Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I begin today with a story. Once upon a time in Congress, House Republicans put forward their top agenda, a package of bills so crucial, so urgent, that teeing them up for consideration was one of the very first things we did on the floor of this Congress-- after, of course, Kevin McCarthy's 15 votes for Speaker.

Tucked into this package was a little bill about supporting the police, H. Con. Res. 5, a simple, nonbinding resolution, really, that didn't do much. It was purely symbolic, but it did express support for our Nation's police, all of our Nation's police.

But something mysterious happened, Mr. Speaker, and I hope you will join me in trying to solve that mystery today.

Instead of bringing their bill up right away, Republicans waited, and they waited, and they waited. They waited until this week, and they brought up a bill, but something changed. See, in the original bill, the language read that Congress expresses support for the Nation's law enforcement agencies.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, ``Nation's,'' ``Nation's.'' It was about all of our police. In their new bill, the one that we are considering today, they only express support for local enforcement officers.

Here is the new bill, Mr. Speaker. We see the word ``local,'' ``local''--nothing about our Nation's law enforcement officers, just ``local.'' Huh. That is weird. What a strange change.

It is National Police Week, but they took out all of our national police agencies. Democrats searched and searched and searched for a reason. We looked high and low in the Rules Committee, but we couldn't find an answer.

Not a single person, not one Republican, Mr. Speaker, has been able to articulate to us who made that change, when it was made, or, most importantly, why it was made.

No one was able to explain to us why Republicans edited their bill from saying ``any efforts to defund or dismantle law enforcement agencies'' to any ``efforts to defund or dismantle local law enforcement agencies.''

Here is the important thing, and call it the moral of the story, if you will. The change was not without consequence because what the GOP did was cut out every officer at the FBI, ATF, CBP, U.S. Marshals Service, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Federal Protective Service, and Secret Service. They cut out every officer at the United States Capitol Police. They cut out the police who are standing outside these Chamber doors right now, keeping us safe. They cut out all the police who rushed to this building to keep all of my GOP friends safe on January 6, 2021.

Apparently, our Republican colleagues think National Police Week shouldn't include our national police.

I wish I could say that this was an unsolved mystery, I really do, but the answer is obvious, Mr. Speaker. The new Republican position is that they only support some police.

The new Republican position as of 2 weeks ago is that they want to defund police. They voted to cut COPS grants, fire 400 local police officers, defund the FBI, and cut grant funding for State and local law enforcement agencies.

The new Republican position, as put forward by their frontrunner for President, is that we ought to pardon the convicted criminals, white supremacists, and neo-Nazis who beat cops, crushed them in doors, and hit them with fire extinguishers on January 6.

The new Republican position is to give George Santos due process before he is kicked out but to deport legal immigrants who haven't even been charged with a crime.

Here is what I see today, Mr. Speaker. It seems like Republicans back the blue until they realize that laws apply to them, too.

That gets me to my final point because an important change is happening here today, and I want law enforcement officers across this country to take note. I know many of them are watching because it is police week, National Police Week, and here is what I want them to know: Democrats want to keep communities safe.

Democrats want to address gun violence in our schools, an issue I hear from police officers about all the time.

Democrats want to invest in programs that keep our communities safe, programs that get to the root causes of crime.

Democrats want to make sure police aren't put in situations they aren't trained to handle.

Democrats have passed bills that protect our communities and support our police, bills to help cops with PTSD and to invest in small police departments.

Republicans want to wrap their arms around the police while they cut funding.

Make sure we don't forget this, Mr. Speaker: 21 Republicans voted against awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to the Capitol Police-- 21.

Republicans changed their bill to deliberately exclude America's national police agencies from National Police Week, which dishonors and disrespects the Capitol Police officers who protect our Capitol Building.

Republicans are using our law enforcement officers like political pawns. They are putting politics over public safety.

It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that my Republican friends have lost their way on law enforcement today, and it is clear who is in charge. It is not Speaker McCarthy. It is the most extreme of the extreme, and once again, the American people lose.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota if she could respond to a question that we couldn't get an answer to in the Rules Committee last night as to why Republicans did not bring up their original bill, H. Con. Res. 5, the one that they made in order with their opening day rules package.

I don't know whether she can explain it to me. I am happy to yield her some time to do that. The silence is deafening, Mr. Speaker, because the question that we asked in the Rules Committee last night that nobody could answer is, in their original bill we honored our entire Nation's law enforcement, including the Capitol Police, who protected us on January 6. However, the bill they bring up today changed all that and basically narrowed it down to local police but took out any recognition of our Capitol Police or any of our Federal law enforcement officers.

The gentlewoman will not answer the question. Nobody in the Rules Committee would answer the question.

To the gentleman from Pennsylvania who just spoke, who was talking about defunding the police, I will tell you, when I was the chairman of the Rules Committee, we didn't bring any resolutions to the floor to defund the police.

Two weeks ago, my Republican friends voted to cut money for local law enforcement and for our Federal law enforcement agencies. They are the ones who voted to defund the police. Just don't believe me; you can Google it. Check it out. Two weeks ago, their bill that they brought to the floor will cut law enforcement agencies.

Give me a break, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the idea that my Republican friends made a conscious decision to remove the Capitol Police from a resolution honoring our Nation's police is beyond the pale.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter from the Department of Justice regarding the cuts proposed within the Republicans' debt limit bill.

My Republican friends are actively cutting funding from Federal law enforcement that work to protect us every day. Their plan would also cut funding for nearly 400 local law enforcement positions. I mean, Republicans cannot be serious about supporting law enforcement when they are actively using their majority to defund them.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Indiana began her remarks by talking about National Police Week, but the resolution doesn't honor our national police. The Republicans made a conscious decision to remove the Capitol Police, FBI, ATF, CBP, U.S. Marshals Service, Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Federal Protective Service, and the Secret Service. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Indiana to help me understand why the Republicans changed the wording of their resolution. I am happy to yield her any time.

