[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13671-13677]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SAFETY ACT OF 2003

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 218) to amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt 
qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws 
prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                H.R. 218

       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 ``Law Enforcement Officers 
     Safety Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM 
                   STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF 
                   CONCEALED FIREARMS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 926A the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law 
       enforcement officers

       ``(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any 
     State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who 
     is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying 
     the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a 
     concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in 
     interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).
       ``(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or 
     limit the laws of any State that--
       ``(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or 
     restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their 
     property; or
       ``(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on 
     any State or local government property, installation, 
     building, base, or park.
       ``(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified law 
     enforcement officer' means an employee of a governmental 
     agency who--
       ``(1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the 
     prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or 
     the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, 
     and has statutory powers of arrest;
       ``(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;
       ``(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the 
     agency;
       ``(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency 
     which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of 
     a firearm;
       ``(5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another 
     intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and
       ``(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a 
     firearm.
       ``(d) The identification required by this subsection is the 
     photographic identification issued by the governmental agency 
     for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement 
     officer.
       ``(e) As used in this section, the term `firearm' does not 
     include--
       ``(1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the 
     National Firearms Act);
       ``(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of 
     this title); and
       ``(3) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of 
     this title).''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such 
     chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 926A the following:

``926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement 
              officers.''.

     SEC. 3. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT 
                   OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE 
                   CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is further amended by inserting after section 926B the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified 
       retired law enforcement officers

       ``(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any 
     State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who 
     is a qualified retired law enforcement officer and who is 
     carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may 
     carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or 
     transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to 
     subsection (b).
       ``(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or 
     limit the laws of any State that--
       ``(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or 
     restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their 
     property; or
       ``(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on 
     any State or local government property, installation, 
     building, base, or park.
       ``(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified retired 
     law enforcement officer' means an individual who--
       ``(1) retired in good standing from service with a public 
     agency as a law enforcement officer, other than for reasons 
     of mental instability;
       ``(2) before such retirement, was authorized by law to 
     engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, 
     investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any 
     person for, any violation of law, and had statutory powers of 
     arrest;
       ``(3)(A) before such retirement, was regularly employed as 
     a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 15 years or 
     more; or
       ``(B) retired from service with such agency, after 
     completing any applicable probationary period of such 
     service, due to a service-connected disability, as determined 
     by such agency;
       ``(4) has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the 
     retirement plan of the agency;
       ``(5) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at 
     the expense of the individual, the State's standards for 
     training and qualification for active law enforcement 
     officers to carry firearms;
       ``(6) is not under the influence of alcohol or another 
     intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and
       ``(7) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a 
     firearm.
       ``(d) The identification required by this subsection is--
       ``(1) a photographic identification issued by the agency 
     from which the individual retired from service as a law 
     enforcement officer that indicates that the individual has, 
     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 standards 
     established by the agency for training and qualification for 
     active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the 
     same type as the concealed firearm; or
       ``(2)(A) a photographic identification issued by the agency 
     from which the individual retired from service as a law 
     enforcement officer; and
       ``(B) a certification issued by the State in which the 
     individual resides that indicates that the individual has, 
     not less recently than one year before the date the 
     individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or 
     otherwise found by the State to meet the standards 
     established by the State for training and qualification for 
     active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the 
     same type as the concealed firearm.
       ``(e) As used in this section, the term `firearm' does not 
     include--
       ``(1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the 
     National Firearms Act);
       ``(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of 
     this title); and
       ``(3) a destructive device (as defined in section 921 of 
     this title).''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such 
     chapter is further amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 926B the following:

``926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law 
              enforcement officers.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).

[[Page 13672]]




