proud Boys, Oath
Keepers, and other violent extremists who stormed the Capitol, drove
Members of the House of Representatives out of our Chamber, drove
Members of the Senate out of their Chamber, and attempted to overthrow
a Presidential election.
Now, the new administration has seen fit to pardon more than 1,500
rioters and violent insurrectionists who attempted to overthrow our
constitutional form of government on that day, and they succeeded in
bloodying, wounding, injuring, and hospitalizing more than 140 police
officers on January 6. Several officers died in the subsequent weeks,
and several people died on that day.
Now, we have passed a law, not a recommendation, not an idle promise,
and not a suggestion in a suggestion box, we passed a law to post this
plaque in the U.S. Capitol. Yet Speaker Johnson has done absolutely
nothing to post this plaque.
I know that some of my colleagues think that they are being most
effective when they are doing nothing. This is a Congress that is
getting a reputation for being perhaps the greatest do-nothing Congress
in the history of the United States. Here is one thing that this
Congress can do, which is to post this plaque which reads: ``On behalf
of a grateful Congress, this plaque honors the extraordinary
individuals who bravely protected and defended this symbol of democracy
on January 6, 2021. Their heroism will never be forgotten.''
What extraordinary irony that is. Their heroism is already being
forgotten, or at least there are some people who would like us to
forget their heroism. That is on the symbolic front, because everybody
wants to pay lip service to the police, and everybody wants to say that
we honor them. Let's really honor them.
Let's put up a permanent plaque for future generations of Americans
to see that these officers risked their lives for the people in this
Chamber, for the Members of the House and the Senate, for the
leadership of the House and the Senate, for the staff who work here,
and for the reporters who work here.
We have many officers who have had to leave the police service
because they have been wounded and disfigured permanently by the
injuries they suffered at the hands of these people. This is the very
least we can do at a time when the President of the United States says
that he wants to create a fund for January 6, not a fund for Michael
Fanone who had a heart attack and had to beg for his life; not a fund
for Sergeant Gonell who was forced out of the force because of
permanent injuries and now is living on a fraction of the salary he had
before trying to support his family; not a fund for Officer Hodges who
was tortured in the eyes of the world, who got caught in the doorway
while the insurrectionists beat him with all of their weapons that they
brought back that day.
No, it is not a fund for them that President Trump is suggesting. He
wants a fund for the rioters. He wants a fund for the families of the
insurrectionists.
As Sergeant Gonell said recently, it seems like he believes that the
rioters and the insurrectionists were the ones defending the Capitol on
that day.
Let's get this plaque up. We voted for it on an overwhelmingly
bipartisan basis.
I appeal to Speaker Johnson to enforce the law even if he doesn't
like it anymore and even if he changed his mind about the plaque. This
is the law. Let's get it up there.
Now, secondly, we should be talking about how we could actually aid,
abet, and assist law enforcement officers in their work. Unfortunately,
we have not had from the majority a single bill that
[[Page H2026]]
they are willing to bring to the floor to increase any funding for
local law enforcement. On the contrary, the emissaries from DOGE--and
here I don't necessarily hold my colleagues accountable for this
because they didn't seem to know about it any more than we did--but the
functionaries of DOGE slashed more than $500 million that the
Department of Justice was giving to local police departments across the
country, community safety groups, and organizations assisting victims
of rape and sexual assault.
As far as we can tell, one person in DOGE, one unelected, midnight
bureaucrat whose career was made with Elon Musk, who seems to have
skipped town now, that guy cut out hundreds of millions of dollars of
aid to local law enforcement and community safety groups across
America.
I introduced an amendment in the budget reconciliation process in the
Judiciary Committee to restore all of that money. Not a single Member,
neither a Democrat nor a Republican, spoke against it, and my
Republican colleagues did not say a word, but they all voted against
it. They voted to uphold that nasty handiwork of DOGE slashing hundreds
of millions of dollars, which we appropriated on a bipartisan basis in
the House, in the Senate, and it was signed by the President,
programmed by the Department of Justice and awarded to their
communities, my community, your communities, communities across the
country, and one young person, a midnight computer hacker from DOGE,
Elon Musk's emissary, destroyed all of it, more than 300 grants.
Now they come forward with a budget for next year that would cut more
than $1 billion out of law enforcement: FBI, Department of Justice, and
ATF, you name it, Mr. Speaker, right down the line. I will have some
more to say about that after.
So what do we have?
