[House Report 108-560]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



108th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     108-560

======================================================================



 
              LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SAFETY ACT OF 2003

                                _______
                                

 June 22, 2004.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Coble, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

            DISSENTING VIEWS AND ADDITIONAL DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 218]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred 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, 
having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an 
amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
The Amendment....................................................     2
Purpose and Summary..............................................     3
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     3
Hearings.........................................................     5
Committee Consideration..........................................     5
Vote of the Committee............................................     5
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................    10
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................    10
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................    10
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................    11
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................    11
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion.......................    11
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    12
Markup Transcript................................................    15
Dissenting Views.................................................    79
Additional Dissenting Views......................................    81

                             The Amendment

    The amendment is as follows:
    Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

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; and
            ``(6) 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.''.

                          Purpose and Summary

    A State has traditionally, in the exercise of its 
sovereignty, controlled who within its borders may carry 
concealed weapons and when law enforcement officers may carry 
firearms.
    Current law allows an individual State to decide whether or 
not it wishes to allow out-of-State officers to carry a 
concealed weapon within that State's borders. Current law 
allows active, but not retired, Federal law enforcement 
officers to carry a concealed weapon anywhere within the 
jurisdiction of the United States. However, it does not allow 
active and retired State and local law enforcement officers to 
carry a concealed weapon without the permission of each 
specific State.
    H.R. 218, the ``Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 
2003,'' would override State laws and mandate that retired and 
active police officers could carry a concealed weapon anywhere 
within the United States.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    Currently, some States do not permit a law enforcement 
officer from other States to carry a concealed weapon within 
their borders. This legislation would allow current and retired 
police officers to carry a concealed weapon in any of the 50 
States.
    The Fraternal Order of Police (``FOP'') and the Law 
Enforcement Alliance of America (``LEAA'') support the 
legislation, while the Police Executive Research Forum 
(``PERF'') and the International Association of Chiefs of 
Police (``IACP'') oppose this legislation.
    LEAA argues that this legislation will ``allow tens of 
thousands of additionally equipped, trained and certified law 
enforcement officers to continually serve and protect our 
communities regardless of jurisdiction or duty status at no 
cost to taxpayers.'' FOP contends that this legislation will 
help its members to protect citizens in the wake of a terrorist 
attack and that it is even more necessary since September 11, 
2001.
    Additionally, supporters argue that this legislation must 
include retired officers as well as current officers because 
retired officers need to be able to protect themselves and 
their families and because they are just as trustworthy as they 
were when they were employed full time. Supporters also 
maintain that active and retired law enforcement officers often 
have to defend themselves outside their own State from 
criminals whom they have arrested.
    Opponents of this legislation argue that this is an issue 
of States' sovereignty. The States have traditionally had the 
right to determine who is eligible to carry firearms in their 
communities. This legislation would disregard the judgment of 
State authorities on what many believe is an important public 
safety issue. Statistics from the Southern States Police 
Benevolent Association indicate that a number of States forbid 
officers from other States to carry concealed weapons when not 
on official duty. Some States do not allow any of their 
citizens to carry concealed weapons and therefore might object 
to being required to allow officers from other States to carry 
concealed weapons.
    IACP expressed concern that because of difficulty in 
verifying the identity and eligibility of out-of-State law 
enforcement officers, passage of the bill could lead to a 
tragic situation where officers from other jurisdictions are 
wounded or killed by local police. PERF argues that the bill 
could put police agencies at risk for liability for an officer 
who misuses a weapon in another State. PERF also argues that 
the requirements on retired police officers are insufficient 
and difficult to implement. Many States do not currently permit 
their own law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons, 
yet this legislation would force all the States to allow 
retired officers to carry a weapon.
    At the hearing on H.R. 218, the Fraternal Order of Police 
asked that a list of law enforcement officers that were killed 
while off duty be included in the record. The FOP could not 
supply information as to whether these officers were acting 
outside their State or jurisdiction. FOP indicated that these 
deaths were viewed as ``line-of-duty'' by the National Law 
Enforcement Officers Memorial. Although these deaths may be 
viewed as ``line-of-duty'' deaths for purposes of the Memorial, 
the Committee notes that for purposes of Public Safety Officer 
Benefits (PSOB) program the definition of a ``line-of-duty'' 
death is unchanged by this legislation.

                          COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS

    Two amendments were adopted during the markup. Chairman 
Sensenbrenner offered an amendment, which passed 21-7, to 
require retired officers to carry proof that they have received 
firearms standards certification in the last twelve months 
along with their photographic identification. The original 
legislation included a requirement that all retired officers 
must receive standards certification every 12 months and carry 
photographic identification from the agency for which the 
individual was employed as a law enforcement officer. To help 
officers who may pull over such individuals ascertain their 
good standing, the amendment clarified that the identification 
must show the officer has received certification in the last 12 
months or the officer must carry a separate certification 
proving that he is current in meeting applicable standards.
    Representative Scott offered an amendment to require the 
definition of a ``qualified law enforcement officer'' to 
exclude someone who was under the influence of alcohol or 
drugs. This amendment passed by a voice vote.

                                Hearings

    The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security 
held a hearing on H.R. 218 on June 15, 2004. Testimony was 
received from four witnesses, representing four organizations, 
with additional materials submitted.

                        Committee Consideration

    On June 15, 2004, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 
Homeland Security met in open session and ordered favorably 
reported the bill H.R. 218 by a voice vote, a quorum being 
present. On June 16, 2004, the Committee met in open session 
and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 218, with an 
amendment, by a vote of 23-9, a quorum being present.

                         Vote of the Committee

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee notes that there 
were recorded votes during the Committee consideration of H.R. 
218, including recorded votes on several amendments and final 
passage.
    1. Chairman Sensenbrenner offered an amendment, which 
passed 21 yeas to 7 nays, to require retired officers to carry 
proof that they have received training in the last twelve 
months along with their photographic identification.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................              X
Mr. Smith.......................................................              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................
Mr. Hostettler..................................................                              X
Mr. Green.......................................................              X
Mr. Keller......................................................              X
Ms. Hart........................................................                              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................
Mr. Pence.......................................................              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Carter......................................................              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................              X
Mrs. Blackburn..................................................
Mr. Conyers.....................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................                              X
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................              X
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Meehan......................................................              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             21               7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Ranking Member Conyers offered a substitute amendment, 
which was defeated 11 yeas to 21 nays, to allow States that did 
not wish to exempt out-of-State law enforcement officers from 
conceal and carry laws to opt out of the exemption for a 2-year 
period before the legislative took effect.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Smith.......................................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................
Mr. Hostettler..................................................                              X
Mr. Green.......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Ms. Hart........................................................                              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................
Mr. Pence.......................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Carter......................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Mrs. Blackburn..................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................                              X
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................              X
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................                              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................                              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................                              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................                              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             11              21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Representative Scott offered an amendment to include a 
provision that the exemption under this law shall not be 
construed to supersede or limit the rules, regulations, 
policies, or practices of any State or local law enforcement 
agency. This amendment was defeated by a vote of 11 yeas to 21 
nays.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Smith.......................................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................
Mr. Bachus......................................................                              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................                              X
Mr. Green.......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Ms. Hart........................................................                              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................
Mr. Pence.......................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Carter......................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Mrs. Blackburn..................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................                              X
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................                              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................                              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................                              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             11              21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Representative Scott offered an amendment to limit the 
weapons an officer could carry in other States to exclude 
semiautomatic assault weapons. This amendment was defeated by a 
vote of 13 yeas to 19 nays.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Smith.......................................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................                              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................                              X
Mr. Green.......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Ms. Hart........................................................                              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................
Mr. Pence.......................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Carter......................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Mrs. Blackburn..................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................                              X
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             13              19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Representative Scott offered an amendment to require any 
active or retired law enforcement officer who wished to carry a 
concealed weapon outside his State to receive certification 
from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. 
This amendment was defeated 13 yeas to 21 nays.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Smith.......................................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................                              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................                              X
Mr. Green.......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Ms. Hart........................................................                              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................                              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Carter......................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Mrs. Blackburn..................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................                              X
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................              X
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................                              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             13              21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. On the motion to report H.R. 218 favorably as amended, 
the vote was 23 yeas to 9 nays.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................              X
Mr. Smith.......................................................              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................
Mr. Chabot......................................................              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................
Mr. Bachus......................................................              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................              X
Mr. Green.......................................................              X
Mr. Keller......................................................              X
Ms. Hart........................................................              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................                              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................              X
Mr. King........................................................              X
Mr. Carter......................................................              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................              X
Mrs. Blackburn..................................................              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................                              X
Mr. Berman......................................................                              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................              X
Mr. Nadler......................................................
Mr. Scott.......................................................                              X
Mr. Watt........................................................                              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................                              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................              X
Ms. Waters......................................................                              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................                              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             23               9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the 
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does 
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax 
expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with 
respect to the bill, H.R. 218, the following estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, June 22, 2004.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 218, the ``Law 
Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003.''
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Mark 
Grabowicz (for Federal costs), who can be reached at 226-2860, 
and Lauren McMahon and Melissa Merrell (for the State and local 
impact), who can be reached at 225-3220.
            Sincerely,
                                       Douglas Holtz-Eakin.

Enclosure

cc:
        Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
        Ranking Member
H.R. 218--Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003.
    H.R. 218 would exempt certain current and former law 
enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying 
of concealed firearms. CBO estimates that the bill would have 
no impact on Federal spending or receipts.
    H.R. 218 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined 
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) because it would 
permit qualified current and former State and local law 
enforcement officers to carry certain concealed firearms. 
Currently, 17 States prohibit anyone from carrying concealed 
weapons and 32 States prohibit out-of-State, off-duty law 
enforcement officers from carrying concealed weapons; this bill 
would preempt those laws.
    States and law enforcement agencies also would have to 
provide an annual certification or identification process that 
demonstrates that the retiree has met the State's or agency's 
training and qualification standards to carry a firearm. 
Because most States have a reauthorization system in place, CBO 
estimates that the costs for those governments to comply would 
be insignificant and well below the annual threshold 
established in UMRA ($60 million in 2004, adjusted annually for 
inflation). H.R. 218 contains no new private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA.
    The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Mark Grabowicz 
(for Federal costs), who can be reached at 226-2860, and Lauren 
McMahon and Melissa Merrill (for the State and local impact), 
who can be reached at 225-3220. This estimate was approved by 
Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget 
Analysis.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 
218, will allow State and local law enforcement officers, who 
are responsible for prevention, detection, investigation, or 
prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any 
violation of law, and who has statutory powers of arrest.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for 
this legislation in article I, section 8, of the Constitution.

               Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion

    Unless otherwise indicated, this section describes the bill 
as reported.
Section 1. Short Title
    This section designates this bill as the ``Law Enforcement 
Officers Safety Act of 2003.''
Section 2. Exemption of Qualified Law Enforcement Officers From State 
        Laws Prohibiting the Carrying of Concealed Firearms
    This section would preempt State laws to allow any active 
duty qualified law enforcement officer, who is carrying the 
photographic identification issued by the police agency he 
works for, to carry a concealed firearm that was shipped or 
transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
    A ``qualified law enforcement officer'' is defined as 
someone who is authorized to prevent, investigate and detect 
law violations and who has arrest authority; is authorized by 
the employing government agency to carry a firearm; is not the 
subject of any disciplinary action; meets standards, if any, 
established by the agency which require the officer to 
regularly qualify in the use of firearms; and is not prohibited 
by Federal law from receiving a firearm; and who is not under 
the influence of alcohol or drugs.
Section 3. Exemption of Qualified Retired Law Enforcement Officers From 
        State Laws Prohibiting The Carrying of Concealed Firearms
    This section would preempt State laws to allow any 
qualified retired law enforcement officer, who is carrying the 
photographic identification issued by the police agency he 
worked for, and a certification that he has met firearms 
standards within 12 months to carry a concealed firearm that 
was shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
    A ``qualified retired law enforcement officer'' is defined 
as someone who retired in good standing from service with a 
public agency other than for reasons of mental instability; 
before retirement, was authorized to prevent, investigate and 
detect law violations and had arrest authority; before 
retirement, was employed as a law enforcement officer for more 
than 15 years or retired from service due to a service-
connected disability after completing a probationary period; 
has a non-forfeitable right to benefits under the agency 
retirement plan; and during the last twelve months has met the 
State's standards for training and qualification for active law 
enforcement officers to carry firearms; and is not prohibited 
by Federal law from receiving a firearm.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is 
printed in italics and existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

               CHAPTER 44 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE

                          CHAPTER 44--FIREARMS

Sec.
921.  Definitions.
     * * * * * * *
926B.   Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement 
          officers.
926C.   Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law 
          enforcement officers.
     * * * * * * *

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).