Mr. Speaker, again, the gentlewoman from Minnesota says we are playing word games. No, we are not. The only people playing word games are my Republican friends. They introduced a bill that honored all of our police, and then they changed it. They made a conscious decision to change it because I think they are afraid of the extreme of the extreme of their base that somehow don't want to admit that anything bad happened here on January 6, and they are afraid if they honor the Capitol Police that somehow their extreme base would be offended. That is just sick, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule for consideration of a resolution which states that it is the House's responsibility to protect and preserve Social Security and Medicare for future generations and reject any cuts to these essential programs.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, Social Security and Medicare are vital to many of our constituents' economic health security, and yet many of my Republican friends across the aisle have called for major cuts to these critical programs. Once again, I am offering my friends the opportunity to reassure the American people, not just with rhetoric but with their votes, that they will not cut these vital programs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just say to the gentleman, again, the only people who in this Chamber voted to defund the police are my Republican friends. Two weeks ago, you all voted for a bill to cut money for local law enforcement, every one of you.

Let's talk about the police that you are not honoring here today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a CNN story about two FBI agents who were shot and killed last week, and yet they have been taken off the list of law enforcement officials that we are honoring.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the names of the law enforcement officers who died as a result of the Capitol riots: U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, U.S. Capitol Police Officer Howard Liebengood, D.C. Police Officer Jeffrey Smith, D.C. Police Officer Gunther Hashida, D.C. Police Officer Kyle DeFreytag.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to also include in the Record a CNN story about the 21 Republicans who voted ``no'' on a bill to award Congressional Gold Medals for the January 6 police officers.

Mr. Speaker, again, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New York whatever time he needs, but I guess he left the floor. I would like somebody to explain to me why Republicans decided to change the wording of the bill that they introduced at the opening day session of Congress to exclude all of our Federal

police officers and exclude our Capitol Police.

I don't quite understand why they did that except I think they are afraid of their base, the extreme element of their base who basically do not want to honor them. I find that really disturbing.

Again, talking about defunding the police, the only people in this Chamber who voted to cut money for the police are on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman who just spoke neglected to say is he only wants to honor some of our police officers. They made a conscious decision to, quite frankly, remove our national police, our Capitol Police, from the resolution that they were originally included in.

He said don't believe us. Well, the words are here. This is their original bill: ``H. Con. Res. 5, Expressing support for the Nation's law enforcement agencies and condemning any efforts to defund or dismantle law enforcement agencies.'' Their new bill was changed to just say ``local law enforcement.''

They made a conscious decision to do that. The gentleman keeps on quoting, and there is an old saying that the only thing that really matters around here is votes. Everything else is B.S. We can play this game of quotes versus votes, but the bottom line is the votes are what matter and what matters the most.

My friends on the other side of the aisle 2 weeks ago brought a bill that they all voted for that cut money for law enforcement at every level. They voted for that. That is their record. I hope my friends will appreciate that.

As we honor our Nation's police officers, as we should, I have to say it is disappointing that we are only honoring some, that a conscious, deliberate decision was made to exclude others. I find that really, really disturbing, and, quite frankly, we tried to fix it last night in the Rules Committee. We tried to fix it in the Judiciary Committee, and all the Republicans voted it down.

I urge people to look at the votes. The votes are what matters.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman runs out, I will just say you can yell all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that my friends on the other side of the aisle, including the gentleman, voted to cut money for local law enforcement

Mr. Speaker, what they did is they voted to cut a million dollars per State

in Federal money for our local law enforcement. They would fire, lay off, 400 local police officers. That is what would happen if their bill that they voted on 2 weeks ago became law. It could cut COPS grants. It would cut other DOJ funding for our local police.

The gentleman who just had a meltdown on the floor, screaming and yelling, comes on the floor all the time to talk about our border. I mean, my Republican friends made a conscious decision to remove Customs and Border Protection from the bill honoring our law enforcement.

I would like somebody to answer why. They removed the Capitol Police. They removed the FBI. They also removed CBP.

Mr. Speaker, their bill, according to the Department of Justice, if it became a law, the reduction in support for our police and Federal law enforcement would result in a reduction in our operations equivalent to the following: 154,000 pounds of cocaine not seized, 859 pounds of fentanyl and 1,948 pounds of heroin not seized, 17,148 pounds of methamphetamine not seized, $9 million in currency not seized, 561 criminals not arrested, 57,594 apprehensions not made, and 361 people not rescued. The gentleman says he is being fiscally responsible, and that is why they voted for these cuts? Enough.

Again, can somebody please explain to me from the party that voted to defund the police why the omission, why were the words of the Republican bill changed to omit all of these other brave men and women who are protecting people all across this country and the Capitol Police who protect us every single day?

By the way, the gentleman who just spoke was among those who voted not to give a Congressional Gold Medal to the Capitol Police. Thank goodness 400 Members, Democrats and Republicans, disagreed with him.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from MSNBC titled: ``The list of Republicans open to `defunding' the FBI keeps growing.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say I am concerned because, on the one hand, my Republican colleagues say they support the police. On the other hand, their own Members are calling on Congress to defund Federal law enforcement.

They want to defund the FBI. They want to defund ATF. They want to defund DOJ.

I guess it just shows that Republicans support only some of the police. In fact, there is a Member on the other side of the aisle who is selling ``Defund the FBI'' T-shirts on her web page.

Mr. Speaker, I have asked over and over and over again why the Republican bill was changed to exclude a whole bunch of law enforcement officers on the Federal level, including the Capitol Police. As those who are watching this debate saw, every time I wanted to yield to get an answer, there was silence.