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. In 2004, Congress
passed LEOSA, a law that allows both off-duty and retired officers to
carry concealed firearms irrespective of State law. It compelled all
States to allow off-duty and retired officers to carry concealed
firearms under the terms set by Congress overriding the rules of the
State.
Now, when Congress debated it 20 years ago, members of the Judiciary
Committee on both sides of the aisle expressed anxiety about the bill
trespassing on the rights of the States to decide on gun laws for
themselves. The Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the
time, Congressman Sensenbrenner, opposed LEOSA for the reason of
federalism and State rights. He voted against it. Several police groups
opposed the legislation expressing concerns about how it would affect
officer safety, how it would create confusion in the event of an active
shooter, how it might expose their agencies to more liability, and the
insufficiency of training requirements for retired officers.
{time} 1430
Despite all of that, LEOSA became the law after Congress legislated
some important limits on it and imposed commonsense training
requirements on the former officers. Those have been in place for more
than 20 years.
Now, H.R. 2243 would terminate the realm of discretion that States
have to limit when and where individuals may carry their concealed
firearms under LEOSA. It would force States to allow off-duty and
retired officers to carry concealed firearms onto all private property
open to the public, including restaurants, bars, parks, national parks,
and playgrounds. It would also force States to allow off-duty and
retired officers to carry concealed firearms on buses, trains, and
subways. It would even force States to allow for the concealed carry of
firearms in gun-free school zones. It also allows the off-duty and
retired officers to completely disregard State laws prohibiting high-
capacity magazines.
This legislation not only supersedes the considered policy judgments
of the States, but it threatens the safety and security of Federal
agencies by forcing them to allow concealed carry in many Federal
buildings. Forcing Federal offices and buildings to allow concealed
carry is a completely unnecessary and dangerous risk.
The legislation also weakens training standards. Under current law, a
person carrying a firearm must meet State training requirements every
year, but this bill would allow individuals to do concealed carry with
training certifications obtained 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 old
employment.
Our colleagues have different reasons that they advance for this,
which I think are pretty refutable. In the big picture, this bill does
nothing for existing police officers right now. It does nothing to
enhance public safety, and our friends have completely missed the mark
I think in terms of what law enforcement week should be all about.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, a law enforcement officer does not cease being a law
enforcement officer merely because he is off duty or because of where
he goes, or she goes. Upon retirement, the scars of service, including
the animosities built up with many people who do not care for law
enforcement officers because they have been subject to the enforcement
of the law over the course of a career, upon retirement those old
animosities often linger.
Those of us who support this measure and support it strongly
understand and argue that it is essential to the safety of our existing
officers and to the safety of our retired officers that we recognize
that ongoing risk and burden that they have taken on and that they
continue to carry and allow them to continue to carry the means to
defend themselves and others in reasonable locations, as in many States
ordinary civilian concealed carry permit holders may do.
We think it is commonsense legislation, and I would just point out in
response to some of the comments of my colleague from Maryland, I
wasn't here in 2004 during the debates that he cited over the original
LEOSA. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of what he said, but I
would say this: It is now 20 years later, and I think that history has
shown us that many of the concerns presented in 2004 were not, in fact,
realized by LEOSA's enactment, nor will they be realized as a result of
enactment of this strengthening of that underlying statute for our
officers.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my distinguished colleague's suggestion
that I may have the wisdom of somebody who has been here for 21 years,
but actually I wasn't here either. I got it just from the books myself.
I was here, I should say, in 2021, when the Chamber was stormed, and
that is a day I will never forget. Forgive my passion on the point of
getting that plaque up. I wish our colleagues would just help us
convince the Speaker of the House that this is something that is
simple, and it should be done. It is not a partisan issue.
On that day, we were not Democrats or Republicans. We were Americans,
and we were legislators together being hounded and chased out of this
Chamber by people who did not accept the constitutional rules of the
game.
To me, it is a matter of great regret and melancholy that somehow it
has become politicized to the point where people can't even acknowledge
what they were saying at the time. We had Republican leaders who were
describing it as terrorism and saying it was absolutely inexcusable and
indefensible. Now, all of a sudden, we have the majority which will not
even follow the law by posting a plaque in honor of the officers who
gave blood and sweat and tears on that day.
