Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act of 2025

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition.

I thank my colleague from South Carolina for his excellent presentation, but this bill is a case study in a legislative majority that is in search of not common ground and common sense but rather extreme measures that divide and polarize the Congress and the people.

Once upon a time this was a sensible, bipartisan bill led by our Democratic colleague, Val Demings from Orlando, Florida, who had been a police chief. Her bill allowed Federal agencies to sell handguns that they were no longer using to the active-duty officers, who previously carried those handguns, for fair market value as long as they completed a background check like everybody else in America.

Mr. Speaker, last Congress, Republicans weakened that bipartisan bill, which I think commanded unanimous support in Congress, by stripping the background check requirement while still restricting the bill to handgun sales to current law enforcement officers only. So we were willing to go along with that compromise. We accepted that in the last Congress.

When the bill came to the floor for a vote, however, Republicans filled the bill with a menagerie of more outlandish and extreme provisions, and

that is the version that they started with in this Congress which is before us today.

When we marked up this legislation, we offered an amendment that would allow them to go back to the compromise version of the bill, a version of the bill that they themselves had introduced and that we support, but they refused to do it.

So today, in place of a reasonable, commonsense, and common-ground bill, Republicans are dug in on another extreme proposal that riddles our gun laws with loopholes and politicizes what should have been a simple, bipartisan measure.

The bill before us today would allow surplus firearms to be sold not only to active Federal law enforcement officers in good standing, but also to retired law enforcement officers.

Because the bill now has no background check requirement, it could create a situation in which it would be possible for an officer to retire and commit a crime, such as domestic violence or assault, that would ordinarily render him or her ineligible to purchase and possess firearms but then still be able to buy a firearm from the Federal Government without any background check at all.

While the bill includes a good standing requirement, as they remind us, this is plainly meaningless as applied to retired officers who may have left the department in perfectly good standing but could not pass a background check today.

Agencies can certify that an officer is in good standing when they retire, but they have no way to track the behavior of their former officers after that if they cannot do a background check. So an agency could unknowingly sell a surplus firearm to someone who cannot lawfully buy a gun, and all of this would occur under the statute without any background check at all.

The bill also allows for the sale of any firearm except machine guns. That includes not just handguns, but also assault weapons, destructive devices like hand grenades, and even firearms that are subject to heightened restrictions under the National Firearms Act. Moreover, it allows them to be sold at salvage value, effectively making it so that the Federal Government and the taxpayers would actually be subsidizing gun sales. They replaced fair market value with salvage value.

My colleagues have claimed that the bill would not really allow for the sale of all of these types of firearms because it only applies, they say, to service weapons. However, they need to read their own bill. It allows for the sale of any firearm other than a machine gun that is issued to an officer. That means if an officer uses not just a handgun, but an assault rifle, a grenade launcher, or anything classified as a destructive device, any firearm or destructive device used by a SWAT team, any firearm or destructive device used by the Secret Service, so long it is not a machine gun, if issued to an officer, can be sold back to him or her without a background check under the bill at salvage value.

If that is not what they mean, and they have been scrambling to deny it, then they should change the language of the bill because that is plainly what the bill says. Forgive me for insisting on scrupulous attention to words, Mr. Speaker, but that is the business we are in when we enter the legislative process.

Taken together, the bill makes it so that an officer could retire, commit a crime, become a person who may not legally own firearms under Federal law, then buy from the Federal Government a handgun, a semiautomatic assault rifle, a sawed-off shotgun, or even a grenade launcher, at a discount, with no background check at all.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a famously do-nothing or do-very-little Congress. They don't have much on their agenda other than slashing $880 billion from Medicaid, SNAP, Meals on Wheels, Head Start, and the other programs that actually serve Americans who don't live like Elon Musk and Donald Trump. However, Mr. Speaker, you would think they would have the time at least to write a bill that would not permit these kinds of things to happen.

These are unacceptable risks of dangerous weapons being sold to a person who may not legally have one. So reluctantly, I must oppose this bill which began as a Democratic bill which commanded unanimous, bipartisan support before.

Nothing in this bill is going to help law enforcement officers actually do their jobs, which was how all of this was introduced when we first started out today. Indeed, it doesn't provide a single Federal dollar to help local law enforcement.

In fact, our colleagues have not advanced a single bill during this entire Police Week or even this entire session of Congress to increase funding to State and local police.

In fact, the party that now controls the White House and both Chambers of Congress is now letting DOGE, Elon Musk, and their midnight crew of computer hackers dismantle entire agencies, fire thousands of Federal workers without cause, and generally wreak havoc across the government.

Last month, DOGE decided unilaterally to cancel more than $500 million of Department of Justice grant funding for local law enforcement, public safety, and crime prevention programs all over the country in our communities.

What did we hear from our colleagues across the aisle?

Did they stand up to DOGE and object to this defunding of the police?

No, Mr. Speaker. Our colleagues said absolutely nothing, and I mean that literally.

During the Judiciary Committee markup of the reconciliation bill, Democrats offered a simple amendment to immediately restore hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for the police and for hundreds of other essential public safety grant programs dismantled by, as far as we can tell, one employee at DOGE.

Every single one of our GOP colleagues voted against that amendment, but they refused to utter a word in favor of Elon Musk's chainsaw massacre of local law enforcement and public safety programs. They don't want to be quoted supporting DOGE, but even if their quotes don't support DOGE, their votes support DOGE, and they have voted not to restore hundreds of millions of dollars that DOGE cut from our State, local, and county law enforcement and public safety organizations.