Nobody can explain why this happened. Nobody will help us solve this mystery as to why they decided not to honor a whole bunch of our brave men

and women who protect us in so many ways all across this country. It is baffling to me that this is where we are.

I began by telling a story, and let me end with telling a story.

Mr. Speaker, I was here on January 6. I was in the Speaker's chair on January 6. I was the last person off the House floor. I saw everybody who was here in this Chamber, including some of my colleagues on the Republican side, cowering behind Capitol Police officers because they were afraid for their lives. It was a terrible, terrible day.

Luckily, nobody here was injured, none of us, none of the Members of Congress or our staff. The Capitol Police protected us that day. I mean, we owe them our lives.

Today, as we honor our national police, my Republican friends thought it was appropriate to remove them from the list of people being honored. I find that disgraceful.

I can't even imagine what the thinking was to make that kind of decision. It is so insulting and so offensive to the people who protected us that day and protect us each and every day. I don't understand that.

I can't get a response, but we know what is going on here. We know that they removed the Capitol Police and that they removed some of these Federal law enforcement agencies because they were afraid they were going to lose votes on their side, that some of their Members would not vote to honor all of our law enforcement officials. Let that sink in for a minute.

This should have been a day of unity. This should have been a truly bipartisan endeavor to get us legislation to the floor that everybody could support, that we could all say thank you to our police. But, no, it is politicized.

They get up here and start quoting people on defund the police, but they don't tell anybody that they voted to defund the police 2 weeks ago. It is public record. Every one of them did, including the gentleman who was down here screaming.

He gets on the floor all the time and talks about the need that we have to better protect our border, yet the people who are charged with protecting our border were removed from the list of people we were honoring.

This is not right by any measure. It is not right. I am so disappointed that my Republican friends have decided to politicize this.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can protect Social Security and Medicare, and I urge them to vote ``no'' on this rule.

This is beneath this institution. This is not honoring our police. This is politicizing our police. This is saying to some of our police that we don't value their service. It is saying to the Capitol Police that we don't value their service.

How dare anybody on the other side suggest that? How dare you bring a bill to the floor that does just that? This is sickening.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, Federal regulations for the management of Federal property currently prohibit an agency from disposing of functional or repairable firearms by selling them. Under these regulations, when an agency no longer has a need for a firearm, it can transfer it to another law enforcement entity or destroy it.

This regulation has served the important goal of ensuring that federally owned firearms do not fall into the wrong hands, but it also misses an opportunity to save money by selling an unneeded firearm to the law enforcement officer who has been using it.

Last Congress, our colleague and former Orlando Police chief Congresswoman Val Demings recognized the opportunity for improvement in these regulations. She introduced the original version of this legislation, which allows a Federal agency to sell a retired handgun to the law enforcement officer who had been using it, transferring it from a service weapon to a weapon in the hands of a responsible gun owner who is trained to use it.

Congresswoman Demings' legislation included two improvements that, unfortunately, have been removed from the current version of the bill.

Her version required the law enforcement officer who was purchasing the gun to undergo a background check. This is a commonsense requirement, given that an officer would undergo a standard background check to purchase the weapon from any other sellers.

Most background checks are practically instantaneous, often about 30 seconds. I do not think that 30 seconds is too long to wait to ensure that a gun does not fall into the wrong hands.

While I think it is notable that the majority stripped this reasonable and effortless requirement, the current version of the bill does require a purchasing officer to be in good standing.

While this is not as thorough as Congresswoman Demings' legislation, the good-standing requirement should prevent unlawful transfers in most cases.

Ms. Demings' bill also included a sense of Congress that the funds received by the government from selling a retired service weapon should be used to support evidence-based gun violence prevention or gun safety education and

training programs. Again, this is a thoughtful provision that would have directed these funds toward a critical need in our communities and would have improved public safety.

This provision should be totally noncontroversial, but our Republican colleagues have stripped it from the bill. The only logical conclusion is that they do not want a single additional dollar to go to gun violence prevention, even as it continues to tear our communities apart and imperil the lives of law enforcement officers.

While I wish the majority had left Congresswoman Demings' bill intact, I nonetheless support this weakened version of her work.

I want to make it very clear that if any of the Republican poison pill amendments pass, I will have to encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''

The base text of this bill allows limited transfers of handguns to active Federal law enforcement officers in good standing for fair market value. The amendments subvert this purpose by allowing those who are not active law enforcement to purchase a weapon without a background check, allowing the government to sell military-style assault weapons without a background check and forcing taxpayers to subsidize these gun sales by selling them below their fair market value.

Mr. Chair, I strongly urge all Members to oppose these amendments.

I note, however, that I support Ms. Jacobs' very helpful amendment to further define the good-standing requirement and help ensure that retired weapons are only transferred to those who can be trusted with them.

This bill had bipartisan support in committee, so it is unfortunate that the majority would rather politicize National Police Week with a radical gun agenda than pass a reasonable bipartisan bill.

If the poison pill amendments fail, I will continue to support the bill. If any of them pass, I must urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation improves government efficiency by allowing a Federal agency to sell a retired handgun to the law enforcement officer who had been using it. This was a good idea when it was introduced last Congress on a bipartisan basis by former Congresswoman Val Demings, and it continues to be one.

I am disappointed that Republicans have chosen to move forward with a weaker version of her bill. Nonetheless, I support its passage unless it is further weakened by the Republican poison pill amendments I referred to in my opening statement.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, when Congresswoman Demings introduced her superior version of this legislation last Congress, it would require the law enforcement officer who is purchasing the gun to undergo a background check. This is a commonsense requirement, given that an officer would undergo a standard background check to purchase the weapon from any other sellers.

My colleagues submitted amendments that would add this background check requirement back in. It is unfortunate that that strong and reasonable amendment was not made in order.

This amendment, the Jacobs amendment, does the next best thing. It would further define the good-standing requirement and help ensure that retired weapons are only transferred to those who can be trusted with them.