                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, is it the committee position to pass 
this bill?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the committee position is to pass the 
bill, and I have made the motion to do so.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, is it the intent to 
divide time equally for and against the bill?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, 
it is the intent of the chairman of the committee to divide time based 
upon requests that are made by Republican Members on this side. I have 
no idea how time on the Democratic side will be divided, since I would 
assume that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member 
of the subcommittee, will be recognized for 20 minutes to manage the 
time on the Democratic side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In answer to the gentleman's previous 
inquiry, a motion that the House suspend the rules is debatable for 40 
minutes, one-half in favor of the motion, one-half in opposition 
thereto.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. Since the 
chairman of this committee is opposed to his own committee's position, 
is it not uncommonly unfair to allow someone opposed to the bill, A, to 
manage the bill, and also to close? I understand the right to close at 
the end of the bill in favor of the committee position.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The chairman of the committee offered the 
motion to pass the bill.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I find this uncommonly unfair.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 218, as amended.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said at the subcommittee hearing and as I said at 
the full committee hearing, and as I will reiterate today, reasonable 
men and women have adamantly supported this bill before us, and 
reasonable men and women have adamantly opposed it. So that is where we 
are.
  Today I rise in support of H.R. 218, the Law Enforcement Officers 
Safety Enhancement Act of 2003. H.R. 218 would exempt qualified current 
and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the 
carrying of concealed firearms.
  Currently, most States do not recognize within their borders 
concealed carry permits issued in other States. This legislation, Mr. 
Speaker, would allow active and retired law enforcement officers to 
carry a concealed weapon in any of our 50 states. There are important 
provisions in the bill that require such officers to maintain 
appropriate firearms training and to carry identification recognizing 
their affiliation with a law enforcement agency.
  Further, the bill has garnered tremendous bipartisan support, and 
recently passed the House Committee on the Judiciary by a vote of 23 to 
9. On June 15, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland 
Security held a legislative hearing on H.R. 218, and some concerns were 
raised regarding States' rights, coordinating adequate training 
standards and the liability problems that may arise by having law 
enforcement officers using firearms outside of their respective 
jurisdictions.
  While there may be room for improvement, I do believe that the bill 
before us is a positive step toward ensuring that law enforcement 
officers have the means to defend themselves and other innocent victims 
from potential acts of violence and crime.
  Mr. Speaker, having said that, I would, at this time, like to engage 
in a colloquy with my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), who is the ranking member on the Committee on the 
Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) authored an amendment which 
passed the full committee, and which I supported, and I think which was 
supported in toto by the membership and which is included in the 
version of the bill we are considering today, that would exclude 
someone from the definition of qualified law enforcement officer if 
that person is under the influence of alcohol or any other intoxicating 
or hallucinatory drug. As I said, I supported the amendment.
  I just want to clarify that the amendment only applies during the 
time that the officer involved is actually under the influence of the 
alcohol or drug. In other words, as an example, if an officer is going 
on a 3-day trip, for example, out of his home State, and he is going to 
be under the influence of alcohol or a drug during 2 hours of that 
trip, let us say, then he would only lose his coverage under this bill 
for that 2 hour period and not for the entire 3-day trip.
  I just want to clarify that if he does carry his weapon during that 
2-hour period, he would not be subject to any special penalty as a 
result of this law, but rather would just be subject to whatever the 
penalty is under the applicable local law.
  I would ask my friend from Virginia, the ranking member, if that is 
his understanding as well.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COBLE. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has correctly 
stated the intent of my amendment.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 218. This bill authorizes 
so-called qualified active and retired Federal and State law 
enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons interstate without 
regard to State and local laws prohibiting or regulating such carriage.
  ``Law enforcement officer'' includes corrections, probation, parole 
and judicial officers, as well as police, sheriffs and other law 
enforcement officials, and just about anybody who has statutory power 
of arrest and anyone who is engaged through employment by a government 
agency in the prevention, detection, investigation, supervision, 
prosecution or incarceration of law violators.

                              {time}  1445

  In the past, we have considered this bill under the title, Community 
Protection Act. The rhetoric surrounding the bill was an indication 
that its purpose was to aid in protecting the public by putting tens of 
thousands of additional armed law enforcement officers in a position to 
protect the public as officers travel from State to State and 
jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
  From the name of the current bill, it appears that the emphasis now 
is on the safety of the officers as they travel. Yet the language is 
exactly the same.
  One of the problems with even suggesting that purpose of a Federal 
law is for law enforcement officers to assist in protecting the public 
outside their jurisdictions is that it may give them encouragement or 
even a sense of obligation to do so.
  I submitted for the record in the hearing before the subcommittee a 
long list of articles and reports in instances where, even in the same 
jurisdiction, off-duty plainclothes law enforcement officers have shot, 
or been shot by, other off-duty officers, or gotten shot by them or 
uniform officers,

[[Page 13673]]