In case some of our colleagues haven't heard yet from their outraged constituents about this, let me offer just one example of more than 365 grants that were abruptly terminated by DOGE. That is one grant program per day all across the country.

DOGE cut funding for a program called the Rural Violent Crime Reduction Initiative, which provided funding to dozens and dozens of rural law enforcement agencies across America allowing them, with their strapped budgets, to hire more officers and purchase up-to-date equipment and technology. They also supported rural victim services and crime prevention programs. This program was created to assist small, rural agencies that need Federal funding but are so small, short- staffed, or underresourced, they wouldn't even have the ability to apply for the funding.

One such recipient of this grant from the Rural Violent Crime Reduction Initiative was the Shawano, Wisconsin Police Department, which was using the funding to pay for a detective dedicated to investigating and solving unsolved violent crimes and to stop narcotics trafficking in their community.

The police department said that the additional detective would build trust with community members, increase patrols in hot spot areas, enhance crime prevention, and sustain a reduction in violent crime in narcotics-related crime. This is just one of the hundreds of rural police departments and other agencies using this funding from this one grant program from 365 that were suddenly terminated by one DOGE employee running amuck in the Department of Justice.

This is funding, Mr. Speaker, that we in the House of Representatives voted for on an overwhelming bipartisan basis and that the Senate overwhelmingly voted for on a bipartisan basis. We had bicameral passage and presentment to the President. The President signed it into law. The Department of Justice got the funding. The Department of Justice programmed the funding, and the Department of Justice awarded those grants all across America.

Mr. Speaker, guess who stopped it without my knowledge, without their

knowledge, and without anybody's knowledge?

It was one DOGE employee, one of Elon Musk's junior lieutenants who spent his career at Tesla, and then he decided he was going to wipe out hundreds of millions of dollars going to our people.

Mr. Speaker, are our colleagues going to allow DOGE to get away with this critical destruction of law enforcement in rural communities, urban communities, and suburban communities across the land?

Apparently so. They remain silent on it. They won't utter a word in favor of it, but they don't utter a peep against it. They just vote for it. They just sheepishly get in line and support this destruction of what we had already voted for to put into action.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this legislation, which is a trivial distraction from what is really going on in America today. They are dismantling the priorities of the people as passed through the people's House and through the Senate and signed into law.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join us in actually standing up for law enforcement, for the police, and for community safety. I would invite them to join us in actually standing up for the Article I powers of Congress. I hope they will join us in rejecting DOGE's deranged funding cuts that are undermining public safety and harming law enforcement across the land.

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps my friend from South Carolina would indulge me a few questions because I am puzzled by some of the representations that were just made.

The gentleman answers a point I didn't make. He said that the officer must be in good standing in order to be sold the gun. That is true if they are an officer. What if they are a retired officer? What does it mean to be a retired officer who is in good standing when that person no longer has a record and the department is not keeping track of them? That is why the original legislation insisted that there be a background check.

I am wondering if the gentleman would answer that question.

Well, you get that one.

Let me ask another question.

The gentleman says that only handguns would be issued to officers, whether they are currently officers or whether they are retired, but SWAT teams are included by your legislation, I believe. Are not members of SWAT teams issued semiautomatic weapons and other kinds of guns? Are you saying that this applies only to handguns? If so, why didn't you write it to apply only to handguns?

I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina for the purpose of a colloquy.

Even in the case of a SWAT team, the gentleman is saying that a member of a SWAT team would not have a semiautomatic weapon?

Are they not issued to the officer?

That is while you are an officer. Now let's say you retire and you commit domestic violence or assault or battery or some other offense 2 years later. The department is not notified of that, is not keeping track of it. What does it mean to say a retired person is in good standing if they have committed a crime in the meantime?

There is nothing that would actually prevent the sale actually by GSA, right? Who would effectuate the provisions of the prohibited purchaser statute?

Then we are establishing legislative history that, according to the gentleman, this legislation is designed to apply only to handguns and not to all of these other things which the gentleman says are irrelevant. Is that right?

Then why is it in this bill?

Neither are machine guns. The gentleman excluded machine guns.

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

They went to the pains of excluding machine guns, saying that they didn't want a retired officer to be able to purchase a machine gun, but then they are allowing grenade launchers, semiautomatic weapons, and all these other weapons. I don't understand why, when the gentleman now is vigorously protesting that that is not the intention of the statute, that is not the intention of the legislation.

Please rewrite the bill to be in accord with what you are saying, which is that this applies only to handguns. Otherwise, you are just multiplying

the proliferation of regulations which I thought you were opposed to.

Now you are saying we want the GSA to issue a whole bunch of regulations to do the work that Congress refuses to do. I think you are moving a little bit closer to what Congresswoman Demings' original legislation was if you limit it to handguns. What she said is: Obviously, someone who retires from the force can go out and purchase whatever weapons they want. This was the sentimental value of allowing an officer to purchase a gun that he or she used when they were actually in service, at fair market value.

Now you have riddled it with all of these other exceptions and completely changed the meaning of the legislation in a way that moves us backwards in terms of public safety. In America, 80 or 90 percent of the American people want a universal violent criminal background check.

We think we have enough loopholes as it is, with the internet loophole, which the majority refuses to close; with the private gun show loophole, which the majority refuses to close; with the person-to- person private sale loophole, which the majority refuses to close.