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; and
            (6) 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).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                           Markup Transcript



                            BUSINESS MEETING

                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16, 2004

                  House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 
2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr. [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Committee will be in order. A 
working quorum is present.
    The first item on the agenda is H.R. 218, the ``Law 
Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003.'' The Chair recognizes 
the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble, Chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security for a 
motion.
    Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security reports favorably the bill 
H.R. 218 and moves its favorable recommendation to the full 
House.
    [The bill, H.R. 218, follows:]
      


    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the bill will be 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The 
Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble 
to strike the last word.
    Mr. Coble. I thank the Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, we had a hearing and a markup of this bill 
yesterday. And as I said at the hearing, this bill has been 
visible on Capitol Hill for almost a decade, I think almost 8 
years to be exact. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, we have 
reasonable Members who adamantly support this bill, who mildly 
support it, who adamantly oppose it and who mildly oppose it. 
So we have people all over the field on this bill.
    I think most of the Members have been thoroughly exposed to 
it and probably are well familiar with it. Current law allows 
active, but not Federal law enforcement officers to carry a 
concealed weapon anywhere within the jurisdiction of the United 
States; and it does not allow active and retired State law 
enforcement to carry a concealed weapon without the specific 
permission of each specific State. H.R. 218, which has been 
introduced by Representative Cunningham, would override State 
laws and mandate that retired and active police officers carry 
a concealed weapon anywhere within the United States.
    The legislation is fairly broad in some areas. It allows 
current and retired State and local law enforcement officers to 
carry a concealed weapon anywhere in the country. It also 
contains a fairly broad definition of ``law enforcement 
officers,'' which includes an employee of a Government agency 
who 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.
    I say in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, you are going to vote 
your conscience on this because we have Members on this 
Committee who are for it and many who are against it. With 
that, I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair recognizes himself for 5 
minutes for a statement.
    It is no secret that I am opposed to this legislation. I 
believe it violates the principles of federalism and undermines 
the authorities of the States. The State has traditionally, in 
the exercise of sovereignty, controlled who within its borders 
may carry concealed weapons and when law enforcement officers 
may carry firearms. Current law allows an individual State to 
decide whether or not it wishes to allow out-of-State officers 
to carry a concealed weapon within that State's borders. 
Current law allows active, but not retired Federal law 
enforcement officers to carry a concealed weapon anywhere 
within the jurisdiction of the United States; and it does not 
allow active and retired State law enforcement to carry a 
concealed weapon without the specific permission of each State.
    H.R. 218 would override States' right-to-carry laws and 
mandate that retired and active police officers could carry a 
concealed weapon anywhere within the United States. This 
legislation would disregard the judgment of State authorities 
on what many believe is an important public safety issue.
    While approximately 33 States do specifically allow 
individuals to carry concealed weapons, that leaves 17 other 
States that do not. H.R. 218 would supersede the laws of those 
17 States, including Wisconsin, and allow current and retired 
law enforcement officers from anywhere within the United States 
to carry a concealed weapon in those States, regardless of 
State law. Such a measure is an affront to State sovereignty 
and the Constitution, which I cannot support.
    Statistics from the Southern States Police Benevolent 
Association indicate that some States forbid officers from 
other States to carry concealed weapons when not on official 
duty. Other States do not allow any of their citizens to carry 
concealed weapons and, therefore, might find it objectionable 
to allow outside citizen-officers to carry concealed weapons 
within their borders.
    At the hearing before the Crime Subcommittee yesterday, the 
International Association of Chiefs of Police argued that the 
variation among the States on firearms training and other 
policies and procedures with regard to police officers, such as 
authority to carry firearms off duty and use-of-force policies, 
will create a dangerous environment for out-of-State officers 
and citizens. Laws regulating the carrying of firearms must 
remain within the jurisdiction of the State government where 
they can be more effectively monitored and enforced.
    I believe the issues at hand could be addressed by the 
States in an appropriate manner through the use of reciprocity 
agreements, many of which already exist. I urge my colleagues 
to oppose this legislation, and yield back the balance of my 
time, and recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 218, 
the ``Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003,'' 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.
    Now, a law enforcement officer includes not only police and 
sheriffs and other--what we would think of as law enforcement 
officials, but also includes corrections, probation, and parole 
judicial officers and just about anyone who has statutory power 
of arrest and who are engaged by their employment by a 
Government entity in the prevention, detection, investigation, 
supervision, prosecution or incarceration of law violators.
    In the past, we have considered this bill under the title 
``Community Protection Act.'' the rhetoric surrounding the bill 
has indicated that its purpose is to aid and protect the public 
by putting tens of thousands of 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 emphasis is now on the 
safety of officers as they travel, yet the statutory language 
is the same.
    One of the problems with even suggesting that the purpose 
of a Federal law is for Federal law enforcement officers to 
insist on protecting the public outside their jurisdiction is 
that it may give them encouragement or a sense of obligation to 
attempt to do so.
    I submitted for the record at the hearing before the 
Subcommittee yesterday dozens of reports and instances where 
even in the same jurisdiction off-duty, plainclothes law 
enforcement officers have shot other off-duty officers or 
gotten shot by them or uniformed officers in gun battles where 
the plainclothes officers were mistaken as criminals. If off-
duty officers in the same jurisdiction who engage themselves in 
law enforcement activities are being shot by their fellow 
officers, encouraging out-of-State officers to engage in such 
activities through a Federal law will certainly only add to the 
problem.
    Now, perhaps in some jurisdictions, where there are many 
officers, like New York City where they have tens of thousands 
of officers, officers may be trained how not to shoot their 
fellow police officers. This training may not be available in 
jurisdictions where there are only a couple of dozen officers 
where everyone knows each other.
    There is a specter of individually determined engagement in 
law enforcement actions by out-of-State, plainclothes, off-duty 
officers who are not trained for the specific situation that 
gives police chiefs and local and State governments huge 
concern. Clearly, they see these officers as more of a 
challenge to effective law enforcement than a help.
    The bill not only takes away the ability of local law 
enforcement leaders to manage the concealed firearm activities 
of out-of-State officers, but even of their own officers. Not 
only will they lose the ability to determine what officers can 
do with agency-issued guns in their possession, without drastic 
action as requiring the guns to be checked when the officers 
are off duty, but they will have no say over what officers do 
off duty with their own guns and certainly no control over 
concealed weapons activities of retired officers within their 
jurisdiction, local or out-of-State.
    I don't know what the liability implications are for local 
jurisdictions whose officers may be engaged in out-of-State law 
enforcement activities. We were not given clear answers on 
this. The liability insurance implications alone should give 
the Congress cause for pause in imposing an interstate, 
concealed-carry provision on State and local governments.
    State legislatures can authorize out-of-State, off-duty 
officers to carry concealed weapons within their jurisdictions; 
and some have, although most have not. The primary 
organizations supporting the legislation representing--
supporting the legislation represent rank-and-file line 
officers for the most part, while those opposing the 
legislation represent managers and employers. These are the 
people who are directly responsible to the public for setting 
public policy for officers' conduct.
    The Federal Government should not usurp State and local 
options by choosing sides in the employer-employee dispute. I 
would hope we defeat the legislation, and I thank the Chairman 
and yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, all Members' 
opening statements will appear in the record at this point.
    Are there amendments?
    And the Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment and 
the Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 218 offered by Mr. 
Sensenbrenner, page 6, strike lines 7 through 9 and insert the 
following: (d) The identification required by this subsection--
--
    [The amendment offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner follows:]
  


    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment 
will be considered as read, and the Chair will recognize 
himself for 5 minutes.
    This amendment I am offering today makes a small, but very 
important change to this legislation. The original legislation 
included a requirement that all retired officers must receive 
training every 12 months and carry photographic identification 
from the agency from which the individual was employed as a law 
enforcement officer.
    To help officers clarify the good standing of individuals 
they may encounter during a traffic stop or other similar 
situations, I have included in my amendment that the 
identification must show that the officer has received training 
in the last 12 months or the officer must carry a separate 
certification proving that he is current in his training. I 
believe that this amendment is an improvement to the 
legislation, and I ask my colleagues to support it.
    You know, I would note that the identification in the 
originally introduced legislation does not require that the 
identification include that the officer or retired officer is 
current in training because the provisions of the legislation 
are limited to those who are current in training. There ought 
to be something that the officer carries, that he or she indeed 
qualifies under the legislation. My amendment fixes it up, and 
I would urge support for the amendment.
    The gentleman from New York.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, I cannot resist the opportunity to speak in 
support of the Chairman, and it is rather rare on this 
Committee that I do so. The amendment makes eminent sense. I 
agree with the Chairman in opposing the underlying bill.
    It seems to me that one of the problems with this kind of 
legislation is, even if you require training, it may be that a 
given jurisdiction, let us say New York City, Chicago or 
wherever, might require and have good reason to require one 
level of training to permit the carrying of firearms in a city 
of that size or whatever, where there are thousands of police 
officers who don't know each other. Another jurisdiction and 
perhaps smaller, less--more rural might require a different 
level of training; and there is nothing to standardize the 
levels of training in this bill so that even--so as to 
guarantee an adequate level of training in the locality.
    I think the bill is a bad bill. It will be improved if 
there were a standard level of training. This amendment 
improves the bill somewhat and therefore, I support it, but it 
still doesn't make the bill acceptable for all the reasons the 
Chairman said in his opening statement.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from North Carolina.
    Mr. Coble. I think this is very narrowly defined and 
probably is an improvement to the bill, and I support the 
amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentlewoman from Texas.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I would like to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I will have an amendment to assist the 
States in having more time. I happen to have had the 
opportunity to discuss this legislation with a number of my 
constituents, and it is well known of my position on dealing 
with gun ownership and the second amendment rights versus the 
necessary protective rights to secure communities from gun 
violence. I believe, however, that short of the liability 
issue, we do have legislation that can be effective and can be 
utilized in a safe manner.
    I believe, however, the Chairman's amendment with respect 
to more specific identification makes this bill stronger. And I 
think in the backdrop of homeland security and the need to more 
effectively identify individuals who are carrying weapons who 
can be a support versus a threat to the community is important.
    In order to decipher those who are carrying guns legally 
versus illegally, a photographic identification is imperative. 
Even though these individuals have been previous law 
enforcement officers, the fact that they are carrying concealed 
weapons makes it even more imperative that we have the kind of 
photographic identification that is possible.
    Just having had an officer in my community, Richard 
Matthews--excuse me, Matthew Richards--being wounded in a very 
violent manner, obviously, I think the more opportunity we have 
for the safe carrying of firearms in this instance, only in 
this instance, I think is appropriate; and I think an 
identification that is rock solid, if you will, identity-theft 
solid, because I think that is important, is a valuable 
addition to the legislation.
    Mr. Chabot. Would the gentlelady yield?
    Was it received as a result of a shooting by a retired 
police officer?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I don't think you were listening to me, 
and I don't think you were hearing me, because obviously you 
didn't hear me speak in support of the bill. The point I was 
making is that there is violence on the streets, and the more 
we can provide opportunity for a secure quality of life, the 
better off we are.
    The officer was shot in a criminal activity.
    Mr. Chabot. He wasn't shot by a retired police officer, was 
he?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I am not going to answer that question 
because I don't think you understand what I am saying.
    Mr. Chabot. I understand what you are saying.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Florida.
    Does the gentlewoman yield back?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I do, and I support the amendment.
    Mr. Keller. Move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Keller. Mr. Chairman, I want to engage in a little 
colloquy just to clarify my understanding.
    The gist of the language as it reads now in the base bill 
is, during the most recent 12-month period, they have to show 
that the individual, at his expense, has met the standards for 
training and qualification for active law enforcement officers 
to carry firearms. And your amendment just says, you have a 
photo ID proving that?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If the gentleman would yield, the 
answer is ``yes.''
    Mr. Keller. It wouldn't, for example, have the effect of 
gutting the bill by saying that if your State doesn't allow 
police officers to carry firearms, that they would be exempt, 
because in that particular case, those States where they are 
not allowed to require them, they wouldn't be able to get a 
photo ID saying they met the requirements of using this 
particular gun and carrying a concealed weapon permit.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. To my knowledge, no.
    Mr. Keller. I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Question is on the amendment 
offered by the Chair. Those in favor will say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it.
    Recorded vote is ordered. The question is on agreeing to 
the amendment that was offered by the Chair. Those in favor 
will, as your names are called, answer ``aye''; those opposed, 
``no.'' and the clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde.
    Mr. Hyde. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde, aye. Mr. Coble.
    Mr. Coble. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, aye. Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, aye. Mr. Gallegly?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot.
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Jenkins.
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Bachus?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler.
    Mr. Hostettler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green.
    Mr. Green. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, yes. Mr. Keller.
    Mr. Keller. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, yes. Ms. Hart?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. King.
    Mr. King. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Carter?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney.
    Mr. Feeney. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, aye. Mrs. Blackburn?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman.
    Mr. Berman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman, aye. Mr. Boucher.
    Mr. Boucher. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher, no. Mr. Nadler?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye. Ms. Waters?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Delahunt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, aye. Mr. Wexler.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin.
    Ms. Baldwin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin, aye. Mr. Weiner.
    Mr. Weiner. Pass.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner passes. Mr. Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. Pass.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff passes. Ms. Sanchez.
    Ms. Sanchez. Pass.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez passes. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Chairman Sensenbrenner, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Members in the Chamber wish to 
change or cast their vote?
    Gentleman from Texas.
    Mr. Carter. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Carter, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members?
    Gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. 
Meehan.
    Mr. Meehan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Weiner.
    Mr. Weiner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members who wish to cast?
    Gentleman from Indiana.
    Mr. Pence. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentlewoman from California, Ms. 
Sanchez.
    A.Aye.
    Ms. Sanchez. Ms. Sanchez, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members who wish to cast or 
change their vote?
    Gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentlewoman from Pennsylvania Ms. 
Hart.
    Ms. Hart. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Hart, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members wish to change or 
cast their vote? The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 21 ayes and 7 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is agreed to.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 
Conyers, out of order for a public service announcement in case 
anybody missed what he had to say.
    Mr. Conyers. It is with great sorrow to the gentleman from 
California, Mr. Berman; the gentlelady from California, Ms. 
Lofgren; the gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff; the 
gentlelady from California, Ms. Sanchez; but most of all, my 
dear, beloved Maxine Waters, because the Lakers have been--it 
is with sorrow--I mean, this wasn't just an ordinary victory. I 
mean, this was severe.
    And then I want to say what Mr. Weiner said, who is very 
concerned about this, was there any car overturned last night. 
It was about midnight or so, Mr. Weiner, and you will be happy 
to know that unlike New York, nothing happened untoward.
    And so I just report this. I know nobody was following it 
very closely. I yield.
    Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman yield? We view what 
happened last night to the Lakers as a metaphor for what will 
happen to the Republicans.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the Chair will have the last 
word saying that he is always happy to recognize the gentleman 
from Michigan to give bad news to his fellow Democrats.
    Are there further amendments to H.R. 218?
    The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, 
048.
    [The amendment offered by Mr. Scott follows:]