in gun battles because the plainclothes officers were mistaken as 
criminals.
  If off-duty officers in the same jurisdiction are being shot by their 
fellow officers, encouraging out-of-state officers to join in such 
activities through a Federal law will certainly only add to the 
problem. Therefore, any perceived benefit that could arise from such 
engagement is of dubious value.
  Now, this is especially true when there are officers from small 
jurisdictions who may not be trained in how to tell fellow police 
officers from criminals. Such training would be routine in large 
cities; but if it is a small jurisdiction where everyone knows 
everybody, that training would not take place.
  It is this specter of individually determined engagement in law 
enforcement actions by out-of-state plainclothes off-duty officers who 
may not be trained for specific situations that gives police chiefs and 
local and State governments huge concern. Clearly, they see these 
officers as more of a challenge to law enforcement than a help.
  The bill not only takes away the ability for local law enforcement 
leaders to manage concealed firearms activities from out-of-state 
officers, but it also overrides the ability of the police department to 
regulate its own officers.
  The bill overrides a police chief's ability to regulate his own 
officers in what they do with their own private funds within their 
jurisdiction. It also eliminates control over concealed weapons 
activities of retired officers within their own jurisdiction.
  Now, it also even overrides a police chief's ability to say what the 
officers can do with agency-issued guns in their possession within 
their own jurisdiction.
  State legislatures can authorize out-of-state off-duty officers to 
carry concealed weapons within their jurisdictions. Some have, although 
most have not. I do not know what the liability implications are for 
local jurisdictions when officers become engaged in out-of-state shoot-
outs. Which jurisdiction is liable for the conduct of the out-of-state 
active or retired officer who may be negligent? The jurisdiction viewed 
as allowing an unfamiliar, untrained officer to participate in the 
shoot-out or the jurisdiction that issued the gun and certified the 
officer to carry it or other concealed weapons across State lines? The 
liability insurance implications alone should give Congress pause in 
imposing an interstate concealed-carry provision on State and local 
governments.
  Now, most organizations representing policymakers in law enforcement, 
like police chiefs, have opposed this legislation. Congress should not 
usurp State and local control of law enforcement activities, as this 
bill will do. So we should oppose this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Keller).
  Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act is a commonsense 
piece of legislation that will make our communities safer by allowing 
qualified law enforcement officers to carry their concealed firearms 
across State lines. Criminals do not recognize jurisdictional 
boundaries, particularly when it comes to seeking revenge against the 
police officers who arrested them.
  If a doctor were traveling on vacation and he came across a child in 
a traffic accident who needed CPR to save his life, our society would 
expect the doctor to be a good Samaritan and save the child's life, 
regardless of State boundaries.
  Similarly, law enforcement officers are, in effect, always on duty; 
and we are right to expect a police officer to come to the aid of a 
crime victim, and we are right to give that police officer the ability 
to provide that help by passing this important law.
  If our airline pilots have the ability to carry firearms across 
jurisdictional boundaries, surely our police officers should have that 
same right.
  Without this law, a police officer from Orlando, Florida, who wanted 
to take his family on a vacation to D.C. to see the monuments would 
have to travel through six separate States where he would face an 
instant patchwork of concealed weapons laws which would make it legal 
for him to have a gun in some jurisdictions and illegal in others. This 
law solves that problem and enhances the ability of that officer to 
defend his family and our communities.
  For these reasons, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation 
and was a vocal advocate in passing the bill through the Committee on 
the Judiciary in a clean form. It is a very popular bill. It has 296 
cosponsors in the House. It passed the Senate by a vote of 90 to 8 as 
an amendment to another piece of gun legislation. It is supported by 
police officers and other organizations across the U.S.
  In summary, Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 218.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a 
distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary and a highly 
respected district attorney from Massachusetts.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott) for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to this 
proposal, which I consider dangerous as well as irresponsible. I guess 
the question that I would pose is, what has happened to States' rights?
  The gentleman from Florida indicated that criminals do not respect 
jurisdictional lines. That is true, they do not. However, the United 
States Constitution respects State lines and State boundaries, because 
the Founders believed that Federalism was an important concept in our 
democracy. It seems that the evolution of the fundamental principle of 
the Reagan revolution is no longer operative in this Chamber. I would 
suggest that a true conservative should deplore what this proposal does 
to that core American concept of Federalism.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman of the full committee, 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for his opposition to 
this bill. I agree with his statement that it is an affront to State 
sovereignty and the Constitution. In fact, what we are doing is 
undermining the 10th amendment, which reserves so many rights to the 
States. We are doing it daily in this Chamber, and we are doing it in a 
way that should cause every American citizen, and particularly those 
who call themselves conservative, should cause them profound concern.
  I can remember before I ran for office to this branch, in the 
previous election there was much to-do about a so-called Contract With 
America. Well, that contract seems to have been discarded. It no longer 
has value, presumably, at least political value. It is clear that 
States' rights and local control are no longer in vogue today. 
Washington knows best. I guess that is the current refrain. The new 
term is ``preemption.'' Preemption of States' rights. Preemption is a 
word we have heard a lot about. It does not just apply to our foreign 
policy, I would suggest. It now applies to American democracy.
  This bill represents a quantum leap, if you will, in terms of the 
erosion of the rights granted to States under the 10th amendment. It 
would amend title XVIII to exempt current and retired law enforcement 
officers from State and local laws that prohibit the carrying of 
concealed weapons. As the ranking member indicated, I served as the 
chief law enforcement officer, the elected district attorney in 
metropolitan Boston, for more than 20 years; and I cannot understand 
why Congress believes that it is in a better position than State and 
local law enforcement to make decisions as to what is best in their 
jurisdictions. It was the former Chair of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), who made the 
statement a while back that the best decisions on fighting crime are 
made at the local level, not here in Washington.
  Congress has never passed a bill that gives anyone a right to carry 
weapons

[[Page 13674]]