We don't need more loopholes. America already stands out as an outlier in the world among advanced industrialized countries. We have rates of gun violence and gun homicide that are 10 or 20 times higher than Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Israel, and Japan. You name it, nothing comes close to us.

Instead of helping police officers by getting guns out of the hands of criminals, our colleagues are just looking for ways to create more loopholes in the laws for purchasing guns.

Mr. Speaker, again, I just wanted to nail down into the weeds here exactly what the legislation says. The term ``firearm'' is the meaning given that term in section 921(a) of Title 18, excluding any machine gun. They have properly decided that we should not put more machine guns into the stream of commerce.

What is still swept within it? Any explosive, incendiary, poison gas, bomb, grenade, rocket, missile having explosive or incendiary charge of more than \1/4\ ounce, mine, device, and so on.

Why would we open this up if that is not the intention of my colleague? I take him completely in good faith at his word. Let's write that out of the bill because what we have seen is that people who mean to do harm to other people will exploit any other opportunity to do it. I don't understand the logic of excluding machine guns but then sweeping in all of these other dangerous weapons.

I am happy to yield to my friend if he wants to elaborate on that, or I will reserve my time. Maybe he can use some of his time.

Mr. Speaker, there is another bit of business we need to clean up here, and I would invite my distinguished colleague from South Carolina to join me in this.

We voted back on March 15, 2022, to erect a plaque in the Congress of the United States to honor the police officers who fought tooth and nail, with valor, courage, and heroism, to defend us against mobs of thousands of marauding rioters and insurrectionists, Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, Three Percenters, who came to try to overthrow a Presidential election. They stormed the Capitol. They injured, wounded, hospitalized, brutalized more than 140 officers, many of whom are still suffering from the physical and mental wounds today.

We voted back on March 15, 2022, to put a plaque up in Congress to honor them, and it reads: ``On behalf of a grateful Congress, this plaque honors the extraordinary individuals who bravely protected and defended this symbol of democracy on January 6, 2021. Their heroism will never be forgotten.''

Alas, Mr. Speaker, their heroism seems already to have been forgotten by some of our colleagues. The plaque exists. We have the plaque. It has been produced. Yet, the Speaker of the House refuses to put the plaque up 2 years later. Why? Why will we not honor the police officers, like Sergeant Gonell who was forced to leave the police force because of the severe injuries that he suffered then and is trying to support his family on around half the salary that he had before?

Why would we not honor the officers like Michael Fanone, who wasn't even on duty that day, but he heard about the riots at the Capitol, and he came down to join the fight with his brothers and sisters in blue and was nearly killed? He begged for his life to the mob, saying he had four daughters of his own. He had a heart attack. Will we not honor Michael Fanone?

Will we honor Officer Harry Dunn who fought for hours and hours, enduring not just other physical attacks but savage racial epithets and abuse?

Will we honor Officer Hodges who nearly died trying to stop the mob from entering the Capitol? He got caught in the doorway on the western front of the Capitol. He was tortured in front of the eyes of the world. You have probably seen the pictures of him being caught and beaten by the mob, which that day was wielding Confederate battle flags, American flags, baseball bats, steel pipes, broken furniture, you name it, to attack our officers.

These people gave blood, sweat, and tears. Several officers died in the aftermath, including Officer Brian Sicknick who died the very next day after receiving grievous wounds and injuries.

We could be doing a lot more for them. President Trump wants a fund for January 6. That is good, right? No. He wants a fund for the rioters' families. He wants a fund for the insurrectionists that he pardoned, not for the police officers. Will my colleagues say anything about that?

At the very least, let's put up the plaque to honor these officers. Not a single Member of the majority has given us one reason why this plaque, which is completed, has not been hung in the Capitol of the United States. Why not? If you don't respect the law enforcement officers and the police who fought tooth and nail for us that day, at least respect the rule of law. This was supposed to be up 2 years ago.

Mr. Speaker, forgive my passion, but I was there. I was here on January 6, 2021. I heard them chanting: ``Hang Mike Pence.'' ``Hang Mike Pence.'' The words are still echoing in my mind from that day. They were looking for Nancy Pelosi. They were quoted as saying they wanted to assassinate Nancy Pelosi. They stormed her office. They took over her office.

Do we honor police officers for real, or do we only honor them if it is politically convenient for us to honor them? Like the prosecutors, the new Attorney General got in. The new Acting U.S. Attorney, Ed Martin, got in. They were forced to withdraw that nomination after it turned out he had appeared 150 different times on Russian propaganda networks, like Russia Today and Sputnik, and after it turned out he had all kinds of Neo-Nazi affiliations and friendships. Anyway, he got in. You know what he did? They fired more than a dozen of the most experienced veteran prosecutors in the Department of Justice. Why? Because they did their jobs, because they prosecuted the people who committed that massive assault on American democracy. The greatest mass assault, violent assault on the Capitol in the history of the United States. We have never seen anything like it.

This administration not only pardoned more than 1,500 people who participated in that brutality, in that attempt to overthrow an election, which Joe Biden won by more than 7 million votes, 306-232 in the electoral college, not only did they pardon all of those offenders, whether they were nonviolent or violent--and a lot of them have already gone on to reoffend since they got their pardons from Donald Trump--not only did they do that but they wanted to sack the prosecutors for doing their jobs.

Is there anybody on that side of the aisle who will speak out against this obscenity? No, I don't think so.

Is there anybody on that side of the aisle who is uttering support for law enforcement during our law enforcement week who will say it is time to put up the plaque in honor of the officers who defended us?