One of them, Officer Hodges got caught in the doorway. The whole
world saw him screaming to high heaven for probably--I don't know if it
was 45 seconds or maybe it was up to 90 seconds, as he was being beaten
and pummeled, and he was being crushed in the doorway. When they
finally dislodged him, they took him back where they were taking the
officers. We were very short-handed. They wanted to tell him to just
stay there and wash his eyes out. He took about 5 to 10 minutes while
they were pouring water in his eyes, and he got up. Do you know what he
did? He went back outside, and he rejoined the battle because he said
he
[[Page H2027]]
knew that they needed him. We were outmanned, and we were outflanked by
the forces of violence that came down on us on that day.
That is the kind of bravery that we should be at least acknowledging,
if not praising. I know at the time we thanked them for saving our
lives, and people did die that day. Again, there were more than 140
officers who were wounded and brutalized and injured, and many
still have the physical injuries and scars that they are dealing with,
as well as the mental scars, because there is a lot of post-traumatic
stress disorder.
Several of the officers who were there had been in the Iraq war, and
they had been in the Afghan war. They testified before the January 6th
Select Committee, and several of them testified they had never seen
violence as brutal and as bloody as what took place on January 6, 2021,
with the various extremist groups that came and led the attack on the
Chamber and then gave bloody instructions to the rest of the mob about
how to treat police officers in their effort to go and ``hang Mike
Pence.'' That was the chant. I can still hear in my mind, ringing off
the walls of the Capitol: ``Hang Mike Pence.'' ``Hang Mike Pence.''
``Where's Nancy?'' ``Where's Nancy?''
We are not going to allow this to be buried into some kind of
Orwellian memory hall. We have got a law requiring that that plaque go
up, and we are going to see that that plaque goes up and that the law
is enforced.
As for the LEOSA reform, again, it doesn't even purport to do
anything for police and law enforcement. Today, it would, I suppose,
increase some of the mobility of retired officers, off-duty officers to
go to places like restaurants, bars, public parks, national parks,
metros and buses, and so on, if they are police. I think that that
should be decided by our communities, whether people are doing
concealed carry there.
I thought that a belief in federalism was something that unifies us.
That is something that the State governments can decide in cooperation
with the local governments. The Congress of the United States does not
need to be making decisions about restaurants in Charleston, South
Carolina, or bars in El Paso, Texas, or what have you. Why don't we let
the people of the States and the localities make those decisions.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent presentation of
the bill. I wish it were one that we could be together on, but I think
it just goes way too far in terms of trespassing on States' rights and
States' powers. We have a nice equilibrium and stasis in terms of where
the law has been for the last two decades, and this seems unnecessary.
It does seem to me like a diversion from the things we actually could
be doing to be making the lives of police officers safer.
The reason why so many police organizations are with 90 percent of
the American people in supporting a universal violent criminal
background check is because nobody should be accessing guns, any kind
of gun, if they are not able to pass the Brady background check. That
background check has saved countless lives since it was instituted. The
reason the vast majority of the people support it is because we need to
close those loopholes. You should not be able to skip a background
check by finding a gun online. You should not be able to skip a
background check by going to a private gun show or engaging in a so-
called private sale or transfer.
We need a universal violent criminal background check. That will do
far more than anything we are looking at today to make the lives of
police officers better, to make their jobs easier, because they are on
the frontlines of these killing fields across the country.
America's rates of gun violence are completely out of control when
compared to the nations in the European Union or Canada, our next-door
neighbor. We are losing 5, 10, or 20 times the number of people that
the residents of those countries are losing because our gun laws are
like Swiss cheese. They are filled with holes. Let's close those
loopholes. It doesn't diminish anybody's Second Amendment rights.
Justice Scalise said it himself in District of Columbia v. Heller.
You can have criminal background checks to make sure that only the
right people are getting guns and not the wrong people are getting
guns. There are things we can do to improve public safety and to assist
police officers, and we should be working on those.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member
for his argument and advocacy today.
I would just point out to the body that while my distinguished
colleague speaks with his usual passion on many subjects, the only
subject before us today is whether or not this body is going to pass,
to enact, to approve H.R. 2243, the LEOSA Reform Act. That is the sole
question in front of us.
That measure is critically important to the safety of many law
enforcement officers retired to many law enforcement officers off duty.
The bad guys don't stop looking for them just because the cop is out of
uniform and at a restaurant or taking his family to a national park or
otherwise visiting a location where today the law may preclude him or
her from carrying the means of defending himself, his family, his
colleagues, or the stranger standing next to him.
We trust those officers to do exactly that while they are on duty and
in service, and we should trust them to do exactly that under the
reasonably expanded scope contemplated by this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to vote in favor of this bill and to send it to the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 405, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________