  


    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 218 offered by Mr. Scott of 
Virginia. Page 3, line 15, strike ``and,'' period. Page 3 after 
line 15, insert the following:
    (5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another 
intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and.
    Page 3, line 16, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(6)''.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Virginia is 
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This amendment is self-explanatory. It comes under the 
section defining the term ``qualified law enforcement 
officer.'' qualified law enforcement officer is someone who is 
authorized to engage in such and such, is authorized by the 
agency to carry. But it also says, ``is not subject to any 
disciplinary action by the agency'' and also ``is not 
prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm''; and this 
amendment would insert, ``is not under the influence of alcohol 
or other intoxicating or hallucinatory drug.''
    You don't want people who are intoxicated carrying these 
firearms in other jurisdictions under the guise of being a, 
quote, ``qualified law enforcement officer.''
    I would hope that we would insert this provision into the 
bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina, 
Mr. Coble.
    Mr. Coble. The gentleman from Virginia and I discussed this 
issue yesterday during the hearing. I think it is an amendment 
that probably will improve the bill, and I support it.
    Mr. Smith of Texas. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
Smith.
    Mr. Smith. I have a question to the gentleman from 
Virginia, Mr. Scott, and it is this: When would this condition 
apply? You say, ``is not under the influence of alcohol or 
other hallucinatory drug or substance.'' at what point is that 
condition imposed?
    Mr. Scott. If the gentleman would yield. I would say that 
the officer is authorized to carry a firearm out of State in 
somebody else's jurisdiction in violation of their local laws, 
but that would not occur if the law enforcement officer is 
drunk.
    Mr. Smith. At any point while he is out of State or--is the 
implication that if he is drunk at any point while he is out of 
State, he cannot carry the license?
    Mr. Scott. If he happens to be drunk or under hallucinating 
drugs, then he should not be carrying his firearm, in violation 
of local ordinances. And when he sobers up, I guess he could 
regain his firearm.
    In violation of the local ordinances.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. Those in 
favor will say aye.
    Those opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    Gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I have an amendment at the desk.
    [The amendment offered by Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
      
      

  


    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 218 offered by Ms. Jackson 
Lee:
    Page 6, line 17, strike ``2'' and insert ``4''.
    Page 6, line 22, strike ``2'' and insert ``4''.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chairman very much. My good 
friend Mr. Chabot may not have heard me in my earlier comments, 
so let me clarify my comments.
    I am a cosponsor of this legislation after review and after 
discussing this with many of my constituents on the basis of 
the utilization and the opportunities of protections by retired 
officers carrying concealed weapons. And with the amendments 
that have been offered, this amendment is a simple process.
    Mr. Scott. Point of order. Parliamentary inquiry.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The floor belongs to the 
gentlewoman from Texas.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I would like to withdraw the amendment for 
a moment, please.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The amendment is withdrawn.
    Are there further amendments?
    The gentleman from Michigan.
    Mr. Conyers. I have what amounts to a substitute.
    [The amendment offered by Mr. Conyers follows:]
      
      

  