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues have some good reason for doing what they are doing. The Framers of the Constitution thought that people who participated in the government would come to identify with their branch of government. That is why I thought, well, when they stormed the Capitol

and Donald Trump incited a violent insurrection against us, we would, in bipartisan unison, denounce it and vote to impeach and convict.

Ten Republicans did join all the Democrats in doing that. That was historic. Seven Republican Senators voted to convict after seeing overwhelming evidence.

Mitch McConnell also found the evidence completely convincing, but he said that he didn't think the Senate has jurisdiction to try to convict a former President, despite the fact that that contradicted two centuries of precedent, and the Senate ruled on the very first day against that motion to dismiss the charges. He said there was nothing that could be done, even though Donald Trump was actually, factually, ethically, and morally responsible for everything that happened.

When will my colleagues finally break from the cultish obedience to Donald Trump, who is now over in the Middle East on what looks like a business trip for him and his family? They are all raking in not just hundreds of millions of dollars but billions of dollars with their business deals.

My colleagues are back home doing his bidding, trying to slash $888 billion from Medicaid and the programs that the American people have built. Our parents and grandparents built those programs so we can take care of ourselves.

The richest man in the world and Donald Trump have another agenda. They have left your agenda behind. They left you guys to do the dirty work.

Donald Trump is collecting a $400 million flying grift gift from Qatar. They are giving him bribery force one. Nobody has ever seen anything like this in the history of the United States. They are trying to give him a jet plane.

It is humiliating for the American President to be flying around in a plane created by the dictator, the theocratic monster of Qatar, while they are collecting billions of dollars. His son-in-law, Jared Kushner, has gotten $2 billion from Saudi Arabia.

This is totally in violation of the Constitution. Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 says that nobody holding an office of trust under the United States shall, without the consent of the Congress, collect a ``present, emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever from any king, prince, or foreign state.''

That is Donald Trump's new business, to go collect foreign government emoluments.

I hope my colleagues will join us in demanding that he come to Congress to ask for permission to keep that $400 million bug-riddled airplane that he wants to fly around on somebody else's tab. It is absurd, the lengths that they have gone to, to mangle and trample our Constitution.

Let's get back to law enforcement and the rule of law, starting with the Constitution of the United States of America. The President wants to keep all of these gifts from foreign dictators. Come to Congress.

That is what Abraham Lincoln did. The King of Siam gave Abraham Lincoln elephant tusks. This is in the middle of the Civil War. Check out the descent of honor and integrity in our country. In the middle of the Civil War, President Lincoln comes to Congress and says: Can I keep those elephant tusks? Congress comes back with a message: We love you, Honest Abe. You are doing a great job in the war, but no. Turn those over to the Department of the Interior.

My colleagues will not even demand that Donald Trump bring his corrupt gifts, his royal spoils, to the Congress of the United States to ask our consent. Every President has done it up until this one.

Let's get back to the rule of law. Let's enforce the Constitution. Let's honor the police officers who defended us. Let's stay away from bills that just put a lot more guns into traffic to make life more dangerous for police officers and for everybody in America.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 405 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule providing for consideration of three pieces of legislation--H.R. 2240, H.R. 2243, and H.R. 2255--which will all be considered under a closed rule, each with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees. Additionally, the rule provides each with a motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans are here in Washington this week to continue to work on behalf of the American people. This is, in fact, Police Week, but we have been busy this year, this Congress delivering for the American people.

In this Congress so far, we have passed legislation to secure our elections, H.R. 222, the SAVE Act; hold rogue activist judges accountable, H.R. 1526; bring transparency to institutes of higher education, H.R. 1048; make changes to our border with the Laken Riley Act and the HALT Fentanyl Act; and to repeal the Biden-era harmful environmental regulations by passing what we call Congressional Review Acts to undo the damage of the Biden administration.

As Republicans continue to work on behalf of the American people and finalize the reconciliation products we are working on currently, we are also here to recognize National Police Week and the thousands of law enforcement officers who wake up every day to step on that thin blue line to defend and protect us.

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy signed a proclamation which designated May 15 as Peace Officer Memorial Day, and the week in which that date falls as Police Week.

Yesterday, my staff and I got the opportunity to welcome police officers from New Braunfels, Texas, and hear about the challenges they face every day. I talk to the men and women in blue virtually every day in the district that I represent, as I know many of my colleagues do.

My grandfather was the chief of police of a small west Texas town called Sweetwater. I was blessed to work in the United States Attorney's office and the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas, working every day with law enforcement. What they do matters for the peace and security of our country. Our Republic depends on having security on our streets.

There are thousands of stories that I can share about the daily heroism of law enforcement officers across the country, hundreds I could share even in the district I represent.

On February 16, 2024, Austin Police Department officers Dalton Schroeder and Jason Wright responded to 4-year-old William Martinez Romero, who was choking. The officers quickly jumped into action. Body cam footage shows Officer Schroeder run to his cruiser to grab an antichoking device he bought with his own money to be prepared for situations just like this, while Officer Wright started supporting William with back blows. They saved his life that day.

We must also remember that Police Week honors fallen peace officers, including one officer who died in the line of duty, Austin Police Department Senior Officer Jorge Pastore died in action November 11, 2023, responding to a domestic violence call in South Austin. Hostages were held inside a home, and when officers attempted to enter, gunfire started to go off. The SWAT team was called in to help distract the suspect, one being Officer Pastore, who was trying to rescue the victims.