in violation of State and local laws until now, in our entire 
constitutional history. Purportedly, involving public safety, this bill 
will allow people from out of State to come into my home State with a 
loaded, concealed weapon without the duty to notify public safety 
officials in Massachusetts or in Boston or in any community in the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
  The reality is that this legislation will preempt, if you will, or 
supersede, the laws of 31 States that currently restrict carrying a 
concealed weapon to on-duty officers. That is the law in 31 States. Yet 
Washington knows best. Let us just discard those 31 State laws that 
regulate the carrying of concealed weapons by on-duty officers in their 
jurisdictions. Of course, it also disregards State laws that oppose 
conditions on how and when retired officers may carry a concealed 
weapon. And it ignores the reality that there has been constructive and 
thoughtful deliberative efforts by other State legislatures, as well as 
the State of New Jersey, that have addressed exactly these issues. 
These issues have been addressed in a thoughtful and deliberative way 
at the State and local level.
  This bill does not limit the weapons that officers can carry, like 
some States do. This bill also does not limit the maximum age for an 
officer carrying a concealed weapon, like some States do. And this bill 
does not allow local departments to deny permits to retirees no matter 
where they come from, like some States do. Under this proposal, a 
retired Customs inspector from Alabama can come into Massachusetts 
carrying a concealed weapon, and my local sheriff or my local police 
chief can do nothing about it.
  With the passage of this bill, Congress will enable officers who 
retire or resign, or resign while under investigation for domestic 
abuse, racial profiling, excessive force, or substance abuse to be 
eligible for a concealed weapon permit. It is all too easy to imagine a 
scenario where there will be a tragedy under these circumstances, and 
we will be responsible for it. The rationale often in support of this 
proposal is that law enforcement officers, whether active or retired, 
are never off duty.
  Now, I have profound respect for the hard work of law enforcement 
officials everywhere. I was part of them. I know them. But when they go 
off duty and travel to my State and to my hometown, they should respect 
the rules and policies of the local police departments and the 
communities where I live and where they are visitors. The Federal 
Government should not strip sheriffs and police officers of the 
authority and discretion to determine who can carry concealed weapons 
within their jurisdictions. Why should Congress, of all places, why 
should Congress decide if an off-duty or retired police officer from 
another State can carry a hidden firearm into my community or into your 
community?
  Mr. Speaker, by no means does this bill reflect Federal support for 
State and local law enforcement. It will not reduce violence; and I 
dare say, to the contrary, it very well may undermine public safety.

                              {time}  1500

  So, for all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to defeat this 
proposal.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cunningham), the author of the bill.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, this bill has been a long time coming. 
And for those to say that this violates States rights, when they 
themselves have voted for hundreds of bills on this floor against 
States rights, I think is an oxymoron.
  I also believe that one can spend this any way they want if one is 
opposed to it. But look who is for it. A super majority in the Senate 
has already passed this bill, this House floor, over 300 votes, on this 
floor.
  We have policemen in D.C. that gave their lives to save Members of 
Congress and they are waiting outside for the passage of this bill, Mr. 
Speaker. They are so excited. This is the number one legislative act 
for law enforcement, the number one. During Memorial Day, we mourned 
our law enforcement agents that we lost. They had us up on the stage 
that support this bill as recognition. Those in opposition can spin 
this any way they want.
  Who else supports this bill? The ranking member and the chairman in 
the subcommittee and the committee were overridden by their own 
committee on the amendments. The Scott amendment, which is good, and I 
think it improves the bill, and it does. I wish I had thought of it. 
But in this body to override a chairman and a ranking minority in their 
own committee takes guts, and it is guts because it supports the right 
thing.
  We all say we support law enforcement. Well, they support this, even 
the Retired Chiefs of Police. We had a chief of police oppose this, but 
the Retired Chiefs of Police support this bill.
  If one looks at what this bill does, the training that is required, 
all of the access to anyone that would use this bill is in the bill. 
The liability itself is in this bill. And I would say that if one takes 
a look also at who supports these positions, they wrote this, the law 
enforcement agencies helped over the years write this bill. It helps 
them. If one looks to Law Enforcement Alliance of America, LEAA, the 
National Association of Police, NAPO, the National Law Enforcement 
Council, and FOP, all of them support this bill, Mr. Speaker.
  Very rarely can we come across and have a bill that is passed out of 
the committee over the objection of the chairman and the ranking member 
to make it to the floor, and that time be controlled by both the people 
that are opposed to this bill.
  Now, the chairman granted me 5 minutes. I thank the chairman for 
that. But I also think it is unfair for someone that is opposed to the 
bill be on the floor closing, because that is usually in the committee 
position. The committee position is to pass this bill. Even though the 
chairman purported the bill to pass it, he is speaking against it. He 
wants to close, which I do not think is fair.
  And who is it not fair for? It is not fair for the millions of law 
enforcement agents that risk their lives every day. They give their 
lives for us, almost as many of those have been lost in Iraq. When they 
arrest somebody that is not always a good guy, their families are 
getting killed when they retire. And they said, hey, we want 
protection. Give us protection against the bad guys. Because they do 
carry weapons.
  I would like to submit, Mr. Speaker, the letter from the President of 
the United States. And I will read, ``I am pleased to offer my support 
for the Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act. Our Nation relies upon 
the men and women in law enforcement to keep the streets and 
neighborhoods safe. This legislation will better protect our Nation 
from danger by ensuring that these first responders are ready to handle 
an emergency, regardless of their location and duty status.''
  The President is saying this helps us in homeland security. We will 
be struck, Mr. Speaker, by some terrorist act. I think it is 
inevitable. And we want the people that are highly trained that protect 
us every day, to have the right to speak.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we owe it to the very people what support this 
bill across the land. They are waiting outside. I am not supposed to 
speak about who is in the gallery, Mr. Speaker, but I was if allowed to 
do that, I would say that law enforcement agents are there to support 
this bill. And I do not know what I can do to have a position supported 
by the Senate super majority, a super majority of this body, a super, 
super majority of law enforcement agents, and someone to oppose it is 
just wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his courtesy of the 5 minutes 
and extra minute, but I also would submit my disappointment that the 
controlling of the time was not by the subcommittee as originally set, 
agreed upon, and that the right to close does not fall on someone that 
supports this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I will insert the letter that I referred 
to earlier in the Record.