This amendment will help close the gap between what a NICS check would reveal and what an employing Federal law enforcement agency would find in making a determination that an officer is in good standing.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, when Congresswoman Demings introduced a superior version of this legislation last Congress, it was premised on the principle of making the most of taxpayer dollars and recouping the values of weapons that were not at the end of their usable life.

This amendment would require these weapons not at the end of their usable life to be sold at their salvage value, which by its terms, is below the fair market value of these weapons. This prevents the agency from recouping the full value of the weapon.

The effect of this amendment is to sell firearms at a discount funded by taxpayers. Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize gun sales, which is contrary to the intended purpose of this bill that was introduced last Congress and is also contrary to the intent of the bill in the form it unanimously passed in the Judiciary Committee.

Taxpayers should be funding the government, not subsidizing gun sales. This amendment is contrary to the intent of the bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I think the gentleman misunderstands the bill. This bill is not when the officer retires. It is when the gun is retired. When the gun is retired, perhaps because the law enforcement agency is upgrading to a more modern gun, it can be sold, and the money goes to the taxpayers, obviously. If it is not repairable, it can then be scrapped.

This amendment would say that it can't be done. It would say that you could not recover the full market value of the weapon, and there is no reason the taxpayers shouldn't recover that.

The amendment is an antitaxpayer amendment. It is not for the officer when he retires. It is when the weapon is retired, which may be before or long after the officer retires. It has nothing to do with that. So the amendment would simply cost the taxpayers money for no purpose at all, and I, therefore, oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, when Congresswoman Demings introduced her superior version of this legislation last Congress, it required the law enforcement officer who was purchasing the gun to undergo a background check. This is a commonsense requirement, given that an officer would undergo a standard background check to purchase the weapon from many other sellers.

My colleagues submitted amendments that would add this background check requirement back in. It is unfortunate that that strong and reasonable amendment was not made in order.

The bill as passed in committee allows sales only to officers in good standing.

This amendment allows retired Federal law enforcement officers to also be eligible to purchase surplus service weapons without the usual NICS background check or a certification of good standing.

This amendment is contrary to existing law and could allow prohibited purchasers to buy a handgun. Retired officers have no standing with an agency. They are not subject to any of the oversight and employment rules of active Federal law enforcement.

With this amendment, someone could retire, be convicted of a felony, and then purchase a handgun from the Federal Government, even though they would fail a NICS check because a NICS check is not required.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, a police officer can retire for many reasons. One of them is that he is being forced out for misconduct. An officer who is forced out for misconduct should not be permitted to buy a gun without a background check. The background check might show the misconduct--would show the misconduct that forced them out. If he committed a felony, it would show that.

Under this amendment, a retired officer who was pushed out because of bad conduct, who was pushed out because he could not be trusted with a handgun, who subsequently commits a felony could still purchase a handgun without a background check. That is dangerous to the public and makes no sense at all.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, the gentleman is mistaken. There is a difference between the officer and the gun. The gun is being retired. The officer may have committed a felony--the ex-officer, I should say, may have committed a felony, may have been forced out for bad conduct, and under this amendment would be permitted to purchase the gun without a background check that would show his felony or whatever conduct caused him to be pushed out. It is dangerous.

We are not talking about an officer upon retirement buying his gun. We are talking about an ex-officer who may have committed a felony, who may have been forced out for dangerous conduct now being permitted to purchase a gun without a background check that would show that this is a dangerous character.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment expands the types of weapons officers are allowed to purchase to include all retired firearms. The amendment radically extends the bill and runs counter to its original purpose.

This amendment would allow semiautomatic assault weapons, sniper rifles, and military-grade weaponry to be purchased without a background check. While Federal law enforcement has a need for these weapons, they have no place in our communities.

Though the amendment excludes machine guns, it does not exclude other firearms subject to heightened regulation under the National Firearms Act, such as short-barreled rifles and even grenade launchers. The Federal Government should not be selling these dangerous weapons to people operating in their civilian capacity.

Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it, as well.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the provision that the gentleman refers to refers only to machine guns. It does not exclude other firearms, as I mentioned, such as short-barreled rifles and even grenade launchers, and these are too dangerous.

We should not be selling these dangerous weapons to people operating in their civilian capacity. That is why this amendment is dangerous and radically changes the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, section 5845, definitions, reads as follows: ``(a) Firearm, the term `firearm' means (1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (5) any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e); (6) a machine gun''--which is the only thing the gentleman excludes from his amendment--``(7) any silencer (as defined . . . ); and (8) a destructive device,'' like a grenade launcher, like a grenade.

Therefore, when I say that this amendment would ban only machine guns but would permit all these other things, including grenades and weapons of destruction, it is right here in the statute. The gentleman's amendment would permit all of these. Those are the kinds of weapons.

Grenade launchers and short-barreled rifles should not be in the possession of civilians, even retired police officers.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak on the Rule offered in consideration of H.R. 2494--Protect Our Law enforcement with Immigration Control and Enforcement (POLICE) Act of 2023, H.R. 3091-- Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act, and H. Con. Res. 40--Expressing support for local law enforcement officers and condemning efforts to defund or dismantle local law enforcement agencies.

It is unfortunate that this Rule in particular does not include the many amendments that have been offered by my Democratic Colleagues.

As it pertains to H.R. 2494--Protect Our Law enforcement with Immigration Control and Enforcement (POLICE) Act of 2023, this bill in particular is incredibly ill drafted and intended bill that does not seek to address illegal immigration or support for law enforcement-- rather it creates punitive deportation penalties to remove individuals who are lawfully here--cruelly scaling back on legal immigration pathways rather than increasing them.

This bill is a solution in search of a problem--essentially seeking to expand the scope of people who can be deported.