I know I speak for many of my colleagues when I say we couldn't be more excited to welcome tens of thousands of law enforcement officers from around the country to D.C. this week.

Let's be clear: House Republicans and President Trump are mobilized to restore order and sanity in the United States, something that had been lacking for years.

I remember the days, as I know my colleagues do, in 2020 when there were fires and destruction rampant across the country, as our cities were being burned to the ground and law enforcement was being targeted. It was unacceptable.

There are Members of this body, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who were encouraging it. They were undermining our law enforcement officers, making it more difficult for them to carry out their jobs, who were challenging them. It was important that we stood by them, and it is important now that the President and Republicans are standing by our law enforcement officers.

Americans suffered due to the amplification of that extreme rhetoric against law enforcement. The homicide rates stayed significantly higher through 2022 after massively skyrocketing in the wake of 2020.

The rule before us today is another step in helping law enforcement officers across the Nation which, after 4 years of a Biden-run Department of Justice targeting police departments, should be a welcome relief to our men and women in blue.

This week we will consider three pieces of legislation to support our brothers and sisters in law enforcement. H.R. 2255, the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act of 2025, which would allow Federal law enforcement officers the opportunity to purchase the service weapons they used before obtaining a new one; H.R. 2243, the LEOSA Reform Act, which amends the Gun-Free School Zones Act to provide an exemption for law enforcement officers certified under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act to carry a concealed firearm in a gun- free school zone; and H.R. 2240, Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act, which would require the Attorney General to submit a report to Congress that includes data on attacks on law enforcement.

These bills are widely supported by law enforcement groups. The Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, Major Cities Chiefs Association, Major County Sheriffs of America, National Association of Police Organizations, National Narcotics Officers' Associations' Coalition, and Sergeants Benevolent Association of the NYPD sent a letter on March 25, 2025, to the House Judiciary Committee urging support of these bills and advancement to the House floor.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so concerned about crime in the country that the parting shot of Joe Biden on January 19 was to commute the sentences of 2,500 Federal defendants he claimed were ``convicted of nonviolent drug offenses.''

Let's look at that. We have a situation where he reduced the sentence of a Buffalo man, Lairon Graham, 67. In 2023, he was convicted of organizing and heading a drug conspiracy to sell fentanyl, crack cocaine, and heroin. When police raided his home, they found fentanyl, crack, and cash. He also possessed a firearm. In addition to heading up the drug gang, Graham was also convicted of sex trafficking by force or coercion from 2013 to 2021.

Of course, this is on top of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle wanting to defend a Maryland man for being sent overseas after the guy was clearly moving people illegally, beating his girlfriend and wife, violating our laws, and here illegally. That is who they want to defend.

There are numerous other examples. Jaron Ruth, another Buffalo native, pleaded guilty in 2019 to selling drugs over a period of 3 years and possessing firearms. He had been charged with shooting a man in the chest during a burglary of the victim's home.

These are the kind of folks that Joe Biden was commuting as he exited stage left. We had another situation where he commuted the sentence of a gentleman who left prison after Biden commuted his sentence in the killing of two FBI agents. Is that who my colleagues on the other side of the aisle think they ought to be defending?

Can they answer the question of commuting the sentences of these violent criminals and putting them out on the streets, just as they voted against every measure we put forward to defend our borders and to stop the death and destruction of American citizens like Laken Riley or like Jocelyn Nungaray or those who have died at the hands of dangerous criminal cartels and gangs in our country?

What President Trump is doing is restoring the rule of law. What Republicans are doing is standing up in defense of law enforcement because we stand up in defense of the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fine).

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

What I would notice, Mr. Speaker, is that the gentleman complained about not having the amendment considered, but he offered the amendment about 1 hour before the Rules Committee met. So spare me the concern about whether or not we are considering amendments when we don't have the time to look at the amendment.

I would also note that when we are talking about these kinds of people, I went through a list of folks whom President Biden had commuted.

Here is another one. A Lubbock man, granted clemency by Biden, was arrested. The sheriff was absolutely angry about the former administration's decisions. The sheriff said that he felt angry after he found out a convicted criminal was being released back on the Lubbock streets early, that a convicted criminal is now back in law enforcement custody after violating his supervised release.

These are the kinds of folks whom we are putting back out on the streets, and we are having to arrest again the very people that President Biden put back out.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. McGuire).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would note that as we are considering this Police Week and we are talking about the safety and security of our streets, I would just note that two of our most dangerous States as measured by violent crime and property crime rates are the States of New Mexico and Colorado, which also happen to have Democrats controlling all levels of power.

I would note that last summer, the good people of Aurora, Colorado, were dealing with Tren de Aragua, who were engaging in violent activities in apartment complexes and demonstrating the violence that has led to the death of Americans, and the trafficking of dangerous narcotics and fentanyl. They literally took over their homes. I met with and talked to Cindy Romero from Aurora about what happened to her in her home and that my Democratic colleagues weren't even acknowledging that it was happening. They were just ignoring it.

Then Tren de Aragua moved to San Antonio and other places across the country. I want to give a shout-out to the Texas Department of Public Safety and all the great local law enforcement in Hays County, Texas. That is because just literally last week they converged together with the FBI to go identify and stop 47 individuals. Probably 14 of whom were a part of Tren de Aragua from all over the country. They had come into Austin to coordinate. They had drugs, narcotics, and children in a home near where I live in Dripping Springs, Texas.