    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
substitute.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 218, offered by Mr. Conyers:
    Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following----
    Mr. Conyers. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be 
considered as read.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, so ordered and 
the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I rise and I am going to shortly yield to my colleague from 
Virginia, but this amendment will simply protect States' rights 
in its current form.
    What we have is a sweeping, unprecedented override of State 
and local gun safety laws that is totally unwarranted. There is 
no precedent for what is intended to be accomplished. This 
Congress or any other has never passed a law giving current and 
former State and local employees permission to carry weapons in 
violation of controlling State and local laws.
    Congress has never passed a law interfering with the 
ability of State and local police chiefs to regulate their own 
officers carrying firearms. This, among other things, is why 
the National Conference of Mayors, AFSCME, the International 
Association of Chiefs of Police, the Police Executive Research 
Forum, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement and 
major city police chiefs all over the country are reluctantly 
opposed to this legislation.
    And I yield to my colleague from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, and I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
    Mr. Chairman, I think this substitute would be much better 
policy than the underlying bill. First, it allows States--I 
believe it allows them to opt out and certainly doesn't allow 
this Federal law to supersede local law that applies to 
everybody else.
    You have under the underlying bill the idea that 
notwithstanding concealed weapons laws that apply to everybody, 
somebody from out of State can come in if they are, quote, a 
``qualified law enforcement officer'' and supersede and carry 
weapons in violation of those laws.
    The bill--the amendment also makes it clear that this 
conceal-carry doesn't apply to machine guns and other military 
assault-type weapons, so you certainly don't want people from 
out of town carrying assault weapons. It also has a sunset so 
that after 17 years--so that if this thing frankly doesn't 
work, it will sunset after 17 years.
    I would hope that we would adopt the substitute as much 
better policy than the underlying bill. And I yield back to the 
gentleman from the Detroit Pistons.
    Mr. Conyers. I return to the Chair my unused time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from North Carolina Mr. 
Coble.
    Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask my friend from 
Michigan--but I first want to extend my congratulations to the 
Pistons and say to my friend, Mr. Berman, that I was cheering 
for the Pistons and hope you hold me harmless for that.
    Mr. Conyers, in your amendment, I assume that if a State 
does not opt out within that 2-year period, the exemption would 
lie--the exemption would take effect?
    Mr. Conyers. Could I yield to the gentleman from Virginia?
    Mr. Scott. Yes.
    Mr. Coble. I thank the gentleman.
    Folks, as I said earlier, we have people on this Committee, 
reasonable folks all, on each side of this issue; and I don't 
know that anyone's mind is going to be changed today.
    But I say to my friend from Michigan, I will oppose this 
respectfully, because I think this bill has been kicking 
around, John, for 8 years. I don't see any good purpose of a 2-
year delay. And for that reason I reject it.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina, 
Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, I have to confess that I am worried about 
this Committee and what we consistently do. I thought this 
Committee consisted of the most vigorous defenders of States' 
rights that we had in the Congress. And yet, I could tape 
record a message that I have tried to deliver over and over and 
over and over again about my opposition to imposing this 
Committee's and Congress's will on States in areas that have 
always, always been reserved to the States. And I keep 
wondering when my friends who say they believe in States' 
rights are going to stand up and actually believe in States' 
rights.
    I am worried about this Committee and the direction that we 
are headed. And I just--I can't imagine anybody opposing this 
amendment if they really believe in States' rights.
    I mean, I might oppose it because I would much, much prefer 
an opt-in provision as opposed to an opt-out provision that 
would allow States, if they chose to follow this law, to decide 
affirmatively that they were going to follow the law as opposed 
to their own State law. But I can't believe that this Committee 
is going to pass a bill that in the first paragraph says, 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. How blatant can we be in the 
face of States' rights?
    The first sentence of the bill says that we are just 
disregarding every State law that is out there and somehow our 
judgment on this issue is so much better than State 
legislators'. And, I mean, I am flabbergasted that we could be 
debating this bill as it was written; and I would be even more 
flabbergasted if my States' rights friends on this Committee 
don't finally step up and say, yes, I not only rhetorically 
believe in States' rights, but this is going too far.
    Let us at least give our States' counterparts--in the 
federalism that our founders created for us, let us at least 
give them the right to opt out of this bill. I would be 
flabbergasted if we did not do this.
    And if we don't stand up for States' rights here, when will 
you ever stand up for States' rights? That is the question I 
would ask.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. 
Keller.
    Mr. Keller. Move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Keller. This legislation, as it is, is a common-sense 
piece of legislation that will greatly improve the ability of 
law enforcement officers to protect themselves, their families 
and our communities. It has very broad bipartisan support in 
Congress.
    This legislation, as it is, already passed the Senate in 
the form of an amendment 91 to 8. It has 295 cosponsors and 
will likely get about 90 percent votes in the House. It passed 
by a voice vote yesterday.
    It is supported in the law enforcement community. We heard 
from Chuck Canterbury, the President of the Fraternal Order of 
Police, they support it; Mr. William Johnson, the President of 
the National Association of Police Organizations, they support 
it.
    And so I have to oppose this opt-out amendment, which has 
been offered in the name of States' rights, because it would 
essentially gut the bill and give us the same inconsistent 
patchwork of coverage that exists today. And let me give you an 
example of what I am talking about.
    Let us say that a police officer and his family in my 
district of Orlando, Florida, would like to go on a nice 
vacation to Washington, D.C., to see the monuments. He would 
have to travel through six different States. So he would be in 
Florida, which would be fine. Then he would go to Georgia 
which, let us say they opted out; he would be illegal.
    Then he would go to South Carolina, which would be fine. 
And then he would go to North Carolina, which would be illegal 
if they opt out. Then he would go to Virginia, which would be 
fine. Then he would go to D.C., which would be illegal if they 
opt out. It is the same exact problem that exists today.
    Why is it that we authorize pilots to have firearms, but 
not police officers?
    Criminals do not observe any jurisdictional lines when they 
seek revenge against officers who have enforced society laws 
against them. That is why this is an attractive, common-sense 
piece of legislation which I urge my colleagues to support as 
it is.
    Some of the things that were said simply need some 
clarification. Mr. Scott said it also has language about, these 
folks can't carry machine guns. The base bill already says they 
can't carry machine guns. It is not needed.
    Mr. Watt expressed some frustration about States' rights, 
and let me say that sometimes the States do some things better 
and sometimes you need the Federal Government to intervene when 
you have an inconsistent patchwork.
    I live in Orlando, Florida. I would like to take my family 
on a car ride from Disney World to Disneyland in California. 
And I would imagine if I took the Federal highways, I would get 
there a couple of days before you would if you took the State 
highways, because there was an inconsistent patchwork.
    Mr. Watt. Would the gentleman yield?
    It is quite obvious the gentleman doesn't have much 
appreciation for the constitutional framework in which we are 
obligated to operate. Just because you might get there faster 
using an interstate highway than I would get there using State 
highways is no reason to tell the States that they can't have 
State highways. That is just patently ridiculous.
    Mr. Keller. Reclaiming my time, you said I didn't 
appreciate the Constitution in that analogy. And there is 
something in the Constitution that is called the commerce 
clause. And that is why we have the interstate highway system. 
I think it is a pretty good idea. I don't think we want to rip 
that up in name of the argument that the commerce clause 
doesn't mean anything.
    Mr. Watt. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Keller. No. I already yielded once.
    I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It guts the 
legislation. I don't doubt your sincerity or your motives; i 
think you can make your argument with a straight face. But 
because of the inconsistent patchwork that exists today, I ask 
my colleagues to vote down this amendment.
    I yield back my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Massachusetts, 
Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Watt. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Delahunt. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman. 
And I am going to yield to my colleague from North Carolina, 
but I want to comment on the candor, and I respect that, of the 
gentleman from Florida. But I guess the issue is, does the 
amendment to the Constitution reserving rights to the State, 
when does it count anymore? When does it matter?
    I mean, clearly, fighting crime, if you will, those 
decisions, I think historically have been made at the State and 
local level. And as we continue to proceed with Federal 
preemption, in effect, what we are doing is, we are stripping 
from the States their sovereignty, if you will, and diminishing 
it to the point where we might as well just simply repeal 
States' rights.
    And what is particularly surprising is that I remember back 
in 1994, during that particular campaign, there was 
considerable discussion about devolution and States' rights. 
Why don't we just bury it and, you know, continue to exercise 
Federal preemption when it suits our convenience?
    You know, each State should be able to make its own 
judgment about whether private citizens should be allowed to 
carry concealed weapons whether they are on-duty, off-duty or 
retired police officers. And it is clear that States have 
addressed this issue. This is not something that the States 
have avoided.
    There is considerable discussion going on within State 
legislatures to deal with this particular issue. To cite one 
example, in 1995, a retired police chief was shot and killed 
while trying to stop a robbery in New Jersey. And that 
particular incident prompted New Jersey to enact a law allowing 
retired officers to carry handguns under a number of 
conditions.
    In drafting this law, the New Jersey legislature made a 
deliberate effort to balance the safety of police officers with 
the safety of the public at large by including a number of 
important safeguards that are not included in this particular 
base bill. New Jersey's law is limited to handguns. New Jersey 
law has a maximum age, age 70. New Jersey's law requires that 
retired police officers must file renewal applications yearly, 
and this doesn't exist. I am just enumerating some of them.
    With that, I will yield to my friend from North Carolina, 
Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. I thought I had heard about the most expansive 
reading of the commerce clause that I could hear in 
justification of preempting State laws when we dealt with tort 
reform or some of the other issues. But this interpretation 
that this is somehow acceptable under the commerce clause, 
there is no trade.
    You know, a police officer puts a gun in his pocket and 
goes into another State that is protected under the commerce 
clause? Give me a break. That is even further beyond the pale 
than I have ever heard you try to justify as a justification 
for preempting State law. And this is the group that always 
said that they believed in States' rights.
    When are you going to believe in States' rights? When is 
anybody going to step up and say that States' rights have some 
meaning in our federalist system? I mean, surely you all don't 
believe this is justified under the commerce clause.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Indiana, Mr. 
Hostettler.
    Mr. Hostettler. Move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Hostettler. If I could return us to the actual 
Constitution and the wording of the 10th amendment with regard 
to States' rights that everyone is concerned about here, I 
think it is very informative. It says, quote, ``The powers not 
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor 
prohibited by it to the States--nor prohibited by it to the 
States--are reserved to the States respectively or to the 
people.'' so the 10th amendment clearly states that there are 
powers not--that there are powers that are prohibited by the 
Constitution with regard to the States.
    The supremacy clause says, ``This Constitution and the laws 
of the United States shall be made in pursuance thereof; and 
all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority 
of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and 
the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in 
the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary 
notwithstanding.'' so the States' rights argument is a very 
valid argument.
    I am a very strong proponent of States' rights to the 
extent that the Constitution does not prohibit a power to the 
States.
    Now, if we turn to the second amendment of the 
Constitution, the second amendment is an interesting amendment 
in that, unlike the first amendment to the Constitution, it 
does not explicitly preclude only the Federal Congress from 
acting. The first amendment, as we know, says, ``Congress shall 
make no law respecting an establishment of religion,'' and it 
is widely understood that when the Federal Constitution refers 
to Congress, it is referring to the Federal Congress and not 
the States.
    But when you move to the second amendment of the 
Constitution, there is no explicit discussion of the Federal 
Congress. It says very clearly, quote, ``A well regulated 
militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the 
right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be 
infringed,'' period, unquote.
    Shall not be infringed by whom? Shall not in infringed, 
period. Shall not be infringed by the Federal Congress, shall 
not infringed by the States, period, as opposed to the first 
amendment, which only explicitly refers to the Federal 
Congress.
    And so, while the spirit of George Wallace is well on the 
other side--is alive and well on the other side of the aisle, 
it is important for us to understand that what the Constitution 
says is what it means. And that means that the 10th amendment 
has prohibited, via the second amendment and the supremacy 
clause, the right of the State to infringe on the right of the 
people to keep and bear arms.
    Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Hostettler. Yes.
    Mr. Berman. As I understand the gentleman's argument----
    Mr. Hostettler. It is the Constitution. It is not my 
argument.
    Mr. Berman. But accepting that it is the Constitution, the 
gentleman is contending that the Constitution prohibits the 
States from prohibiting the people from bearing arms. 
Essentially, is that a fair summary?
    Mr. Hostettler. Prohibiting the State from prohibiting the 
people to keep and bear arms.
    Mr. Berman. Why is this then an amendment only about--why 
is this a bill only about peace officers? What about State laws 
on concealed weapons?
    Mr. Hostettler. Reclaiming my time, there is a bill that 
has been introduced that would actually, by way of article 4 of 
the Constitution, full faith and credit, grant individuals 
whose rights have not been restricted by the States, whose 
second amendment rights have not been restricted by the States 
to do this bill.
    I am not saying that this is a perfect bill. I am saying 
this is a good first step. There is legislation that has been 
introduced to apply the full faith and credit clause that once 
again grants Congress the authority to make rules regarding 
judicial proceedings and acts and rules of other States to be 
bound by other States.
    So, reclaiming my time, the States' rights argument is a 
great argument. You will be hearing your words echoed to you in 
future discussion of other areas where we will talk about 
States' rights with regard to violence against women and other 
things.
    Mr. Watt. When? When? When?
    Mr. Hostettler. When it comes to reauthorization. But this 
particular situation, there is legislation that has been 
introduced that says that if a State has not restricted the 
right of the people to keep and bear arms, that the full faith 
and credit clause and the----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
    Mr. Hostettler. And I will get you information on that 
bill.
    Mr. Berman. Does that apply to marriage as well?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Let's not go there.
    The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers. 
Those in favor will say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The ayes appear to have it.
    Mr. Keller. rollcall.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Those in favor of the Conyers 
amendment in the nature of a substitute will, as your name is 
called, answer aye.
    Those opposed, no.
    And the clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde.
    Mr. Hyde. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde, no. Mr. Coble.
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no. Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot.
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Jenkins.
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Bachus.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler.
    Mr. Hostettler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green.
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller.
    Mr. Keller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Ms. Hart.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence.
    Mr. Pence. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, no. Mr. Forbes.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. King.
    Mr. King. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Carter.
    Mr. Carter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Carter, no. Mr. Feeney.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Blackburn.
    Mrs. Blackburn. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Blackburn, no. Mr. Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, yes. Mr. Berman.
    Mr. Berman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman, aye. Mr. Boucher.
    Mr. Boucher. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher, no. Mr. Nadler?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye. Ms. Waters.
    Ms. Waters. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan.
    Mr. Meehan. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan, no. Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Delahunt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, aye. Mr. Wexler.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin.
    Ms. Baldwin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin, aye. Mr. Weiner.
    Mr. Weiner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, no. Mr. Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, no. Ms. Sanchez.
    Ms. Sanchez. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, no. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Chairman Sensenbrenner, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Members in Chamber wish to cast or 
change their votes?
    Gentleman from Florida, Mr. Feeney.
    Mr. Feeney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Forbes.
    Mr. Forbes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members who wish to cast or 
change their votes?
    If not, the clerk will report.
    Gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, Ms. Hart.
    Ms. Hart. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Hart, no.
    Mr. Chairman, there are 11 ayes and 21 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute is not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
    [The amendment offered by Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 218 offered by Ms. Jackson 
Lee:
    Page 7, line 7, strike ``2'' and insert ``4''.
    Page 7, line 12, strike ``2'' and insert ``4''.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes in support of her amendment.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the distinguished Chairman very 
much.
    Let me begin the reasoning for this amendment. It is to 
recognize the differing legislative schedules that many States 
have. This amendment simply changes the number from 2 years to 
4 years. This would be an effective recognition of what I hope 
is an acceptable premise as discussed previously in the 
Constitution that we do believe and appreciate States' rights. 
This has an opportunity to allow State legislatures like the 
State of Texas, that meets every other year, the appropriate 
time to consider either opting out or enacting the legislation.
    Because we have had an in-depth discussion on this matter 
and I believe this amendment has validity, at this time, Mr. 
Chairman, I am going to offer to withdraw the amendment because 
I would like to work further as this legislation moves to the 
floor of the House in order to assure that a reasonable 
consideration of this time frame be accepted, and so I might 
consider 3 years as opposed to 4 years. So I would like to 
engage in this discussion at that point.
    At this point, I will withdraw the amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The amendment is withdrawn.
    Are there further amendments?
    Gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, 
O38.
    [The amendment offered by Mr. Scott follows:]
      
      

  