It is so broadly drafted that people who pose no real danger to law enforcement could be subject to deportation.

Let's be clear, this is not about undocumented immigrants who are already removable. This is about people who have come lawfully and been admitted to the United States.

We are talking about lawful permanent residents. People who have set down roots and established themselves here in the United States.

Given that my Republican colleagues have been unwilling to add a conviction requirement or a requirement that the offense included the intention to cause harm or use violence, I would hope they would be willing to accept an amendment that allows an immigration judge or Department of Homeland Security adjudicator to look at variety of mitigating factors when assessing if someone should be deemed deportable.

And so, my amendment offered in the Rules Committee would have allowed for mitigating factors to be taken into account before someone is deported as a result of an assault on a law enforcement officer.

As has already been discussed, this bill is attempting to add a new avenue to deport people with green cards.

If we are going to deport these people, it should be for a serious offense and there needs to be serious consideration of the circumstances pertaining to the alleged offense.

People who are convicted of serious assaults on law enforcement officers are already deportable.

Under current immigration law, if an individual is convicted of a crime of violence and sentenced to a year or more in prison, that is an aggravated felony and that person is deportable.

The same is true for someone who is convicted of a ``crime involving moral turpitude,'' where the crime is punishable by imprisonment of one year or more.

Both of these deportability grounds are currently invoked when there is a conviction for a serious, intentional assault on a law enforcement officer, where bodily injury occurs or is intended.

This amendment would allow the official making the final determination on deportation the ability to examine additional mitigating factors as evidence weighing against deportation.

The official would be able to take into account:

if there was intent to harm;

the severity of offense;

if the act resulted in harm;

the individual's military service (if any);

how long the individual has been in the United States; and

the individual's ties to the community.

These factors are vitally important for an immigration judge or other adjudicator to consider in order to ensure that we do not end up with some of the absurd results which have already been outlined today by my colleagues.

We should not be deporting long-term green card holders for minor offenses. Just as a reminder, these examples include:

A green card holder in a fire who pushes a firefighter out of the way of a falling beam. This person would have committed assault and become deportable.

Likewise, if a foreign student whose religion prohibits blood transfusions is receiving medical care from an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) and she swats the EMT's hand away because she is trying to give him a blood transfusion, that student will have committed assault on a law enforcement officer and become deportable under this bill.

As another example, if a green card holder sees a fight on the street and attempts to intervene by getting between the individuals and pushing them apart. If one of the individuals was an undercover police officer performing his duties, the individual would have committed assault under this bill and become deportable.

In all of these examples, one would hope the individuals would never be charged, let alone convicted of a crime.

However, even without a conviction or intent to harm requirement, by admitting to actions that constitute assault, any of those individuals would have admitted to intentionally assaulting a law enforcement officer and would become deportable under this bill.

We should not be deporting green card holders for such minor offenses.

If the majority insists on doing so, they should at least allow adjudicators to look at mitigating factors to ensure that we are preventing good members of our society from getting swept up in this overbroad bill.

Additionally, in speaking on the Rule for H. Res. 40, Expressing support for local law enforcement officers and condemning efforts to defund or dismantle local law enforcement agencies, let me just say that it is unfortunate that the Rules Committee did not consider amendments on this bills.

Despite having the opportunity for open debate, the Committee regrettably chose to consider this legislation under a closed rule-- foreclosing any ability for us to make this Resolution one that we could come together on.

Had the Rule allowed, I would have submitted an amendment to remove incendiary and vague language as well as false and misleading claims from this Resolution in an effort to gain agreement around what should be its central point--that we recognize and appreciate the service of all law enforcement officers and condemn all calls to abolish law enforcement agencies of any kind.

First and foremost, my amendment would have removed the word ``local'' anywhere it appears because we should state unequivocally that we support all law enforcement officers--unconditionally.

We know that all law enforcement--male, female, LGBTQ+, very experienced, rookie, patrol, or behind a desk--work tirelessly to protect us and keep us safe. Whether they are state, local, tribal, or federal agents or officers--we are grateful for their service.

These are the individuals we rely on to stop a mass shooter as they opened fire on shoppers at a mall in Texas; to guard and police our borders; to seek out predators behind a computer screen; or to help us locate an elderly or disabled loved one who has wandered off.

And so, this Resolution, as it is currently written, ignores a large portion of dedicated officers who do not fall within the definition of ``local law enforcement''--a term of art of which we legislators are well aware.

My amendment would have corrected that omission and acknowledges the 137,000 federal agents and officers in the 50 states and the District of Columbia--including the United States Capitol Police.

Secondly, my amendment would have eliminated problematic, unnecessary language and misleading claims.

For example, my amendment would have removed the claim that leftist activists and progressive politicians actively encouraged resentment toward law enforcement, which casts a wide, unfair, and erroneous net.

It would also eliminate the claim that language regarding funding police vilifies and harms local law enforcement.

We can all agree that we need law enforcement. Of that, there is no doubt. But defunding the police means different things to different people.

From completely abolishing or disbanding law enforcement agencies--as some of my Republican colleagues have proposed we do to ATF, FBI, and even DOJ--to adding resources to other programs or services that might have been neglected in the past or to lighten the load of officers who are called upon to respond to too much.

That is why I believe my amendment would have allowed Congress to come together on this Resolution, using language on which we all can agree--that does not accuse, disparage, or attempt to shame.

Resolutions like this one make it difficult for us to commence the truly difficult work of making policing safer for law enforcement officers and the communities they serve.

I have worked for decades to adopt reasonable gun violence prevention legislation and to institute transformative policing reforms.

All too often law enforcement officers are taken by the violence we expect them to prevent. And increasingly, officers and agents are losing their lives to gun-related violence--often times with handguns.

Although the number of law enforcement officers who died in the line of duty decreased by more than 30 percent over the first six months of 2022 compared to that same period in 2021, the number of officers killed by guns increased by nearly 20 percent.