Thanks to law enforcement we now have removed at least four of those individuals and are prosecuting others because we now have a law enforcement community who knows that the President of the United States is backing them, and a Republican House and a Republican Senate are backing them.

Local law enforcement are being backed instead of having leftist judges who are dismissing the crimes and putting dangerous criminals on the streets. When Joe Biden commutes sentences and puts dangerous criminals on the streets, the American people know who is actually standing up for law enforcement.

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

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

If we talk about standing up in defense of police, how can my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say with a straight face that that is what they want to do when we had one Democrat from New York who said: I am not in favor of more police; I am actually in favor of defunding the police. We had another Congresswoman from New York who said: Defunding police means defunding police. I can go back, and the Record is replete with examples of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle calling for defunding the police. In fact, one of my colleagues from Texas was literally serving on the Austin City Council when they cut $150 million out of the Austin Police Department's budget, leaving their academy decimated, leaving them unable to field 911 calls, leaving violent crimes skyrocketing in the city of Austin, because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were patently clear about their desire to defund the police and

side with violent mobs in the summer of 2020, when our cities were burning across the country.

Yes, we are standing up for the men and women in blue. Yes, we will defend them, but, no, we are not going to blindly support grants that are being used by NGOs to undermine the very police they are saying they are trying to support. For example, one grant to an NGO that was promoting prostitution and open borders, this is the kind of stuff that the American people sent us here to stop. This is the kind of stuff that they are proud of the President for using DOGE to identify and stop.

Yes, we are trying to defund those particularly bad grant programs, while we try to make sure that our local jurisdictions can fund police properly and have judges that will actually put bad guys in jail instead of letting them on the streets and a President that won't commute the sentences of 2,500 people, dozens or hundreds of whom were violent criminals and are now back out on the streets.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire how much time is remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of my Republican colleagues for bringing forward legislation in support of our law enforcement community.

I am proud of the fact that, in fact, this President is trying to focus resources where it will best provide security and safety on our streets and back our law enforcement community to actually target criminals, not fund ridiculous grants, not fund NGOs that are undermining our security, the very NGOs that are perpetuating the open borders; that are putting gangs in our communities, like TDA and MS-13, that lead directly to the death of Americans, death of Americans like Jocelyn Nungaray, like Laken Riley, like Rachel Morin, like Kayla Hamilton; Americans that are no longer with us because of the policies of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, because of wide-open borders, and because of tolerance of violent criminals, because of a Democrat President who has let violent criminals out on the street and commuted their sentences; because of radical leftist judges promoted by those that fund my colleagues on the other side of the aisle; like George Soros who have funded DAs that are letting criminals out on the streets in cities like San Antonio and Austin that I represent; like my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that have defunded the police time and time again and have defended that position.

For example, one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said that the defund the police movement is one of reimagining the current police system to build an entity that does not violate us, while relocating funds to invest in community services.

Another colleague said that the defund movement isn't new. Folks are just finally listening.

Defund the police, said a Democrat colleague.

Defunding the police isn't radical. It is real, said a former Democrat colleague and, as I said before, a colleague that literally voted on the Austin City Council to strip $150 million out of the police budget, leaving the Austin Police stranded, unable to do their job and the people of Austin unable to get the services that they deserve and pay taxes for, while their streets are made more violent and while criminals are allowed to roam free under the very aforementioned Soros DAs that refused to prosecute the criminals.

Everybody in America knows what is going on. Everybody in America gets the joke. They saw their cities burning in the summer of 2020. They saw the reality of what happens when you allow these radical Democratic policies to take root, and they want it to end.

They want common sense back. They want a President who will enforce the law and an FBI that will target criminals instead of the American people. They don't want to have a Federal Government that is weaponized against them. They don't want them to be targeted.

They want violent criminals off the streets. They want violent gangs off the streets. They want our borders to be secure. They want TDA out. They want MS-13 out. They want fentanyl off their streets.

The only way you can do that is to actually back up the people trying to enforce the law and actually stand with them in the enforcement of the law, not turn around and let all the criminals back out on the streets. Yet, that is what my colleagues perpetually want to do.

The fact of the matter is, the American people understand that this President, this Republican House, this Republican Senate, and Republican jurisdictions across the country stand for law enforcement. They stand for order. That is what they want. That is what they sent us here for.

We put together some bills this week that are focused on wishes of the people, the men and women in blue, like my grandfather, who served as chief of police in Sweetwater, Texas, and the many law enforcement I was proud to serve with and alongside in the Office of the Attorney General of Texas and in the United States Attorney's Office. We work with them on a regular basis.

When you talk to them, they cannot do their jobs if the radical leftist policies of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are allowed to continue to be perpetuated. You can't combat crime if you put the criminals back on the streets. You can't combat crime if you import criminals from dangerous prisons. You can't combat crime if your law enforcement agencies are targeting American citizens for political retribution rather than taking dangerous, violent criminals off the streets.

I rise in support of these bills. I rise in support of the rule. The legislation that we put forward will provide the value for our men and women in uniform that they have asked for. They have asked for the ability to keep the weapons that they had in service.

Why does that matter? I will tell you why it matters. My grandfather that I mentioned before died in 1949 of cancer. When my dad, a 7-year- old, had polio and my grandmother was a single mom in west Texas raising him and did all the tough things, didn't ask for any handouts, took two jobs, helped my dad go on to be the first to go to college--my dad is 82 years old. He is still alive. He is 82 and still manages to walk, barely.