[[Page 13675]]




                                              The White House,

                                    Washington, DC, June 18, 2004.
     Mr. Chuck Canterbury,
     National President, Fraternal Order of Police, Grand Lodge, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chuck:
       I am pleased to offer my support for the Law Enforcement 
     Officers' Safety Act. Our Nation relies upon the men and 
     women in law enforcement to keep the streets and 
     neighborhoods safe. This legislation will better protect our 
     Nation from danger by ensuring that these first responders 
     are ready to handle an emergency regardless of their location 
     and duty status.
       I am particularly pleased that the Senate sponsors named 
     this provision after our mutual friend, Steven Young. I know 
     how hard you and Steve worked for passage of this bill, and I 
     look forward to honoring his memory by signing it.
           Sincerely,
                                                   George W. Bush.

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation and urge my 
colleagues to vote against it.
  I would ask my colleagues to ignore the list of organizations that 
have supported the bill and read what the bill does. In Federalist 
Paper number 45, James Madison, in explaining the division of power 
between the States and the Federal Government envisioned, stated, ``The 
powers reserved to the several States will extend to all objects which, 
in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and 
properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and 
prosperity of the State.''
  This legislation takes away the ability of the 50 States to govern 
their internal order. Just look at the title of the bill: ``To amend 
title 18, United States Code, to exempt qualified current and former 
law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of 
concealed weapons.'' In exercising its authority to keep internal 
order, the State has traditionally controlled who, within its borders, 
may carry concealed weapons and when law enforcement officers may carry 
firearms.
  This legislation undermines the power of the individual states and 
frustrates the principles of Federalism. As long as they do not 
infringe on the rights granted under the second amendment to the 
Constitution, laws regulating the carrying of concealed firearms should 
remain within the jurisdiction of the State government where they can 
be more effectively monitored and enforced.
  Currently Federal law is silent on the issue of allowing State and 
local law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons across State 
lines, allowing each individual State to decide whether or not it 
wishes and to what extent to allow this practice.
  Additionally, current Federal law does not mandate that the States 
allow both active and retired State and local law enforcement officers 
to carry a concealed weapon without the permission of each specific 
State. I understand that at least six States and the District of 
Columbia currently forbid officers from other States to carry concealed 
weapons. Thirty-one States restrict carrying a concealed weapon to an 
officer off duty. And nine States allow an out-of-state officer to 
carry a concealed weapon.
  H.R. 218 would override State right to carry laws and mandate that 
active and retired police officers could carry a concealed weapon 
anywhere within the United States. Such a measure is an affront to 
State sovereignty and the Constitution.
  I have received letters from the National League of Cities and State 
leaders around the country objecting to this legislation because it 
replaces the judgment of State and local governments with the judgment 
of Congress on an important safety issue. The International Association 
of Police Chiefs, the Major City Chiefs, and the Police Executive 
Research Forum also object to this legislation. So law enforcement is 
not unanimous in support of it.
  The IACP testified at a hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security that H.R. 218 will create a dangerous 
situation for law enforcement and citizens alike because there is so 
much variation in training standards for law enforcement. In addition 
to these variations, it may be difficult for officers to recognize 
official badges held by legitimate officers and fake badges and fake ID 
cards, which are easily obtainable on the Internet.
  I am also very concerned who will bear the responsibility and 
liability for potential actions that these officers might take while 
out of their State. It is a real possibility that the law enforcement 
agency that trained these officers could wind up being forced to defend 
itself against actions taken by an off duty, out-of-state officer.
  I received a letter from Joseph Polisar, president of the 
International Association of Chiefs of Police. And I will insert it in 
the Record in total, but I would like to just read one paragraph.
  ``Finally, the IACP is concerned about or concerned over the 
liability of law enforcement agencies for the actions of off-duty 
officers who use or misuse their weapon while out of State. If an off-
duty officer who uses or misuses their weapon while in another State, 
it is likely that their department will be forced to defend itself 
against liability charges in another State. The resources that mounting 
this defense would require could be better spent serving the 
communities we represent.''
  Because of all of the concerns that I have expressed, I must oppose 
this legislation and ask that my colleagues join me in my opposition. I 
realize this is a tough vote, but this is not a good bill. I believe 
that the issues at hand could be better addressed by the States in an 
appropriate manner through the use of reciprocity agreements, many of 
which already exist, rather than taking away the right of the States to 
legislate in this area which H.R. 218 does.
  An approach of reciprocity agreements would allow individual States 
to have the final say on whether or not it believes allowing out-of-
state officers to carry concealed weapons within its borders would 
enhance rather than undermine public safety.
  The letter previously referred to follows:

                                      International Association of


                                             Chiefs of Police,

                                    Alexandria, VA, June 23, 2004.
     Hon. James Sensenbrenner,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Sensenbrenner: On behalf of the 
     International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), I am 
     writing to express our strong opposition to H.R. 218, the Law 
     Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003. This bill would 
     authorize off-duty and retired law enforcement officers to 
     carry concealed weapons throughout the country.
       It is the IACP's belief that states and localities should 
     have the right to determine who is eligible to carry firearms 
     in their communities. It is essential that state and local 
     governments maintain the ability to legislate concealed carry 
     laws that best fit the needs of their communities. This 
     applies to laws covering private citizens as well as active 
     and former law enforcement personnel.
       The IACP strongly believes that each state should retain 
     the power to determine whether they want police officers that 
     are trained and supervised by agencies outside of their state 
     carrying firearms in their jurisdictions. Why should a police 
     chief who has employed the most rigorous training program, a 
     strict standard of accountability and stringent policies be 
     forced to permit officers who may not meet those standards to 
     carry a concealed weapon in his or her jurisdiction?
       However, in addition to these fundamental questions over 
     the preemption of state and local firearms laws, the IACP is 
     also concerned with the impact that this legislation may have 
     on the safety of our officers and our communities.
       There can be no doubt that police executives are deeply 
     concerned for the safety of our officers. The IACP 
     understands that the proponents of S. 253 contend that police 
     officers need to protect themselves and their families while 
     traveling, and that undercover officers may be targets if 
     recognized on vacation or travel. These are considerations, 
     but they must be balanced against the potential dangers 
     involved. In fact, one of the reasons that this legislation 
     is especially troubling to our nation's law enforcement 
     executives is that it could in fact threaten the safety of 
     police officers by creating tragic situations where officers 
     from other jurisdictions are wounded or killed by the local 
     officers. Police departments throughout the nation train 
     their officers to respond as a team to dangerous situations. 
     This teamwork requires months of training to develop and 
     provides the officers with an

[[Page 13676]]

     understanding of how their coworkers will respond when faced 
     with different situations. Injecting an armed, unknown 
     officer, who has received different training and is operating 
     under different assumptions, can turn an already dangerous 
     situation deadly.
       In addition, the IACP is concerned that the legislation 
     specifies that only an officer who is not subject to a 
     disciplinary action is eligible. This provision raises 
     several concerns for law enforcement executives. For example, 
     what types of disciplinary actions does this cover? Does this 
     provision apply only to current investigations and actions? 
     How would officers ascertain that an out-of-state law 
     enforcement officer is subject to a disciplinary action and 
     therefore ineligible to carry a firearm?
       Additionally, while the legislation does contain some 
     requirements to ensure that retirees qualify to have a 
     concealed weapon, they are insufficient and would be 
     difficult to implement. The legislation fails to take into 
     account those officers who have retired under threat of 
     disciplinary action or dismissal for emotional problems that 
     did not rise to the level of ``mental instability.'' Officers 
     who retire or quit just prior to a disciplinary or competency 
     hearing may still be eligible for benefits and appear to have 
     left the agency in good standing. Even a police officer who 
     retires with exceptional skills today may be stricken with an 
     illness or other problem that makes him or her unfit to carry 
     a concealed weapon, but they will not be overseen by a police 
     management structure that identifies such problems in current 
     officers.
       Finally, the IACP is also concerned over the liability of 
     law enforcement agencies for the actions of off-duty officer 
     who uses or misuses their weapon while out of state. If an 
     off-duty officer who uses or misuses their weapon while in 
     another state, it is likely that their department will be 
     forced to defend itself against liability charges in another 
     state. The resources that mounting this defense would require 
     could be better spent serving the communities we represent.
       The IACP understands that at first glance this legislation 
     may appear to be a simple solution to a complex problem. 
     However, a careful review of these provisions reveals that it 
     has the potential to significantly and negatively impact the 
     safety of our communities and our officers.
       Again, the IACP is strongly opposed to this legislation and 
     we urge you to oppose it as well.
       Thank you for attention to this important issue to law 
     enforcement executives.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Joseph Polisar,
                                                        President.