And, according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, for the whole of 2022, the number of officers killed decreased by roughly 61 percent--that is from 586 federal, state, tribal and local law enforcement officers killed in 2021 down to 224.

Despite this dramatic decrease in line-of-duty deaths, due almost entirely to the significant reduction in deaths resulting from COVID- 19, by the end of 2022, the same number of officers died by gunfire as in the previous year--reflecting a 21 percent increase over the historical average of firearms-related deaths between 2010 and 2020. This is unacceptable.

Let's get back to the real work of Congress instead of engaging in partisan gamesmanship.

Lastly, in speaking on the Rule for H.R. 3091, the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act.

Rather than destroying retired, surplus handguns, this legislation would allow federal agencies to sell those handguns to federal law enforcement officers in good standing--promoting public safety, reducing waste, and recouping taxpayer funds.

Although I support this underlying legislation, I would point out that the previous version of this bill, introduced by former Congresswoman Val Demings, included a requirement that any law enforcement officer making a purchase must pass a background check as part of the transfer. But this version does not.

Congresswoman Demings's bill also wisely advised via a sense of Congress that proceeds from the sale of these handguns should be used to fund gun violence prevention or gun safety programs.

These are both excellent ideas that we should add back into this legislation.

While we might assume that no problems could arise in the sale of a handgun to an officer in good standing, a background check or records check of some kind would ensure that vital information has not been missed, overlooked, or fallen through a gap in reporting.

Questions still remain and law enforcement continues to investigate the mass shooting that occurred in Allen, Texas.

But we know that a Defense Department official said that Army staff ``quickly identified'' that the shooter ``was a problem.''

And the Pentagon confirmed that the shooter was terminated from the Army for mental health reasons--after only three months and without completing basic training.

And yet, years later, he completed several firearms proficiency courses for his work as a security guard, amassed a cache of firearms and 13 large capacity magazines, and no one caught that this person probably should not have guns.

Even law enforcement officers purchasing firearms for official use must provide a federal firearms licensee with a certification on agency letterhead that the officer will use the firearm in their official duties and that a records check establishes that the purchasing officer has no convictions for misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence--despite there being no requirement to undergo a background check.

Background checks, and records checks in limited circumstances, are important because they help promote public trust.

By ensuring that only responsible, law-abiding individuals, including law enforcement officers, can purchase firearms and are willing to undergo background checks to do so, this program could set the example and promote safer, more secure communities across the country.

We can and we must do more when it comes to buying, selling, and trading firearms. That is why the proceeds derived from the sale of these retired, surplus handguns would be best spent on programs focused exclusively on gun violence prevention and gun safety education and training.

The money earned from these sales could help us find solutions to end the bloodshed because far too many people have died.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member, and I thank the manager on the other side for their work.

This is National Police Week. I started my week in joining a family from Houston whose husband and father had fallen as a police officer in the line of duty, but it was also with the throngs of men and women of law enforcement across America and families at the 42nd Annual National Memory Day for law enforcement officers.

I spent quite a bit of time there, interacting with officers that were not only from Texas or Houston. I respect the service that they have given as we, as Members of Congress and Democrats and my friends on the other side of the aisle, should do.

And as we interacted, the response was an appreciation, as I expressed, an appreciation for their service.

We have done a number of bills on the floor, and I am glad that we had one that honored that day. I proudly managed that bill, as well as a number of others that were on previously.

There are a number of bills that have been on the floor or are on the floor today, at least two. Before I speak of the underlying bill, let me acknowledge my support for H.R. 3091, the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act, which has previously been debated. I would say that this deals with Federal law enforcement officers in good standing.

It is a smart way to deal with guns that have been retired. That will allow--rather than creating dust in the GSA, and as well, who knows, them falling in the wrong hands for whatever reason, you might say-- rather than destroying those guns, it would allow Federal agencies to sell the handguns used in the performance of their duties to Federal law enforcement officers in good standing, promoting public safety, reducing waste, and recouping taxpayer dollars.

This is good legislation. I hope as it makes its way that they will add some form of a check--which all officers believe in background checks. Maybe they will take those resources and invest in bringing down gun violence, which we know, as of this week, two law enforcement officers were injured in New Mexico, as a young, underage teenager had an AR-15 and killed three innocent civilians.

Mr. Chair, it would be nice if the legislation would use those resources to help bring down gun violence. H.R. 3091 is a good bill, and I intend to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3091, the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act (in its current form).

When a federal agency has property it no longer needs, such as firearms, the property is declared excess and is reported to GSA to be screened for possible transfer to other Federal agencies with a need for such property.

If no other agencies request the excess property, it is declared surplus--and in the case of firearms, required to be destroyed.

Rather than destroying retired, surplus handguns, H.R. 3091 would allow federal agencies to sell the handguns used in the performance of their duties to federal law enforcement officers in good standing-- promoting public safety, reducing waste, and recouping taxpayer funds.

Although I support this legislation, I should point out that the previous version--introduced last Congress by my Democratic colleague-- included a requirement that any law enforcement officer making a purchase must pass a background check as part of the transfer. But this version does not.

The previous version also wisely advised via a sense of Congress that proceeds from the sale of these handguns should be used to fund evidence-based gun violence prevention or gun safety programs.

While we might assume that no problems could arise in the sale of a handgun to an officer in good standing, a background check or records check of some kind would ensure that vital information about that officer has not been missed, overlooked, or fallen through a gap in reporting.

That is why I support the Jacobs' amendment that would further define the good standing requirement--ensuring that only responsible, law- abiding officers can purchase these firearms.

However, because we too must be responsible, especially when it comes to setting policy for buying, selling, and trading firearms, I cannot support this bill if the Republican poison pills are adopted.