My dad talks about his dad as a cop, and he pulls out his old .38, the .38 revolver that my grandfather had in service. That means something to the people who serve. It means something for them to be able to carry that with them and take it with them. It is no small thing.

Some of my colleagues dismiss it as not being important. I can tell you it is important to the people who are out there serving because they devote their lives to this cause.

When I take that .38 out of the safe and show it to my son, he is holding the .38 that his great-grandfather held and carried with him when he was policing the streets. I think that is a good thing.

The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 405 Offered by Ms. Leger Fernandez of New

Mexico

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 33) directing the

Architect of the Capitol to install at a permanent location

on the western front of the United States Capitol an

honorific plaque listing the names of all of the officers of

the United States Capitol Police, the Metropolitan Police

Department of the District of Columbia, and other Federal,

State, and local law enforcement agencies and protective

entities who responded to the violence that occurred at the

United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. All points of order

against consideration of the concurrent resolution are

waived. The concurrent resolution shall be considered as

read. All points of order against provisions in the

concurrent resolution are waived. The previous question shall

be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution to

adoption without intervening motion except one hour of debate

equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking

minority member of the Committee on House Administration or

their respective designees.

Sec 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H. Con. Res. 33.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, today, as every day, I stand in honor of our police and our law enforcement. I often say to those who serve that to serve is an act of love. I recognize the love of those who step up to put their lives on the line and to put their lives in a place of danger to protect us. I honor that service and that love.

Today, like last night, I heard an outrageous lie about which party supports law enforcement. Let's look at

the facts. Republican President Donald Trump's proposed budget will slash funding for the ATF and Drug Enforcement Administration, fire FBI employees, wipe out community policing grants, and gut civil rights enforcement.

Trump's budget doesn't support local law enforcement. It hurts them.

In my rural district, local law enforcement actually needs more support. I am outraged when Republicans say Federal help is duplicative, which is what they said last night in the Rules Committee.

I have spoken with the police officers and sheriffs who traverse thousands of miles of bumpy rural roads in my district. Rio Arriba County, for example, is bigger than the State of Connecticut, yet it has fewer than two dozen police officers.

Mr. Speaker, do you know what helps a small, rural police department like Rio Arriba? Do you know what the sheriffs need? They need support from the FBI and Federal law enforcement. FBI comes in and helps them solve crimes.

Tribal law enforcement also relies on the FBI. Tribal leaders frequently describe the long wait times for police to arrive and the countless criminal investigations left unsolved because there aren't enough FBI agents.

Mr. Speaker, when you cut funding for the FBI, as Republican President Trump proposes in his budget, you are not cutting duplicative funding. You are cutting essential investigative services. It is a guarantee that crimes will go unsolved.

The partnership between law enforcement agencies at all levels is critical to keep our communities safe. From the sheriff in Rio Arriba to the Capitol Police officers right outside these doors, each plays an important role. Unfortunately, not everybody respects all of our law enforcement officers.

In this very building, January 6 insurrectionists brutally attacked the Capitol Police and law enforcement officers from multiple jurisdictions. More than 140 police suffered injuries and went to the hospital. Five officers died. Then, President Trump pardoned the violent thugs who battered those police officers. It is a shame.

Every day, we walk by our dedicated Capitol Police, yet very few Republicans have the courage to condemn the pardons of the violent thugs who beat the police. Last night during Rules, we couldn't even get a Republican who is a former prosecutor to condemn the pardons-- more shame. If Republicans truly backed the blue, they would all denounce those pardons.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague from Texas condemned those pardons. Is he willing to do so now?

Mr. Speaker, I want to turn to what Americans are focused on right now and what the thousands of callers to congressional offices, Republican and Democratic, are worried about. It is Republican cuts to Medicaid.

This is a big week for Republicans. As reported in Punchbowl, it is their once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to cut Medicaid.

This week in the dead of night while America was sleeping, Republican committees took a sledgehammer to lifesaving programs like Medicaid. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what is happening. Democrats fought all night to save 8.6 million Americans from losing access to Medicaid. That doesn't include the 4.2 million Americans who will start paying a whole lot more for their healthcare premiums so big corporations can get their tax deductions.

Republicans voted down every single amendment that Democrats offered to protect Medicaid. Let me remind everybody that in more than 25 districts, more than a third of the constituents rely on Medicaid. That includes Republican Nick Begich's and Robert Bresnahan's districts. Not a single Republican had the courage to stand up for their constituents.

The people are showing up in our offices to demand that Republicans listen to them. Some are protesting in their wheelchairs.

Yesterday, I spoke to a disabled woman named Julie outside the committee markup. Thirty-five years ago, Julie crawled up the House steps to demand that Congress pass the Americans with Disabilities Act. She is now back to beg for the bare minimum. She told me that she doesn't trust Republicans to protect her healthcare. Based on their votes, she is right.

Congress listened to her plea 35 years ago. Now, the wealthy interests and Trump's pressure are just too much. Republicans won't listen to a word from Julie or the 80 disabled advocates who came with her. She and other advocates are asking them to protect Medicaid and to protect the services they need. Even though they are in wheelchairs, they are not voiceless and will show up with their power. If that doesn't break our hearts, I don't know what will.

We have a broken system that prioritizes the wealthy, corruption, and loyalty to President Trump over the health and well-being of people like Julie. There are 8.6 million people who will suffer because Republicans took their once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to cut Medicaid.

Republicans may be gleeful, but Americans will be tearful. Remember, congressional Republicans will lie over and over and say this is about rooting out fraud. No, it is not. It is about giving permanent tax cuts to the oligarchs. In fact, the top 20 percent of income earners will get 68 percent of the benefits in their bill.