    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 218 offered by Mr. Scott:
    Page 3, after line 21, insert the following: (e) This 
section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the rules, 
regulations, policies, or practices of any State or local law 
enforcement----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would simply 
protect the ability of the police chief to control what goes on 
with his police officers. The bill apparently allows--as we 
heard during the hearing, the bill supersedes the ability of 
the chief of police to control his own officers. Obviously, it 
limits his ability to see what comes into his jurisdiction.
    If an out-of-towner comes in with a firearm, the bill 
obviously gives him no control over that. But the bill 
apparently supersedes his ability for off-duty police officers 
of his own force. If he should want to decide to prohibit his 
own officers from carrying concealed weapons when they are off 
duty, this bill will override his power over his own police 
officers.
    This amendment would just say that it should not be 
construed to supersede or limit the rules, regulations, 
policies, or practices of any State law enforcement agency so 
that the police chief can say no firearms in bars, no firearms 
when you are off duty, and that would be a decision that the 
police chief could make about his force.
    The bill overrides that. The amendment reinstates the power 
of the police chief over his own police officers. I would hope 
that the Committee would accept the amendment.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina, 
Mr. Coble.
    Mr. Coble. I supported Mr. Scott on his last amendment, but 
I will mildly resist this one.
    As I said before, Mr. Chairman, I don't think anybody is 
going to change their mind today. We are familiar with this 
bill.
    Mr. Scott, let me ask you a question, if I may. Are you 
concerned about the ensuing liability that may rear its head?
    Mr. Scott. Well, the liability is obviously an issue. If 
the police chief decided that he didn't want officers of his 
own force going over, possibly exposing the city to liability, 
that ought to be a decision that the police chief would have, 
if they are not trained in whatnot.
    This bill just includes concealed weapons. It has nothing 
to do with hunting and that kind of thing.
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Coble. I will yield.
    Ms. Lofgren. I think this is an important amendment. 
Thinking back to my many years in local government, there are 
many peace officers that you would not think of as peace 
officers. We have park police, we have transit police, for 
example, we have all the correctional officers in Santa Clara 
County, where I served. There is a huge issue. And some of 
those peace officers actually are not even trained in weapons. 
So there is a liability issue for some segments of peace 
officers that really looms very large to local governments, as 
I recall, and I think to make sure that local governments have 
an opportunity to regulate their own peace officers is an 
important thing in terms of exposure.
    I just thought sharing that personal experience I had for 
14 years in Santa Clara County, the board of supervisors, might 
be helpful.
    Mr. Coble. I thank the lady, and I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the amendment.
    Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Massachusetts, 
Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Delahunt. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Delahunt. I want to pose a question to Mr. Scott or to 
the Chair of the Subcommittee, because I want to be clear.
    There are, obviously, instances where local chiefs of 
police, for disciplinary reasons, will insist that a particular 
officer provide or relinquish, if you will, control of his 
firearm for, again, a variety of disciplinary reasons pending 
an outcome of possibly a grievance or possibly a probationary 
period.
    Does the underlying bill eviscerate, if you will, the 
ability of the local police chief, in fact, to have that 
management prerogative? If the Chairman can respond to that, or 
the Ranking Member?
    Mr. Scott. If the gentleman will yield.
    Mr. Delahunt. I yield.
    Mr. Scott. Page 3, line 11, of the bill defines qualified 
law enforcement officer as one who is not subject to any 
disciplinary action by the agency. But that just raises the 
question of what disciplinary action by the agency means. If he 
just tells the officer, don't carry your gun, that might not 
technically be disciplinary action. It is just that he may not 
want that particular officer that day to carry the weapon. I 
don't know if that would be disciplinary action or not.
    The bill clearly prohibits the chief of police from 
prohibiting his officer going on vacation with a firearm. And 
as the gentlelady from California says, this is not just police 
and sheriff, that is anybody with arresting powers, game and 
fisheries, probation and parole officers, and everybody else.
    Mr. Delahunt. Well, reclaiming my time. I think what will 
potentially occur here, if the amendment is not adopted, we 
will be eviscerating and undermining the management 
prerogatives of local chiefs of police.
    And I presume, and I think I heard the Ranking Member of 
the full Committee indicate, that the International Association 
of Chiefs of Police opposes this bill. I presume that is the 
rationale for their opposition. But clearly we are, I think, 
going down a very dangerous road by undermining the control of 
the chiefs of police and the senior command staff of local 
police departments.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. 
Keller.
    Mr. Keller. Move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Keller. I think the bill already has the language that 
you have to have your police ID with you. So if they were 
subject to some disciplinary activity and they removed their 
badge and their police ID, I think they are already covered.
    If you look at the language of the amendment, it seems well 
meaning and innocuous: This section shall not be construed to 
supersede or limit the rules, regulations, policies, or 
practices of any State or local law enforcement agency. I think 
the intention is pure, and I see what you are trying to do 
there. My concern is that it would be interpreted in an overly 
broad manner to essentially, by a back door, achieve your opt-
out objectives.
    I will give you one example. I think in the Chairman's 
State of Wisconsin, you can't have a concealed weapon permit no 
matter who you are. So I assume the rules, if you look at the 
rule book of some local Wisconsin agency, it probably says we 
will follow the laws of the State of Wisconsin. So if that is 
the case and we cannot supersede the laws of the State of 
Wisconsin, then all of a sudden we, de facto, have an opt-out 
provision here where a police officer cannot go through 
Wisconsin.
    That is something a reasonable judge, interpreting this in 
an overly broad manner, could come to the conclusion of. So for 
that reason, I have to oppose the amendment as written.
    I don't oppose your intention. I think there should be 
control over individual officers, but because it can be 
interpreted overly broad to essentially result in an opt-out 
situation, I would have to oppose the amendment and ask my 
colleagues to oppose it.
    Mr. Delahunt. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Keller. Yes, I will.
    Mr. Delahunt. You are talking about potential 
interpretations. Would you respond to my argument, relative to 
undermining control of a local police department, undermining 
control by the senior command staff and by the chief of police?
    I think what we are doing here is, we are intruding, if you 
will, on the relationship between the senior command staff, the 
chief of police, and the local police personnel. This is--
again, I just think it is a very dangerous precedent we are 
establishing. This goes beyond, I think, anything that was 
raised by the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt, in terms 
of States' rights. This is getting right into the heart and 
soul of the management of a public safety agency.
    Mr. Keller. Yes, I will respond, and thank you.
    If you look at the definition of a qualified law 
enforcement officer, on page 3 of the bill, it talks about the 
officer having to have identification that is required by this 
subsection in the form of photographic identification, 
identified by the Government or agency for which the individual 
is or was employed as a law enforcement officer.
    So, in effect, if you have a situation where a chief of 
police believes that he needs to suspend an officer for some 
untoward conduct, and he asks for his badge and he asks for his 
ID, then that particular officer is no longer a qualified law 
enforcement officer and will not be authorized under this bill 
to carry the concealed weapon in that jurisdiction or across 
State lines.
    Mr. Scott. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Keller. Yes.
    Mr. Scott. The definition of qualified law enforcement 
officer is so broad that it does not really even require the 
carrying of a firearm in the conduct of your normal business. 
If you have statutory powers of arrest, your agency can say, we 
don't want anybody carrying firearms because we don't have any 
training for firearms.
    And yet, under this bill you are still a qualified law 
enforcement officer if you have statutory powers of arrest and 
supervise or anything else. So you can go to another State and 
you are exempt from their concealed weapons laws; is that 
right?
    Mr. Keller. I wouldn't interpret it that way, because it 
specifically says a qualified law enforcement officer is 
someone who is ``not the subject of any disciplinary action by 
the agency.''
    Mr. Scott. That is not disciplinary. Your agency does not 
allow anybody in your agency to carry a firearm because there 
is no firearms training. They are technically a qualified law 
enforcement officer, and that person can carry out of State and 
violate other people's concealed--in fact, can violate the 
local concealed weapons laws; is that right?
    Mr. Keller. That is not my interpretation, no.
    Mr. Scott. Well, that is what the bill says.
    Mr. Keller. Yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the----
    Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from California, 
Ms. Waters.
    Ms. Waters. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to this 
debate, and the gentleman talks about the officers having 
identification, but I don't see anything in this legislation 
for verification of the identification.
    I am not impressed with the fact that someone representing 
themselves as a law enforcement officer has a picture and even 
a badge. How do we know if they really are law enforcement 
officers, and how does the jurisdiction in which this officer 
attempts to enter know and how are they able to verify, do they 
have the means by which to do that, to ensure that this really 
is a law enforcement officer?
    Having said that, raised that question, Mr. Chairman, I 
simply want to say that this bill goes over the top. States' 
rights and sovereignty have been debated here, but I want you 
to know, I come from Los Angeles, where we have a lot of 
experience with police training, the use of force, choke-holds, 
and what to do in a police-involved shooting; where we have 
special roll-out procedures that take place so that we can have 
documentation about what took place, and on and on and on.
    Now, I suspect that there may be some police officers from 
Timbuktu, Mississippi, who could come to Los Angeles and be 
absolutely frustrated, overwhelmed, and lost in a situation 
where they could get involved with a shooting and not know our 
rules, not understand our roll-out procedures. And then, I 
suspect that my city council would be responsible for the 
liability that results because this officer did not follow the 
rules of my jurisdiction.
    I think this preemptive bill is an abuse of power. We can 
sit here at the Federal level and preempt every State in the 
United States on this issue because, I guess, the Republicans 
on the opposite side of the aisle have the power to do that. So 
I don't even want to discuss with you States' rights, which is 
supposed to be the linchpin of Republican philosophy. I just 
want to talk about common sense and good judgment, and I want 
to talk about why would you use your power to preempt all of 
these jurisdictions across the United States when, in fact, you 
are setting up police officers to get in trouble, you are 
setting up jurisdictions to have to be presented with liability 
problems?
    This is unwise, and I think you deserve to do better public 
policy-making than this.
    Ms. Lofgren. Will the gentlewoman yield?
    Ms. Waters. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
    Ms. Lofgren. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
    I have a question, I guess for Mr. Keller. And I understand 
what the attempt is, but I think it needs some refinement.
    ``is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm,'' section 
2, is, I think, meant to prevent what we have expressed concern 
about. This is not a hypothetical, because it is reality in my 
county. We have over a thousand correctional officers that run 
the county jail system. They are authorized to use firearms, 
but they do not actually have them. The firearms are actually 
stored at the facilities. They are trained to use them, the 
firearms, at the correctional facility should an emergency 
occur. They are not authorized to carry firearms at home or off 
duty, nor are they trained to do that. They are trained for the 
correctional system only.
    Would, in your judgment, the authorization outlined in 
section 2 allow the chief of the Corrections Department to 
limit, as has been done in that county and many others, for 
liability reasons, or not?
    Mr. Keller. Well, all I would say to my colleague is, until 
I see your policies and procedures and detailed information 
about what is authorized and what is not authorized, I am in no 
real position to offer a legal opinion. And if I did give a 
legal opinion, I think it would not carry substantial weight on 
your side of the aisle in any event.
    Ms. Lofgren. What is your intention?
    Mr. Keller. What is my intention? My intention is to vote 
``no'' on this amendment because I think it is a back door opt-
out.
    Ms. Lofgren. No, no, no. What is your intention on line 17, 
page 2, item 2?
    Mr. Keller. First of all, you are asking me as if I am the 
author of it.
    Ms. Lofgren. Maybe I should ask Mr. Coble.
    Mr. Keller. Yes.
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Coble, on line 17----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Time of the gentlewoman from 
California, Ms. Waters, has expired.
    Mr. Cannon. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. 
Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. May I just inquire of the Chair if we have any 
idea how many amendments we expect and how long we intend to go 
today in this markup?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair will say that we have to 
get done this bill and the first responders bill. The first 
responders bill, the sequential referral expires on Monday, so 
we must report that bill out today.
    Mr. Cannon. And do we have any idea how many amendments we 
have remaining on this bill?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. We have three amendments left to 
do.
    Mr. Cannon. Thank you. I yield back.
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from California, 
Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Lofgren. I would like to return to the subject I was 
discussing when the gentlelady, Ms. Waters, yielded to me. And 
I guess the question is to Mr. Coble.
    I am looking at the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute. We are not working off of that. Well, then, let me 
just put it to Mr. Coble: the real situation that we have in 
Santa Clara County, where you have an individual that is 
authorized by the agency to carry a firearm.
    In the situation of the Department of Corrections in Santa 
Clara County, the correctional officers are authorized to use 
firearms, the firearms are actually locked at the local jail, 
and they are to be used only in the case of a riot or uprising. 
They are not actually trained to patrol. For liability 
reasons--and this has been a huge issue during negotiations and 
everything else--the officers are not permitted to carry the 
firearms home because they are not trained to carry the 
firearms home. The county is afraid they will get sued and have 
to pay a lot of money.
    So would the authorization in that case, would it include 
the scope of the authorization or not? What is the intention of 
the author?
    Mr. Coble. If the gentlelady would yield.
    Ms. Lofgren. I would yield.
    Mr. Coble. Zoe, I guess the best answer I can give you 
would be on page 3, item 4, which provides that they meet the 
standard, if any, established by the agency which requires the 
employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm.
    Ms. Lofgren. But in this case they have qualified to use 
it, but the scope of use has been limited to only a particular 
place and time.
    So I guess if we agree that the local rules will prevail, 
then you have actually solved the problem. If a court were to 
look at our discussion here and what the intention of the 
author was, perhaps we have solved this.
    Mr. Scott. Would the gentlewoman yield?
    Ms. Lofgren. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
    Mr. Scott. Well, I would say that on page 3, line 13, it 
says ``and meets standards, if any,'' which kind of begs the 
question what ``if any'' means. There may not be any standards 
at all.
    And Leslet us go back to the qualified law enforcement 
officers, which is about anybody who has statutory powers of 
arrest. The agency may decide we are not going to have 
standards, so we are not going to have anybody carrying 
firearms. Although you are technically a law enforcement 
officer, don't carry firearms.
    But what does this bill say? Let's read it. ``not 
withstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any 
political subdivision, an individual who is technically a 
qualified law enforcement officer and is carrying ID, may carry 
a concealed firearm.'' that is what it says.
    Ms. Lofgren. Reclaiming my time, in California, as the 
other Members from California will know, you become a law 
enforcement officer when you are accepted for peace officer 
standards and training training, if you are POST certified. 
That includes weights and measure inspectors, it includes 
zoning administrators. It is very, very broad, and only some of 
those people actually get training. I mean, real cops obviously 
do, but there are a lot of people with POST training who are 
legally police officers, who are qualified under law, but who 
don't ever use a gun--museum guards.
    Mr. Scott. If the gentlelady would yield.
    Ms. Lofgren. I yield.
    Mr. Scott. It says ``meet standards, if any.'' if there are 
no standards, then you don't have to meet any standards, but 
notwithstanding any other provision of law, an individual may 
carry the concealed weapon.
    Ms. Lofgren. Reclaiming my time, I guess the question is, 
is the standard the State standard or could it also be local 
standards?
    I guess what Mr. Coble has said is that it could be local 
standards. And if that is the case, I think the problem is 
solved. So I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. Those in 
favor will say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The noes appear to have it.
    Mr. Scott. Recorded vote, please, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Recorded vote is requested. Those 
in favor of the Scott amendment will, as your names are called, 
answer aye; those opposed, no. And the clerk will call the 
roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde.
    Mr. Hyde. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde, no. Mr. Coble.
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no. Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot.
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Jenkins.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Green.
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller.
    Mr. Keller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Ms. Hart.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence.
    Mr. Pence. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, no. Mr. Forbes.
    Mr. Forbes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King.
    Mr. King. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Carter.
    Mr. Carter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney.
    Mr. Feeney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no. Mrs. Blackburn.
    Mrs. Blackburn. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Blackburn, no. Mr. Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman.
    Mr. Berman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman, aye. Mr. Boucher.
    Mr. Boucher. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher, no. Mr. Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters.
    Ms. Waters. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan.
    Mr. Meehan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan, aye. Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Delahunt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin.
    Ms. Baldwin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin, aye. Mr. Weiner.
    Mr. Weiner. Pass.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner passes. Mr. Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. Pass.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff passes. Ms. Sanchez.
    Ms. Sanchez. Pass.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez passes. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Chairman Sensenbrenner, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there Members in the Chamber 
who wish to cast or change their votes?
    The gentleman from California, Mr. Gallegly.
    Mr. Gallegly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. 
Hostettler.
    Mr. Hostettler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. 
Jenkins.
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. 
Bachus.
    Mr. Bachus. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there further Members in the 
Chamber who wish to cast or change their votes?
    If not--the gentleman from New York Mr. Weiner.
    Mr. Weiner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from California, 
Ms. Sanchez.
    Ms. Sanchez. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, 
Ms. Hart.
    Ms. Hart. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Hart, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 11 ayes and 21 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments? The gentleman from Virginia, 
Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I know we are trying to move right 
along, so I will be very brief on this.
    I have an amendment at the desk, number 33.
    [The amendment offered by Mr. Scott follows:]
      