This trio of amendments would destroy each of the foundational purposes of the bill that brought Republican and Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee together during the markup of this bill-- promoting public safety, reducing waste, and recouping taxpayer funds.

Together, these amendments would allow, not just handguns but military-grade weapons that have no business in civilian homes and communities, to be provided at little to no cost, to retired officers, without any means to determine their suitably for taking possession of these weapons.

I am disappointed that we could lose the opportunity to pass this thoughtful legislation during National Police Week by attaching these reckless amendments.

That is why I implore my colleagues to vote No to the Luttrell, McCormick, and Rosendale amendments.

And I encourage members on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 3091 and the Jacobs Amendment.

Mr. Chair, we are now at a time when we are talking about H.R. 2494. I would say that when interacting with law enforcement officers, I have never heard one person raise this. I don't think we can condemn prosecutors across America that they are not willing to stand up and be counted when any assault occurs against an officer.

Any such legitimate assault should be both an arrest and prosecution. That is not what we are saying. If it happens to be an LPR or green card holder or whatever status the person has--arrested and prosecuted.

What we are saying is desperate people come to this country and they work hard to get a status, and if it is legitimate, they wind up in jail. That is where they can be. H.R. 2494 ignores that.

One, it is not one that you have heard any officers asking for. Two, that person can be convicted and wind up in jail. I know there is an amendment to say if they are convicted that would be the case. Ordinarily, they would be able to serve their time. I don't think that we should use this hammer to tear families apart.

Mr. Chair, this bill has been ill-drafted in harmful measure and does not seek to address a need that people are crying for.

The bill insults prosecutors across America. You can't label them all. In essence, it insults law enforcement officers, who themselves know that somebody who is in distress might respond accordingly. It insults the long time it takes to become a citizen of the United States, and some of these individuals have been waiting and waiting and maybe had an unfortunate circumstance. We are talking about some of the incidents that Ranking Member Nadler cited. It is just unruly.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to consider thoughtfully that we are doing good in a bipartisan way. Let us continue to do that. Police like to see that. They like to see themselves being affirmed in a bipartisan manner. They don't like to see other people being scapegoats.

Mr. Chair, we want them to be safe. We don't want violence. We don't want them to be injured. That is the statement we all should make. Let's find laws that will ensure that that will not happen.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2494, the Protect Our Law Enforcement with Immigration Control and Enforcement (POLICE) Act.

This bill is an incredibly ill drafted and harmful measure that does not seek to address illegal immigration or support for law enforcement--rather it creates punitive deportation penalties to remove individuals who are lawfully here--cruelly scaling back on legal immigration pathways rather than increasing them.

This bill is a solution in search of a problem--essentially seeking to expand the scope of people who can be deported.

It is so broadly drafted that people who pose no real danger to law enforcement could be subject to deportation.

Let's be clear, this is not about undocumented immigrants who are already removable. This is about people who have come lawfully and been admitted to the United States.

We are talking about lawful permanent residents. People who have set down roots and established themselves here in the United States.

Given that my Republican colleagues have been unwilling to add a conviction requirement or a requirement that the offense included the intention to cause harm or use violence, I had hoped they would have been willing to accept an amendment that allows an immigration judge or Department of Homeland Security adjudicator to look at variety of mitigating factors when assessing if someone should be deemed deportable.

During the Judiciary Committee markup and the Rules Committee hearing, offered in the Rules Committee would have allowed for mitigating factors to be taken into account before someone is deported as a result of an assault on a law enforcement officer.

However, my Democratic colleagues and I could not get any Republican to roll back their punitive and damaging intent to harm any and all individuals seeking refuge and citizenship here in the U.S.--no matter the vulnerability of their circumstances.

As has already been discussed, this bill is attempting to add a new avenue to deport people with green cards.

If we are going to deport these people, it should be for a serious offense and there needs to be serious consideration of the circumstances pertaining to the alleged offense.

People who are convicted of serious assaults on law enforcement officers are already deportable.

Under current immigration law, if an individual is convicted of a crime of violence and sentenced to a year or more in prison, that is an aggravated felony and that person is deportable.

The same is true for someone who is convicted of a ``crime involving moral turpitude,'' where the crime is punishable by imprisonment of one year or more.

Both of these deportability grounds are currently invoked when there is a conviction for a serious, intentional assault on a law enforcement officer, where bodily injury occurs or is intended.

This amendment would have allow the official making the final determination on deportation the ability to examine additional mitigating factors as evidence weighing against deportation.

The official would be able to take into account:

if there was intent to harm;

the severity of offense;

if the act resulted in harm;

the individual's military service (if any);

how long the individual has been in the United States; and

the individual's ties to the community.

These factors are vitally important for an immigration judge or other adjudicator to consider in order to ensure that we do not end up with some of the absurd results which have already been outlined today by my colleagues.

We should not be deporting long-term green card holders for minor offenses. Just as a reminder, these examples include:

A green card holder in a fire who pushes a firefighter out of the way of a falling beam. This person would have committed assault and become deportable.

Likewise, if a foreign student whose religion prohibits blood transfusions is receiving medical care from an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) and she swats the EMT's hand away because she is trying to give him a blood transfusion, that student will have committed assault on a law enforcement officer and become deportable under this bill.

As another example, if a green card holder sees a fight on the street and attempts to intervene by getting between the individuals and pushing them apart. If one of the individuals was an undercover police officer performing his duties, the individual would have committed assault under this bill and become deportable.

In all of these examples, one would hope the individuals would never be charged, let alone convicted of a crime.

However, even without a conviction or intent to harm requirement, by admitting to actions that constitute assault, any of those individuals would have admitted to intentionally assaulting a law enforcement officer and would become deportable under this bill.

We should not be deporting green card holders for such minor offenses.

If the majority insists on doing so, they should at least allow adjudicators to look at mitigating factors to ensure that we are preventing good members of our society from getting swept up in this overbroad bill.

