[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 17996-17997]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  (At the request of Mr. DASCHLE, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)

[[Page 17997]]



                  LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SAFETY ACT

 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support 
for S. 253, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act. This 
groundbreaking legislation will enable law enforcement officers to 
protect themselves and our communities, wherever they are, whenever 
they are needed. This legislation authorizes off-duty and qualified 
retired officers to carry a firearm anywhere in the Nation to help 
ensure the safety and well-being of law abiding citizens. While I 
strongly support this goal, I hope that amendments on the Senator floor 
will add additional common sense restrictions to the bill.
  Today, the authority of off-duty police officer to carry concealed 
weapons varies widely from State to State. This complex patchwork of 
Federal, State and local laws places an undue and unnecessary 
limitation on professionals sworn to defend the public interest. The 
Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act would allow active law enforcement 
officers to carry their weapons while traveling outside their own 
jurisdiction, anywhere in the country. However, the bill also preserves 
State laws that restrict the carrying of concealed weapons on private 
or government property.
  Although we need to supplement the nationwide effort to increase 
security, it is critical that enactment of such legislation be limited 
to current licensed professionals. This new authority to carry 
concealed firearms should complement existing duty of police officers 
to protect their communities however, it must also provide clear 
channels of accountability.
  I hope that the Senate will consider including the following common 
sense restrictions to improve this legislation for our officers and our 
citizens. First, we should limit this new authority to currently 
employed law enforcement officers. This will allow for reliable 
oversight by State and local authorities. We should also restrict the 
off-duty officer's firearm selection to handguns. This will reduce the 
potential for abuse and the unnecessary violence that high powered 
weapons may induce. We should also prevent off-duty officers from 
carrying weapons in places where alcohol is served. Clearly, guns and 
alcohol are a deadly combination, even in the hands of trained 
professionals.
  Finally, even as we take comfort in the greater protection this 
legislation will provide, we must not lose sight of the fact that there 
is no substitute for a uniformed, on-duty police officer. The 
reluctance of the administration to provide adequate State fiscal 
relief has forced many police departments to downsize their police 
forces at a time when they have never been in greater demand. In 
addition, the inadequate funding of First Responders within the 
Homeland Security Department puts even greater strain on police 
departments and threatens our national security. Furthermore, the 
decision by Congress and this administration to deny level funding for 
the successful Community Oriented Policing program is a betrayal of the 
very communities that the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act is 
designed to protect. Though there is much to be gained by supplementing 
community security with armed and trained citizens, there is also much 
to be lost by law enforcement entities are not fully funded.
  I intend to support the Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act. It is 
my hope that this is only the first step to giving those responsible 
for our protection the tools and resources that are necessary to uphold 
their oath.

                          ____________________