      

  


    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 218, offered by Mr. Scott. 
Page 4, line 2, strike ``and''. Page 4, line 4, strike the 
first period, the closed quotation marks, and the second 
period.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read and the gentleman from Virginia will be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, this language goes on page 6, 
where it says ``define term''; and where it says ``firearm 
shall not include a machine gun, a silencer, or destructive 
weapon,'' this would add ``semiautomatic assault weapon'' as 
defined in section 921.
    Since we have decided that people, without authority to 
carry firearms, even in their own agency, who may have no 
training, can carry concealed weapons in violation of the local 
ordinances and local agency regulations, we just want to make 
sure that this bill does not allow them to carry military 
assault weapons concealed in violation of local laws and 
regulations.
    I think it is pretty straightforward, and people know what 
we are voting on. I will, therefore, yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina, 
Mr. Coble.
    Mr. Coble. Again, Mr. Chairman, we know where we are going 
on this. I will mildly resist this amendment.
    Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from California, 
Ms. Waters.
    Ms. Waters. Well, I don't know what a mild resistance is. 
Are you opposed to this concealed assault weapons?
    Mr. Coble. Well, do you know what resist is?
    Ms. Waters. No, I don't.
    Mr. Coble. Well, we'll wait for the vote then, I guess. Mr. 
Scott knows.
    Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman and Members, let me just support 
the gentleman's amendment and ask my colleagues to support that 
amendment. It would be outrageous for us not to.
    Mr. Delahunt. Will the gentlewoman yield?
    Ms. Waters. Yes, I yield.
    Mr. Delahunt. My understanding, and I could be incorrect, 
but the definition of a firearm under Federal law includes a 
bomb or a grenade. I would request respectfully if my colleague 
from Virginia--if he would be willing to accept a friendly 
amendment to his amendment which would include a bomb and/or 
grenade.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I think that is under part 3, 
already in the bill, ``a destructive device as defined in 
section 921.'' I think is already included. I think that is the 
bomb section. It is not outlined in the bill, but it is cross-
referenced on line 16.
    Mr. Delahunt. And you are satisfied that that is included, 
or maybe?
    Mr. Scott. Well, I am just aiming at the military assault 
weapons right now.
    Mr. Delahunt. But I need some sort of reassurance that 
either a bomb or a grenade is somehow included within the base 
bill.
    Maybe one of the proponents of the base bill can--I have 
not had an opportunity to read in detail. Mr. Keller, I see you 
standing there. Maybe you can help me.
    Mr. Keller. Well, thank you, Mr. Delahunt. I am looking at 
921, because that wasn't provided, but I can tell you that----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Time belongs to the gentlewoman 
from California.
    Ms. Waters. Who is asking the gentlewoman to yield?
    Mr. Keller. Will the gentlewoman yield?
    Ms. Waters. Yes.
    Mr. Keller. Mr. Delahunt asked me if certain guns are 
included or not, and because section 921 was not passed out 
with this, I am trying to look it up right now. I can tell you 
that there are various semiautomatic weapons that are legal. In 
fact, the common gun carried by a police officer is a 9-
millimeter.
    So I am trying to look at what 921 says. Until I see it, I 
really cannot respond to it.
    Ms. Waters. Reclaiming my time. Anybody else need any time?
    Mr. Delahunt. If the gentlewoman would continue to yield to 
me.
    Ms. Waters. Yes, I yield to Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Delahunt. My question is regarding a bomb or grenade.
    Mr. Carter. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Delahunt. I yield.
    Mr. Carter. I think the definition you are thinking about 
is a deadly weapon definition, not a firearm definition. I 
think a hand grenade and a bomb fall under a deadly weapon 
definition, not a firearm definition.
    Mr. Delahunt. If the gentlewoman would continue to yield.
    Ms. Waters. I continue to yield.
    Mr. Delahunt. I would like to have some reassurances that 
at least once this bill comes out of Committee that we could 
address that issue with some clarity and some certitude so that 
we do not have retired police officers walking around with a 
concealed grenade or bomb, if that would be acceptable to the 
Chair.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Well, it would be acceptable to the 
Chair, but I don't know about some of the people over here.
    Mr. Delahunt. Well, I think I have got my answer.
    Mr. Keller. If you will yield.
    Mr. Delahunt. I yield.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Time belongs to the gentlewoman 
from California.
    Ms. Waters. I will mildly yield.
    Mr. Keller. Thank you. I think it is just kind of a back-
door way of reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, so however 
you feel about that is probably how you feel about this.
    Ms. Waters. On my time, how does the gentleman feel about 
it?
    Mr. Keller. I am not going to reauthorize the assault 
weapons ban.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentlewoman yield back the 
balance of her time?
    Ms. Waters. Unless Mr. Delahunt needs some more time to 
address this. What about Mr. Scott? Mr. Watt? Mr. Conyers?
    If not, then the gentlewoman will yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the Scott 
amendment. Those in favor will say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The noes appear to have it.
    Mr. Scott. Recorded vote, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Recorded vote is requested. Those 
in favor of Scott Amendment No. 33 will, as their names are 
called, answer aye; those opposed, no. And the clerk will call 
the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde.
    Mr. Hyde. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde, no. Mr. Coble.
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no. Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot.
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Jenkins.
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Bachus.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler.
    Mr. Hostettler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green.
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller.
    Mr. Keller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Ms. Hart.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence.
    Mr. Pence. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, no. Mr. Forbes.
    Mr. Forbes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King.
    Mr. King. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Carter.
    Mr. Carter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Carter, no. Mr. Feeney.
    Mr. Feeney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no. Mrs. Blackburn.
    Mrs. Blackburn. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Blackburn, no. Mr. Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman.
    Mr. Berman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman, aye. Mr. Boucher.
    Mr. Boucher. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher, no. Mr. Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters.
    Ms. Waters. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan.
    Mr. Meehan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan, aye. Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Delahunt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, aye. Mr. Wexler.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin.
    Ms. Baldwin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin, aye. Mr. Weiner.
    Mr. Weiner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, aye. Mr. Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye. Ms. Sanchez.
    Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Chairman Sensenbrenner, no.
    Mr. Bachus. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. 
Bachus.
    Mr. Bachus. I would like to be recorded no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members who wish--the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, Ms. Hart.
    Ms. Hart. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Hart, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 13 ayes and 19 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments to the bill?
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, 
the last amendment I have.
    [The amendment offered by Mr. Scott follows:]
      
      