Let me just say that it is truly unfortunate that the Rules Committee did not consider my amendment or that of my colleagues.

We need to stop putting forth harmful and unproductive legislation and work on passing legislation that truly addresses meaningful immigration reform.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, let's be clear: Assaulting a law enforcement officer is a serious offense and cannot be tolerated in the United States. It is also largely already a deportable offense.

If this bill, the so-called Protect Our Law Enforcement with Immigration Control and Enforcement Act, or the POLICE Act of 2023, closed an actual gap in current law and made our country safer, Democrats would gladly support it.

Unfortunately, this bill represents another unserious attempt by my Republican colleagues to target and scapegoat immigrants and to score cheap, political points for National Police Week while doing nothing to actually protect law enforcement officers.

It is important to remember who this legislation is targeting. This is not about undocumented immigrants who are, of course, already removable, and this is not about people who are seeking to enter the United States. This is about people who have come here the so-called ``right way.'' We are talking about lawful, permanent residents.

People have put down roots in our communities, many of whom have U.S. citizen spouses and children and have truly established themselves here in the United States. Many of these individuals are eligible to become U.S. citizens today, but this bill would make them deportable without even requiring that they be convicted of a crime, only that the assault or act constituting the assault was committed and that the individual admits to the commission of the act.

That throws our whole notion of due process on its head. That is why it is absolutely critical that we adopt Mr. Correa's amendment to close this dangerous loophole. Even if we require a conviction, I am still concerned that the bill is so broad and overinclusive that it could lead to truly absurd results and to the deportation of people who had no intention of ever harming a law enforcement officer.

Let me give you three examples of what this bill would do, as drafted:

A person walks into a fire, sees a beam about to fall on a firefighter, and pushes the firefighter out of the way. He has committed an act that is an assault on the firefighter who is a peace officer, and he is deportable.

A person sees two men fighting on the street and he breaks them up. He pushes them aside, not knowing that one of them is an undercover police officer. He has assaulted the police officer.

A Jehovah's Witness is in an ambulance. The EMT reaches over to put a line in to give him a transfusion. The Jehovah's Witness pushes his hand away. He has committed assault on the EMT who is a peace officer and he is, therefore, deportable.

Now, Republicans will say that these are far-fetched, absurd examples. The problem is that under the terms of the bill, this would happen. However far-fetched you may think the example, you have to read the bill.

Mr. Correa's amendment would correct this. If Mr. Correa's amendment passes, we can support the bill. If it does not, this is a dangerous bill making lawful permanent residents who have been here for many years deportable for no good reasons.

For years, we have had a bipartisan understanding that individuals should be deported only for a serious offense, but this bill breaks down that understanding. I hope we will fix the bill's most significant flaw through the amendment process, namely, the

Correa amendment. If not, I must recommend that my colleagues oppose this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, the gentleman from New York referenced our District Attorney Alvin Bragg. As a resident of Manhattan, I must say that I find Alvin Bragg a perfectly fine district attorney, and he is being attacked only because he has secured indictments on 34 counts against Donald Trump, and that is why they are holding him up for criticism.

I am very glad that I supported him in the Democratic primary against a number of opponents 2 years ago, and he is doing a fine job, including the 34 indictments he secured against former President Trump, who it appears is also going to be indicted in Washington and in Georgia.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal)

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Casar).

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, this bill would make someone deportable if they assault a law enforcement officer, a fact that is already largely the case, as it should be. This bill would make it a deportable offense for a legal, permanent resident to merely perform the acts that could be described as a felony.

That, as I said before, leads to absurd results. The gentleman may say that that is not the intended result and that wouldn't happen, but you have to read the statute as it reads.

These absurd results that I mentioned before--I am not going to repeat them now--would be real unless the Correa amendment is adopted. Then it would solve the infirmities of the bill and we could recommend passage. If that doesn't happen, we cannot.

Mr. Chair, I hope we will fix this bill's most glaring flaw by requiring

that a person actually be convicted of assault before they are rendered deportable--that is the Correa amendment. If not, I urge all Members to oppose this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the Boebert amendment requires the Department of Homeland Security to make publicly available on its website an annual report on the number of noncitizens deported for assaulting a law enforcement officer.

It is important for us to take a step back and remember what this bill is all about. This bill is attempting to add a new avenue for people who are living here lawfully in the United States to be deported.

By and large, we are talking about the ability to deport lawful permanent residents, people with green cards. These are people who my Republican colleagues like to say have done things the so-called ``right way.'' I sincerely hope that this report would not be used to further demonize immigrants.

However, on its face, I do not find this amendment to be objectionable.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Mr. Correa's amendment.

Any conviction requirement would greatly improve this bill. No one in this caucus condones serious assaults against law enforcement officers. As written, however, this bill goes well beyond serious offenses to include minor offenses and even actions for which an individual is never charged or convicted.

That is right. Under this bill, a conviction is not required. This will lead to bizarre consequences in which someone who had no intent of harming a law enforcement officer but nevertheless committed an act that constituted assault would be deemed deportable.

Mr. Chairman, remember the three examples I gave before: pushing a fireman out of the way of a falling beam. That would make the person deportable under this bill.

It is important to remember that convictions for serious assaults on law enforcement are already offenses that make someone deportable under current law. In fact, we have a wide variety of criminal grounds for deportation, nearly all of which require a conviction. That is why adding a requirement that an individual be convicted of assaulting a law enforcement officer to become deportable would significantly improve the bill.

However, it would not fix all the issues associated with this bill. For example, the bill does not require an intent to cause harm or any physical injury which would sweep in very low-level offenses.

Since the bill only impacts people who are here legally, the prospect of deporting longtime members of our communities for very minor offenses is deeply concerning, but the bill would be improved by this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.