  Mr CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly urge Members to 
vote ``yes'' on my bill, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 
2003 (H.R. 218) to allow qualified off-duty and retired law enforcement 
officers to carry concealed weapons in any jurisdiction. The bill has 
broad bipartisan support with 296 cosponsors.
  The benefits of the legislation are twofold--officer safety and 
improved public safety. Many jurisdictions do not allow off-duty 
officers to carry concealed weapons. Due to the unique responsibilities 
and dangers that come with law enforcement, off-duty officers are at a 
greater risk than most Americans. It is not uncommon for off-duty 
officers to run into people they have arrested or helped to 
incarcerate. There have been documented instances where felons have 
sought retribution against officers who helped to put them in jail or 
prison. It is only right that the men and women who put their lives on 
the line everyday when they go to work be afforded the right to protect 
their families and themselves while they are off duty.
  These concerns apply not only to off-duty officers, but to retired 
officers as well. A criminal who is seeking retribution does not care 
that the officer who put them away is retired. It is a disservice to 
those men and women who risked their lives to perform a public service 
to be deprived of the right to defend themselves and their families 
simply because they retired.
  Legal issues are also posed when neighboring jurisdictions have 
different regulations for carrying concealed weapons. An off-duty 
officer is faced with a problem when he is traveling state to state or 
even city to city. In a circumstance where his/her home jurisdiction 
requires off-duty officers to carry, but he is traveling to a 
jurisdiction where the law prohibits carrying concealed weapons, the 
officer is forced to choose which law to break. Does he leave his gun 
at home and break the law in his home jurisdiction, or take it with him 
and break the law when he enters the next jurisdiction?
  Aside from the issues of self-defense and jurisdictional conflicts, 
H.R. 218 provides additional officers to prevent crime, without the 
cost. There are countless stories of retired and off-duty officers who 
have prevented crime and protected everyday citizens because they were 
allowed to carry concealed weapons. In this time of heightened 
security, it seems only logical that additional means to prevent crime 
and even terrorism be implemented. Off-duty and retired law enforcement 
officers have the training to recognize suspicious activity and prevent 
crime. When qualified off-duty and retired police officers are allowed 
to carry, more law enforcement officers are put on the street at zero 
cost to taxpayers.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a minute to read some stories from 
around the United States where off-duty officers have prevented crimes, 
in part, because they were allowed to carry their firearm. The first 
story is from my hometown of San Diego.

                   Officer Finds Work on Her Day Off

                            (By Joe Hughes)

       Hillcrest.--For San Diego police Officer Sandra Oplinger, 
     it was anything but an off day. Olinger ended up capturing a 
     suspected bank robber at gunpoint on her day off yesterday.
       She happened to be in the area of Home Savings Of America 
     on Fifth Avenue near Washington Street about 12:30 p.m. when 
     she saw a man running from the bank, a trail of red smoke 
     coming from an exploded red dye packet that had been inserted 
     into a wad of the loot.
       With her gun drawn, she tracked down and caught the man. 
     Citizens helped by gathering up loose bank cash. The incident 
     began when a man entered the bank and asked a teller if he 
     could open an account. The teller gave him a blank form and 
     he left. He returned 10 minutes later, approached the same 
     teller and declared it was a robbery, showing a weapon and a 
     demand note he had written on the same form the teller had 
     given him.
       He then grabbed some money and ran out the door. The dye 
     pack exploded outside, leaving a trail of smoke that 
     attracted Oplinger's attention and led to the suspect's 
     arrest.
       The names of the man and a possible accomplice in a nearby 
     car were not immediately released. A gun was recovered.

             Deputy Apparent Target of Robbery, Carjacking

       Gunfire was exchanged on Milwaukee's north side Wednesday 
     during an attempted robbery and carjacking.
       An off-duty Milwaukee County Sheriff's deputy was the 
     victim of an attempted robbery and carjacking Wednesday 
     afternoon as he was leaving the Advance Auto Parts store near 
     Teutonia and Hampton Avenues, WISN 12 News reported Ben Tracy 
     said. The deputy, who had a gun exchanged fire with one of 
     the suspects. No one was injured or hit by gunfire, Tracy 
     reported. Milwaukee Police and Milwaukee County Sheriff's 
     deputies were on the scene. They were examining a car they 
     believe belongs to the suspects. They were searching for two 
     suspects.

                    Off-duty Officer Shoots Attacker

       An off-duty Houston police officer shot a man in southwest 
     Houston early Sunday.
       The officer, whose identity was not released, was working 
     in the parking lot of a reception hall in the 9500 block of 
     Wilcrest. About 3 a.m., he repeatedly asked two men who were 
     talking to two women to leave the parking lot and go inside 
     the building, officials said.
       The men refused to leave and confronted the officer. The 
     confrontation escalated to an assault, according to the 
     Houston Police Department, with one of the men knocking off 
     the officer's eyeglasses.
       The officer, whose vision was impaired after being hit, 
     said he saw a man approaching him with his arms near his 
     pockets, police said. They said the officer asked him to 
     stop, when he didn't, the officer drew his weapon and fired. 
     Daryl D. Gorman, 30, was taken to Ben Taub Hospital with 
     gunshot wounds to the hip and left side investigators said. 
     He was listed in fair condition Sunday.
       The officer, a 16-year veteran of the Fondren division, 
     received facial injuries. No charges had been filed Sunday.

       Off-duty Police Officer, Suspected Robber Shoot Each Other

       South Gate, CA. (AP).--An off-duty police officer exchanged 
     gunfire with a would-be robber early Saturday morning. Both 
     men were wounded but were expected to survive, police said. 
     Fabian Mejia, a three-year veteran of the Calexico Police 
     Department, was using a corner pay phone shortly after 
     midnight when a 19-year-old gunman demanded money from him, 
     said Lt. Darren Sullivan of the South Gate Police Department.
       After the men shot each other, the suspect got in a car and 
     left as Mejia called 911. Police arrested the gunman and an 
     18-year-old woman with him after they arrived at a nearby 
     hospital, Sullivan said. Their names were not immediately 
     released. Mejia was in stable condition at a hospital while 
     the suspected robber was in serious but stable condition, 
     said Sullivan.
       Mejia was in South Gate, just southwest of Los Angeles, to 
     visit his parents, Sullivan said.