    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman have a number on 
the amendment?
    Mr. Watt. 050.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report amendment 
050.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 218, offered by Mr. Scott of 
Virginia. Page 3----
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I move the reading be waived.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read, and the gentleman from will be recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, insofar as we have just, by the 
defeat of the last amendment, allowed these people who may not 
even be able to carry firearms on duty to be able to carry 
military assault weapons concealed, I would hope that we would 
have national standards since this bill has national 
implications.
    Now, there are different standards in different police 
forces, depending on what they are going to be using their 
weapons for. For example, in New York City, the training in 
using a firearm may include training to how to determine who is 
a police officer and who isn't. That training may not be 
available if the training is just for a police department where 
everybody noesknows each other.
    I would hope that since people are going to be going from 
jurisdiction to jurisdiction nationally, we would have national 
standards. This bill requires the ATF to develop the standards 
so anyone wanting to take advantage of this bill would get ATF-
certified training.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina, 
Mr. Coble.
    Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman, for the record, I am going to be 
real brief about this.
    The gentleman from Virginia and I have had a harmonious 
relationship on the Committee. His smile can be disarming and, 
therefore, sometimes it is tough for me to forcefully resist.
    Now, if my mildly resisting him bothers anybody, so be it. 
But I say to my friend from Virginia, I mildly resist this 
amendment, and yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina, 
Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to hear my friend from 
North Carolina standing up for States' rights finally. He is 
letting the standards be set by the States. Yet if we pass this 
bill of federalizing and preempting all State law--it seems to 
me that if we are going to do that, it makes a lot more sense 
to have a Federal standard for identification of who would be 
qualified to take advantage of it.
    So, I mean, I think this is a mistake. The bill itself is a 
mistake. But if you are going to do it, if you are going to 
federalize this anyway, it seems to me you are going to need 
some Federal standards for compliance.
    So I will yield to my friend from Virginia.
    Mr. Scott. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and point 
out that not only do you need Federal standards, you need some 
standards. Page 3, line 13, requires the qualified law 
enforcement officer to meet standards, if any. So at least this 
amendment would require some standards.
    Mr. Watt. I yield to my friend from Massachusetts. He looks 
like me he needs me to yield.
    Mr. Delahunt. Yes, I would suggest to my colleague from 
North Carolina that this would be permissible under the 
commerce clause.
    Mr. Watt. Well, that is probably about as good an 
explanation of the commerce clause as we have heard earlier.
    I will yield back.
    Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from California, 
Ms. Waters.
    Ms. Waters. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Waters. A few minutes ago I started to talk a bit about 
Los Angeles. And when I talk about Los Angeles, I am really 
talking about the greater Los Angeles area, which includes not 
only the City of Los Angeles but all of those jurisdictions 
around Los Angeles where we have had so many police problems.
    I think in my early days of--when I first met Mr. Conyers 
years ago, Mr. Conyers was heading up the task force of the 
Congressional Black Caucus that dealt with police harassment 
and abuse; and we had had any number of police- involved 
shootings in Los Angeles. Since that time, we have gone through 
an awful lot in that city and the surrounding areas with 
police-involved shootings and there has been a lot of training 
and a lot of development that has occurred, again which helps 
to train police officers so that they know more about when to 
pull a gun, when they are at risk, what to do after a shot is 
fired, what kind of roll-out we have from the police department 
in order to get to the scene very quickly to determine what 
happened.
    This has taken us years to develop. And to think that there 
would be others now who could enter this jurisdiction--again, I 
facetiously alluded to Timbuktu, Mississippi, but what I really 
mean is, there are small jurisdictions where police officers 
and others who are not police officers, who are museum guards 
and other kinds of so-called police personnel who would qualify 
to come into our jurisdiction carrying a weapon and certainly 
could get involved in a shooting, in a killing, without the 
benefit of the training that we have so rigorously developed in 
that area.
    So, again, I am at a loss to understand, first of all, why 
we are doing this. But then to be so reckless in the way that 
it is done, that would disregard all of the training and 
development that many of these jurisdictions have had to go 
through. I mean, there are some police chiefs and others who 
have worked very, very hard to get rid of the stigma of abusive 
police, and to put them back into a position where, now, all of 
this could be undermined is beyond my comprehension.
    So I would ask my colleagues to seriously--if you are 
supporting this unwise preemptive legislation, at least require 
some training and some standards. That is the least that you 
can do.
    I know that many people are concerned in an election year 
about police and whether or not they will be considered as 
supportive of police or whether or not they will fall in the 
column of law and order or not law and order. But give me a 
break. I think even the police are divided on this issue. So 
you have someone to fall back on to say that not all police 
organizations support this unwise preemptive legislation of 
people who would be coming into jurisdictions, untrained, with 
no standards.
    You don't have to be afraid. If you can't stand up for 
that, you can't stand up for anything.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the Scott 
amendment. Those in favor will say aye.
    Those opposed, no.
    The noes appear to have it. The noes have it, and the Scott 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. Scott. A recorded vote, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia asks 
for a recorded vote.
    Those in favor of Scott amendment 050 will, as your names 
are called, answered aye; those opposed, no. And the clerk will 
call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde.
    Mr. Hyde. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde, no. Mr. Coble.
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no. Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot.
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Jenkins.
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Bachus.
    Mr. Bachus. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus, no. Mr. Hostettler.
    Mr. Hostettler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green.
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller.
    Mr. Keller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Ms. Hart.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake.
    Mr. Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Pence.
    Mr. Pence. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, no. Mr. Forbes.
    Mr. Forbes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King.
    Mr. King. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Carter.
    Mr. Carter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Carter, no. Mr. Feeney.
    Mr. Feeney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no. Mrs. Blackburn.
    Mrs. Blackburn. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Blackburn, no. Mr. Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman.
    Mr. Berman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman, aye. Mr. Boucher.
    Mr. Boucher. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher, no. Mr. Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. Pass.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt passes. Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye. Ms. Waters.
    Ms. Waters. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan.
    Mr. Meehan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan, aye. Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Delahunt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, aye. Mr. Wexler.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin.
    Ms. Baldwin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin, aye. Mr. Weiner.
    Mr. Weiner. Pass.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner passes. Mr. Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, no. Ms. Sanchez.
    Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Chairman Sensenbrenner, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there Members in the Chamber 
who wish to cast or change their vote?
    The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, Ms. Hart.
    Ms. Hart. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Hart, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina, 
Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Weiner.
    Mr. Weiner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members in the Chamber who 
wish to cast or change their votes?
    If not, the Clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 13 ayes and 21 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments?
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina, 
Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word on 
the bill.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Before doing that, let me say that the House is in recess 
now. There are four recorded votes that are scheduled for 1:00 
p.m. It is the Chair's intention to go through until 1:00 p.m. 
We have to get the first responders bill out because the 
sequential referral expires on Monday. And if we are not 
finished with the first responders by 1:00 p.m., then we will 
have to come back this afternoon.
    The gentleman from North Carolina.
    Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won't take the entire 
5 minutes, but I wanted just to make a couple of comments about 
the bill, because I feel strongly that we are making a serious 
mistake by passing this bill.
    For the last 5 or 6 years, my local law enforcement and 
State law enforcement representatives have come to visit me to 
lobby me. These are people who have--some people on this 
Committee might find this surprising--given me awards for 
support of the police because I have consistently supported 
trying to find resources for them and trying to support their 
efforts to make our neighborhoods and communities more safe. 
And on each occasion the one issue on which they have lobbied 
me and I have not been able to support them is this issue. So I 
have had a lot of discussions with them over the years about 
it.
    I think we are making a serious mistake constitutionally, 
first, because I think there is no way to reconcile what we are 
doing today with the constitutional separation of powers and 
the Federal system that we are operating in. But I also think 
that even if it were constitutional, we are doing it in a way 
that is very irresponsible, as has been pointed out by all of 
the proposed amendments which have been voted down.
    There are some very practical considerations here, and I 
don't think we are giving anywhere near the kind of serious 
considerations to those practical conversations that we should 
be giving to them. Ms. Waters has raised very practical 
considerations. In a number of the cities in my congressional 
district, the larger cities, the standards of police training 
are so much more rigorous than some of the more rural areas in 
my congressional district that I just think it would be a 
disaster for somebody from a rural area to come into one of 
those cities armed with a gun and assume that all of a sudden 
they become a member of the Charlotte police force and are 
authorized to do anything that they think is appropriate as a 
police officer.
    The Charlotte police force has gone through a number of 
different experiences with firearms use by police officers that 
have led them to have much, much more rigorous standards in an 
urban context than the standards that are applicable in 
suburban or rural context. And this bill just invites problems 
of the kind that have been identified by Ms. Waters, the kind 
that have been identified by Ms. Lofgren, and a number of 
amendments.
    So, as a practical matter, even if we did not have the 
constitutional constraints, which I think is more our 
obligation as a Judiciary Committee to give honor to than to 
anybody else in Congress. Even if we did not have those 
constitutional constraints, I would think that this was a 
terrible policy substantive idea, and I can't say that any more 
vigorously than I have said it.
    I wanted just to get that on the record, and I will yield 
back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired. A 
reporting quorum is present. The question occurs on the motion 
to report the bill H.R. 218 favorably, as amended. Those in 
favor will say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it.
    Mr. Watt. I ask for a recorded vote.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. A rollcall vote is requested. Those 
in favor of reporting H.R. 218 favorably, as amended, will, as 
your names are called, answer aye; those opposed, no. And the 
clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde.
    Mr. Hyde. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde, aye. Mr. Coble.
    Mr. Coble. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, aye. Mr. Smith.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot.
    Mr. Chabot. Pass.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot passes. Mr. Jenkins.
    Mr. Jenkins. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, aye. Mr. Cannon.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus.
    Mr. Bachus. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus, aye. Mr. Hostettler.
    Mr. Hostettler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, aye. Mr. Green.
    Mr. Green. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, aye. Mr. Keller.
    Mr. Keller. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, aye. Ms. Hart.
    Ms. Hart. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Hart, aye. Mr. Flake.
    Mr. Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Pence.
    Mr. Pence. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, aye. Mr. Forbes.
    Mr. Forbes. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, aye. Mr. King.
    Mr. King. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, aye. Mr. Carter.
    Mr. Carter. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Carter, aye. Mr. Feeney.
    Mr. Feeney. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, aye. Mrs. Blackburn.
    Mrs. Blackburn. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Blackburn, aye. Mr. Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, no. Mr. Berman.
    Mr. Berman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman, no. Mr. Boucher.
    Mr. Boucher. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher, aye. Mr. Nadler.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, no. Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Pass.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren passes. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye. Ms. Waters.
    Ms. Waters. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, no. Mr. Meehan.
    Mr. Meehan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan, aye. Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Delahunt. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, no. Mr. Wexler.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin.
    Ms. Baldwin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin, aye. Mr. Weiner.
    Mr. Weiner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, aye. Mr. Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye. Ms. Sanchez.
    Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Chairman Sensenbrenner, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Members who wish to cast or change 
their vote? The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I vote aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot
    Mr. Chabot. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentlewoman from California, Ms. 
Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members who wish to cast or 
change their votes?
    If not, the Clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 23 ayes and 9 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the motion to report favorably 
is agreed to.
    Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to move to go 
to conference pursuant to House rules. Without objection, the 
staff is directed to make any technical or conforming changes. 
All Members will be given 2 days, as provided by House rules, 
in which to submit additional dissenting, supplemental, or 
minority views.
    Without objection, the bill will be reported favorably to 
the House in the form of a single amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, incorporating the amendments adopted here today.
                            Dissenting Views

    ``The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the 
Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to 
remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. 
The former will be exercised principally on external objects, 
as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which 
last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be 
connected. The powers reserved to the several States will 
extend to all the 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.'' Madison, Federalist Paper #45
    In exercising its authority to keep internal order, a State 
has traditionally controlled who within its borders may carry 
concealed weapons and when law enforcement officers may carry 
firearms. This legislation undermines that 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 allows an individual State to decide 
whether or not it wishes to allow out-of-State officers to 
carry a concealed weapon within that State's borders. Current 
law allows active, but not retired, Federal law enforcement 
officers to carry a concealed weapon anywhere within the 
jurisdiction of the United States. Current law does not require 
that the States allow active and retired State and local law 
enforcement officers to carry a concealed weapon without the 
permission of each specific State. H.R. 218 would override 
State ``right to carry'' laws and mandate that retired and 
active police officers could carry a concealed weapon anywhere 
within the United States.
    This legislation would disregard the judgment of State 
authorities on what many believe is an important public safety 
issue. Although we understand approximately 33 States do 
specifically allow individuals to carry concealed weapons, that 
leaves approximately 17 other States that do not. Additionally, 
we understand that at least 6 States and the District of 
Columbia currently forbid officers from other States to carry 
concealed weapons; 31 States restrict carrying a concealed 
weapon to an officer on-duty and 9 States allow an out-of-State 
officer to carry a concealed weapon. H.R. 218 would supersede 
the laws of those States and allow current and retired law 
enforcement officers from anywhere in the United States to 
carry a concealed firearm in those States, regardless of State 
law. Such a measure is an affront to State sovereignty and the 
Constitution, which we cannot support.
    The International Association of Chiefs of Police in its 
testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security on June 15, 2004, testified 
that authorities for police officers to carry firearms when 
off-duty, use-of-force policies, and firearms training 
standards vary significantly from State to State. This 
variation in training has the potential to create a deadly 
situation for both law enforcement and citizens if this 
legislation becomes law.
    Several organizations and several Members of Congress have 
expressed concern over who will bear the responsibility and 
thus, the liability, for officers who carry concealed weapons 
outside their jurisdiction and choose to use those weapons. It 
is unclear who will be asked to bear the liability of an 
individual performing law enforcement duties outside his 
jurisdiction; however, there is a good chance that a law 
enforcement agency that authorizes its officers to carry a 
concealed weapon off-duty out-of-State could be held 
responsible. This should concern Members of Congress because we 
are asking our home States to bear the responsibility for a law 
we pass and in which they have no say.
    The definition of law enforcement officer in this 
legislation is also cause for concern. Several Members and two 
witnesses at the hearing on this legislation also raised this 
issue. Generally, we think of a law enforcement officer as 
someone who is actively engaged in making arrests; however, 
this legislation uses and expanded definition which includes 
those who ``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.'' This broad definition could encompass different 
individuals in different States including probation and parole 
officers and jail or prison guards. These officers, while 
performing an admirable service, will not necessarily have the 
experience of the beat police officer, yet, this legislation 
insists we allow them the same authority to carry concealed 
weapons anywhere in the country.
    We believe the issues at hand could be addressed by the 
States in an appropriate manner through the use of reciprocity 
agreements, many of which already exist. Such an approach would 
allow an individual State 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 or undermine 
public safety.

                                   F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.
                                   Jeff Flake.
                      Additional Dissenting Views

    While we strongly agree with the dissenting views submitted 
by Chairman Sensenbrenner (except for the implication that the 
Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual 
right to keep and bear arms), we offer this additional set of 
dissenting views to expand upon the many flaws inherent in H.R. 
218, the ``Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act.''
    This legislation is a serious step in the wrong direction. 
It will undermine the safety of our communities and the safety 
of police officers by broadly overriding State and local gun-
safety laws. It will also nullify the ability of police 
departments to enforce rules and policies on when and how their 
own officers can carry firearms. Because of the substantial 
danger that H.R. 218 poses to police officers and communities, 
it is vigorously opposed by the International Association of 
Chiefs of Police, the Police Executive Research Forum, and the 
U.S. Conference of Mayors.

 A. H.R. 218'S SWEEPING OVERRIDE OF STATE AND LOCAL GUN SAFETY LAWS IS 
                     UNPRECEDENTED AND UNWARRANTED.

    There is no precedent for what the supporters of H.R. 218 
intend to accomplish. Congress has never passed a law giving 
current and former State and local employees the right to carry 
weapons in violation of controlling State and local laws. 
Congress has never passed a law interfering with the ability of 
State and local police chiefs to regulate their own officers' 
carrying of firearms.
    Every year, thousands of our fellow citizens are killed by 
guns. The rate of firearm deaths among children is nearly 
twelve times higher in the United States than in other 
industrial countries. These deaths are senseless, and we all 
know that the vast majority of them could be prevented by 
sensible gun laws. It is shameful that we are not doing more in 
Congress to achieve gun safety and reduce gun violence. The 
``gun show loophole,'' which allows firearms to be purchased 
illegally at gun shows, should have been closed long ago, and 
there are many other steps that Congress should take to protect 
our citizens from the scourge of gun violence.
    At the very least, Congress should refrain from interfering 
with gun-safety laws enacted by States and local governments. 
Today, each State has the authority to decide what kind of 
concealed-carry law, if any, best fits the needs of its 
communities. Each State can make its own judgment about whether 
private citizens should be allowed to carry concealed weapons, 
and whether on-duty, off-duty, or retired police officers 
should be included or exempted in any prohibition.
    There is no evidence that States or local governments have 
failed to consider the interests and needs of law enforcement 
officers. Consider, for example, New Jersey law. In 1995, 
retired police chief John Deventer was shot and killed while 
heroically trying to stop a robbery. This incident prompted New 
Jersey to enact a law allowing retired officers to carry 
handguns under a number of conditions. In drafting this law, 
the New Jersey legislature made a deliberate effort to balance 
the safety of police officers with the safety of the public at 
large, by including a number of important safeguards that are 
not contained in H.R. 218. For example:

         New Jersey's law is limited to handguns. H.R. 
        218 is not.