                 Officer Shoots at Yard-Statue Thieves

                           (By Peggy O'Hare)

       An off-duty Houston police officer followed two men who 
     stole concrete statues from his front yard Tuesday and fired 
     at the driver

[[Page 13677]]

     when he pointed a gun at him, authorities said.
       Officer J.H. Lynn said two men forced their way through his 
     front yard's locked gate at 12:45 p.m., took two statues from 
     the lawn and drove off.
       The officer followed the thieves to get their license plate 
     number. When they reached the 1000 block of West 25th, they 
     turned around and drove toward Lynn, with the driver pointing 
     a handgun at the officer.
       Lynn fired his duty weapon one time at the driver, but the 
     pair drove through a ditch and sped away.

                    Tulsa Policeman Shoots Intruder

                            (By Mick Hinton)

       Tulsa.--A month after joining the Tulsa police force, Mark 
     Sole shot the hand of an intruder early Monday in the front 
     yard of the officer's home. The intruder and an accomplice 
     are suspected of breaking into Sole's garage. Sole and his 
     wife were awakened about 6 a.m. by noises coming from their 
     garage. Sgt. Wayne Allen said. The officer found two men in 
     his garage. Allen said one man ran, but Sole held the other 
     at gunpoint in his front yard. ``He ordered the suspect to 
     take his hands out of his pocket, and the suspect had a dark 
     metallic object,'' Allen said. The officer apparently thought 
     it was a weapon and shot the man in the hand, Allen said.
       Police arrested John Warren Kays, 29, of Tulsa and took him 
     to Tulsa Regional Medical Center, where he was being treated, 
     Allen said.

                     Cop Saves Teens From Pit Bulls

                           (By Bradley Cole)

       East Chicago.--An East Chicago police officer shot and 
     killed two pit bulls Tuesday as he came to the rescue of two 
     local teens who faced serious injury. Police Officer John 
     Mucha was asleep Tuesday afternoon after working a midnight 
     shift when the piercing scream of a 16-year-old boy woke him 
     up. Mucha ran to the window and saw two pit bulls attacking a 
     young man in the 5000 block of Tod Avenue. Before he could 
     react, Mucha watched as the boy, with the pit bulls chasing 
     him, jumped a fence to safety. Then he heard a second scream. 
     As Mucha turned to the window again, he saw the pit bulls pin 
     a 14-year-old girl to the sidewalk and begin mauling her.
       East Chicago Sgt. Joe De La Cruz said Mucha, in his 
     underwear and T-shirt, grabbed his gun and ran barefoot into 
     the street. As Mucha approached the girl, the two pit bulls 
     turned their attention toward him, De La Cruz said. ``Officer 
     Mucha then positioned himself between the girl and the pit 
     bulls,'' De La Cruz said. ``The dogs made a pass at him, then 
     attacked. He shot at the dogs, wounding them both, before 
     they ran off.'' De La Cruz said Mucha took after the first 
     dog, which he managed to corner. He said the dog tried to 
     attack Mucha again, he shot it and killed it.
       Within seconds, Mucha ran after and spotted the second dog 
     on a nearby porch. Once again, as Mucha approached the dog, 
     it tried to attack and was shot to death.
       Police said the boy wasn't seriously injured, but the girl 
     was taken to St. Catherine Hospital in East Chicago, where 
     she was treated and released. De La Cruz said the dogs' 
     owner, Anna Gonzalez, 24, of 5013 Tod Ave., received numerous 
     tickets from East Chicago dog warden Steve Ruiz before the 
     incident. He said she also received numerous tickets 
     afterward and has prompted the city to once again crack down 
     on pit bulls. ``We passed an ordinance 10 years ago that 
     anyone who owns a pit bull must have $1 million in 
     insurance,'' De La Cruz said. ``All pit bulls must be 
     registered at City Hall. They must be on a leash and muzzled 
     when they're walked.'' De La Cruz said pit bulls are becoming 
     a problem again, and the city plans to step up its efforts to 
     ensure that pit bull owners are complying with the law.
       Mucha will receive an official commendation from East 
     Chicago Police Chief Frank Alcala for his bravery, De La Cruz 
     said.

  H.R. 218 is strongly supported by the Law Enforcement Alliance of 
America, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Troopers 
Coalition, the National Association of Police Organizations, the 
International Brotherhood of Police Officers, and many others. In most 
cases, H.R. 218 is their #1 legislative priority. These groups have 
worked tirelessly for over 10 years to see the passage of this 
legislation. I want to thank them for all their hard work and diligence 
in seeing H.R. 218 come to the Floor.
  I also want to thank the 296 members who cosponsored H.R. 218 this 
year. Their support has been crucial in getting a vote on this bill 
this year.
  During this time of heightened security, it makes sense to put more 
qualified officers in a position to prevent crime. Mr. Speaker, I 
strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' today on this crucial piece 
of legislation. I thank Members and so will their cops.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and ask for a no vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the 
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 218, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________