         New Jersey's law has a maximum age--70. H.R. 
        218 does not.

         Under New Jersey's law, retired police 
        officers must file renewal applications yearly. There 
        is no application process under H.R. 218.

         New Jersey's law requires retirees to list 
        all their guns. No such record is required under H.R. 
        218.

         New Jersey gives police departments 
        discretion to deny permits to retirees. No such 
        discretion is provided under H.R. 218.

By enacting H.R. 218, Congress will be gutting all of the 
safeguards contained in the New Jersey statute--as well as the 
judgment of other States that have considered this issue.
    The sponsors of H.R. 218 have presented no evidence that 
States and local governments are unable or unwilling to decide 
these important issues for themselves. They have offered no 
explanation why Congress is better suited than States, cities, 
and towns to decide how to best protect police officers, 
schoolchildren, church-goers, and other members of their 
communities. Congress should bolster, not undermine, the 
efforts of States and local governments to protect their 
citizens from gun violence.
    H.R. 218 will override most ``safe harbor'' laws at the 
State level. It will override laws that categorically prohibit 
guns in churches and other houses of worship, since only laws 
that permit private entities to post signs prohibiting 
concealed firearms on their property will remain in force. In 
most States, churches are not currently required to post signs 
in order to have a gun-free zone. H.R. 218 will also override 
laws that prohibit concealed weapons in places where alcohol is 
served. Surely, it is reasonable for a State to prohibit people 
from bringing guns into bars, to prevent the extreme danger 
that results when liquor and firearms are together.
    At the local level, H.R. 218 inexplicably overrides all 
gun-safety laws, without exception. In the 1990's, Boston, New 
York, and other cities made great strides in the fight against 
crime precisely because they were able to pass laws that 
addressed the factors that lead to violence--including the 
prevalence of firearms in inner cities. As Congressman Henry 
Hyde has said, ``the best decisions on fighting crime are made 
at the local level.'' By overriding all local gun-safety laws, 
H.R. 218 will undermine the ability of cities to fight crime. 
The bill will indiscriminately abrogate ``safe harbor'' laws in 
Boston, New York City, Cincinnati, Columbus, Chicago, Kansas 
City, and many other cities and towns.

B. H.R. 218 WILL UNDERMINE THE SAFETY OF OUR COMMUNITIES AND THE SAFETY 
                          OF POLICE OFFICERS.

    Some argue that H.R. 218 is needed because the ``complex 
patchwork of Federal, State and local'' concealed-carry laws 
prevents officers from protecting themselves and their families 
from ``vindictive'' criminals. Supporters of this bill have 
distributed two lists of officers and prison guards who were 
killed while off-duty or in retirement. The stories of these 
slain men and women are tragic, and their killers deserve to be 
severely punished. But none of these incidents involved 
officers who were killed outside their home State. They do not 
demonstrate a need for a Federal override of State and local 
gun-safety laws. To the contrary, as New Jersey's response to 
the tragic shooting of Chief Deventer shows, States and local 
governments are best equipped to implement polices, 
regulations, and laws that protect the safety of their own law 
enforcement officers, and also protect the public at large.
    The supporters of H.R. 218 also argue that by authorizing 
officers to carry guns across State lines, in violation of 
whatever State and local gun-safety laws would otherwise apply, 
they will be able to effectively respond to crimes and 
terrorist attacks. As the majority argues, the bill will enable 
``law enforcement officers nationwide to be armed and prepared 
when they answer that call, no matter where, when, or in what 
form it comes.'' The Committee apparently envisages a nation-
wide unregulated police force, consisting of retired officers 
and off-duty officers who are armed while on vacation or 
traveling outside their home jurisdictions.
    This bill is no way for the Federal Government to support 
State and local law enforcement. Congress should be providing 
full funding for first responders employed by State and local 
governments; communications gear and other law enforcement 
technology; and specific assistance programs such as the COPS 
Universal Hiring Program, the Byrne Grant program, and the 
Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program. Congress should also 
enact needed gun-safety measures to protect the safety and 
security of all Americans. We should strengthen Brady Law 
criminal background checks for gun purchases, close the ``gun 
show loophole,'' reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and amend 
Federal law to ensure that all ``cop killer'' bullets are 
banned.
    H.R. 218 stands in stark contract to such needed gun-safety 
legislation. Allowing off-duty or retired officers with 
concealed weapons to go into other jurisdictions will only make 
conditions more dangerous for police officers and civilians. As 
the Executive Director of the IACP explained in a letter dated 
February 12, 2003:

          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 
        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.

    H.R. 218 neither promotes consistent training policies 
among different police jurisdictions nor limits the conditions 
under which officers may use their firearms. The idea that more 
crimes will be prevented when more concealed weapons are 
carried by untrained and unregulated out-of-State, off-duty, 
and retired officers is pure fiction.
    However, we do know that it will expose many officers to 
increased risks and danger. In a June 15, 2004, hearing before 
the Crime Subcommittee, Rep. Scott submitted for the record 
dozens of reports on instances where, even in the same 
jurisdiction, off-duty, plain clothes law enforcement officers 
have shot other off-duty officers , or gotten shot by them or 
uniform officers, in gun battles where the plain clothes 
officers were mistaken as criminals. If off-duty officers in 
the same jurisdiction who engage themselves in law enforcement 
activities 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 this problem.
    It is important to note that in giving off-duty and retired 
police officers broad authority to nullify State and local gun-
safety laws, H.R. 218 is not limited to the carrying of 
officers' authorized weapons. In most police departments, 
officers may seek authorization to carry a range of weapons. If 
an officer wants to carry a weapon other than his service 
weapon (typically, a nine-millimeter semi-automatic pistol), he 
must prove that he is qualified before the department will 
authorize him to carry it. To become qualified, the officer 
must demonstrate that he can handle that weapon safely.
    Rather than limiting its provisions to authorized weapons, 
the initial version of this bill provided that as long as an 
officer received authorization to carry a particular kind of 
firearm (such as his service weapon), he could carry concealed 
any other kind of firearm while off-duty or retired--even if he 
never received authorization from his own police department to 
carry that other weapon. Because the term ``firearm'' is 
defined very broadly under Federal law, see 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 921(a)(3), as long as an officer was authorized to use his 
service weapon on the job, the initial version of this bill 
would have allowed him to carry a concealed bomb or grenade 
while off-duty or in retirement.
    Serious safety problems are also raised by the bill's 
override of gun-safety laws for retired officers, a category 
that is defined to include anyone who has served in a law 
enforcement capacity for fifteen years ``in the aggregate'' 
before retiring or resigning and taking a different job. There 
is no requirement under H.R. 218 that a retiree demonstrate a 
special need for a firearm. While H.R. 218 provides that an 
officer must have technically left law enforcement in ``good 
standing,'' it is well known that sub-par government employees 
are routinely released from their positions without a formal 
finding of misconduct. The bill does not draw a distinction 
between officers who served ably and those who did not. 
Officers who retire in ``good standing'' while under 
investigation for domestic violence, racial profiling, 
excessive force, or substance abuse could still qualify for 
broad concealed-carry authority for the remainder of their 
lives. As the International Association of Chiefs of Police has 
observed:

          This 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.

           C. H.R. 218 WILL UNDERMINE DISCIPLINE AND CONTROL 
                       WITHIN POLICE DEPARTMENTS.

    Perhaps the most troubling aspect of H.R. 218 is its 
potential to undermine the effective and safe functioning of 
police departments throughout the nation. The bill removes the 
ability of police departments to enforce rules and policies on 
when and how their own officers can carry firearms. Police 
chiefs will lose the authority to prohibit their own officers 
from carrying certain weapons on-duty or off-duty.
    Section 2 of the bill provides that regardless of ``any 
other provision of the law of any State or any political 
subdivision thereof,'' any individual who qualifies as a law 
enforcement officer and who carries photo identification will 
be authorized to carry any firearm. In a variety of contexts, 
including the Federal preemption of State law, courts have 
interpreted the term ``law'' to include agency rules and 
regulations. The Supreme Court has ruled that this term 
specifically includes contractual obligations between employers 
and employees, such as work rules, policies, and practices 
promulgated by State and local police departments. See Norfolk 
& Western Ry. Co. v. Am. Train Dispatchers' Assoc., 499 U.S. 
117 (1991).
    As discussed in Section B, above, there is no requirement 
in H.R. 218 that active-duty officers be authorized to carry 
each firearm that they wish to carry concealed. All that 
subsection (c)(2) requires is that an officer be authorized to 
carry ``a firearm.'' Pursuant to subsection (c)(4), the officer 
need only satisfy the agency's standards with respect to ``a 
firearm.'' In other words, once an officer qualifies to carry a 
service weapon, he will have the right under this bill to carry 
any gun, on-duty or off-duty--even if doing so violates his own 
police department's rules.
    Thus, if Congress enacts this legislation, police chiefs 
will be stripped of their authority to tell their own officers, 
for example, that they cannot bring guns into bars while off-
duty; that they cannot carry their service weapons on vacation; 
or that they cannot carry certain shotguns, rifles, or handguns 
on the job.
    As the International Association of Chiefs of Police stated 
in a letter to the Committee, ``under the provisions of H.R. 
218, police chiefs and local governments would lose the 
authority to regulate what type of firearms the officers they 
employ can carry even while they are on duty.''

          As a result, the legislation would effectively 
        eliminate the ability of a police department to 
        establish rules restricting the ability of officers to 
        carry only department-authorized firearms while on 
        duty. The prospect of officers carrying unauthorized 
        firearms while on duty is very troubling to the IACP 
        for several reasons.
          First, an unauthorized weapon is unlikely to meet 
        departmental standards. This in turn means that the 
        officer will not have received approved departmental 
        training in its use, and will not have qualified with 
        the weapon under departmental regulations. Carrying an 
        unauthorized weapon thus presents a risk of injury to 
        the officer, fellow officers, and citizens, for the 
        weapon itself may be unsafe or otherwise unsuitable for 
        police use, and the officer may not be sufficiently 
        proficient with its use to avoid adverse consequences.
          In addition to the risk of injury involved, the 
        carrying of unauthorized weapons is a major source of 
        police civil liability in the U.S. today. An officer 
        who fires an unauthorized weapon in the line of duty 
        risks civil liability for the officer and for the 
        department, even though the shooting may have been 
        otherwise legally justified. A number of civil-suit 
        plaintiffs have contended that the mere fact that the 
        weapon that caused the plaintiff's injury was 
        unauthorized is, in itself, sufficient legal grounds 
        for a finding of liability.

For these and other reasons, the IACP concluded that H.R. 218 
``has the potential to significantly and negatively impact the 
safety of our communities and our officers.''
    Law enforcement executives face extremely difficult 
challenges today. As crime rates have started to rise again and 
new concerns about domestic security have emerged, police 
chiefs are forced to do more with less. The weak economy has 
forced cities and States to cut back on funding for law 
enforcement. The Administration's budget proposes to eliminate 
all Federal funding for such critical programs as the COPS 
Universal Hiring Program, the Byrne Grant program, and the 
Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program. The last thing 
Congress should do now is pass a bill that expands the civil 
liability of police departments and nullifies the ability of 
police chiefs to regulate their own officers' use of firearms 
and to maintain discipline.

                             D. CONCLUSION

    To address many of the aforementioned deficiencies, during 
the Committee's markup of H.R. 218 we offered a series of 
amendments. Among other things, our amendments would have 
provided the States with a 2-year time period to ``opt out'' of 
the bill's coverage; prevented H.R. 218 from preempting the 
rules, regulations and policies of local police departments; 
and placed limits on the ability of officers to carry weapons 
that they hadn't been properly trained to use--namely, semi-
automatic assault weapons. Unfortunately, many of our 
colleagues were unwilling to adopt these modest proposals.
    Each State and local government should be allowed to make 
its own judgment as to when citizens and out-of-State visitors 
may carry concealed weapons--and whether active or retired law 
enforcement officers should be included in or exempted from any 
prohibition. In the words of the International Association of 
Chiefs of Police, it is ``essential that State and local 
governments maintain the ability to legislate concealed carry 
laws that best fit the needs of their communities.''
    H.R. 218 will unnecessarily damage the efforts of States 
and local governments to protect their citizens from gun 
violence. It will also expose State and local governments to 
unnecessary liability and nullify the ability of police chiefs 
to maintain discipline and control within their own 
departments. For these reasons, we respectfully dissent.

                                   John Conyers, Jr.
                                   Howard L. Berman.
                                   Robert C. Scott.
                                   Melvin L. Watt.
                                   Maxine Waters.
                                   William D. Delahunt.

                                  