Make no mistake that people will die as a result of these cuts. Families will suffer. Many will go broke thanks to medical bills, while millionaires get money for more yachts. Do they really need any more yachts?

Mr. Speaker, getting back to law enforcement, do you know the other things that sheriffs in my district need to respond to crime and to keep people alive? They need rural hospitals. When Republicans strip $715 billion from Medicaid, no matter how they try to paint that pig, they will be eliminating rural hospitals and emergency rooms.

When they do that, police officers in rural areas in places like Chama, New Mexico, in my district will have to drive 1\1/2\ to 2 hours to the nearest emergency room. Ask any first responder: The quicker somebody gets to an emergency room, the more likely they are to survive. When life or death is a matter of minutes, what Republicans are doing this week is deadly.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am really wondering what kind of people they want to defend over there. Let's talk about those pardons. Let's talk about the fact that this isn't something that happened over there. This happened in this Capitol. Those violent offenders were violent before they got there.

Let me talk about a couple of them. Do my colleagues want to defend Steven Cappuccio? He was convicted of six felonies, including assaulting a police officer.

Mr. Speaker, he was together with David Dempsey. David Dempsey was sentenced to 20 years. He stomped on a police officer's head, and he struck an officer in the head with a metal crutch.

This is the kind of person the Republicans want to defend.

Enrique Tarrio, a former national leader of the Proud Boys and a domestic terrorist, was pardoned by Donald Trump.

Guy Reffitt, somebody who brought a gun, zip ties, and body armor, was pardoned by Donald Trump.

Not only that, they have gone after their pardons, and they haven't stopped the criminal spree.

A Houston man was pardoned by Trump and then arrested on sex charges.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article titled: ``Houston man pardoned by Trump arrested on child sex charge.''

This happens over and over again. They seem unwilling to stand up for the Capitol Police whom they walk by every day.

They refuse to put up the plaque that is, by law, honoring them.

I wonder if they ever even say: I am sorry. I am sorry that President Trump pardoned the people who beat you.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Frost).

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

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H. Con. Res. 33.

This measure will ensure that the plaque honoring the brave police officers who defended us on January 6 is hung in the Capitol as required by law.

Mr. Speaker, you know it is Police Week, but Republicans for some reason refuse to put up the plaque honoring the heroic efforts by U.S. Capitol Police and other local and Federal law officers who defended us and our democracy on January 6.

It is not a scary thing. The plaque looks like this.

Don't you agree, Mr. Speaker?

It is lovely. It recognizes their heroic efforts, and it is the law. It was signed into law by the President that this plaque goes up.

What are they afraid of?

Why don't they want to honor the Capitol Police and other law enforcement officers who were beaten and battered?

Why is their support for police conditional?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crow), to speak more to this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it incredibly ironic when my colleague talks about President Trump backing law enforcement.

Last night in the Rules Committee, their Republican colleague, Mr. Knott, noted that Republicans have not increased or passed legislation for law enforcement in the 119th Congress.

When Republicans back law enforcement, they should actually be passing the funding to support State law enforcement, to support that collaboration and coordination. At the same time we are seeing that Republicans are not saying a peep about the fact that President Trump is cutting existing resources.

Not only does he plan to cut the budget for law enforcement, he is cutting resources today. He has terminated $820 million worth of grants for public safety. He has cut $169 million in funding for community safety and violence reduction programs. He has cut $71.7 million in grants to policing and prosecution programs, including longstanding efforts to address violent crimes and acts of targeted violence.

It doesn't terminate there. The Trump administration terminated grants for policing and prosecution, for victim services, for juvenile justice and child protection, for substance abuse and mental health treatment, for correction, and for protecting and serving the women who have been raped and the children who have been abused. He has cut that funding.

I have spoken to the women who are administering those programs and who have called me in tears because the children they serve will not be receiving those Federal grants.

Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to this issue of the pardons that my colleague has referred to.

Once again, let's go back and think about how they have not objected to the pardons of the January 6, nor have they called for putting up the plaque to honor the law enforcement who served us that day.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, which I will propose if the previous question is denied, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat), the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, a vote on the previous question is a vote to protect the police.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has mentioned all kinds of words and ideas, and he is putting all kinds of stuff out there, but he has not once mentioned the plaque.

The previous question is: Will you honor the police who defended us in this Chamber by doing a simple thing? That is putting up this plaque.

Mr. Speaker, what counts on the floor of this House is your vote. Let's look at what those votes have resulted in. Those votes say we should honor the police who suffered when the insurrectionists beat them, that we should honor the police who protected our democracy and indeed protected every single one of us. Whether you are Republican or Democrat, a House Member or a Senator, you were protected by the police.

Are you willing to vote for this? If you vote against the previous question, you are saying we will not do this simple act of respect.

Now, let's get to the idea of what did you actually vote on.

Democrats have the receipts. For fiscal year 2023, the last year that Democrats wrote the appropriations bill, we increased funding for grants to State and local law enforcement by $506 billion. All but nine House Republicans voted against that bill.

Remember, it is not what you say. It is what you do. What did you vote for? Democrats put forward bills to increase funding, and Republicans voted against it.

We also increased funding for the FBI by half a billion dollars. I already went through how important the FBI is for Tribal law enforcement; how much our rural and local officers rely on them to do the investigation. They have access to technology that our sheriffs do not. The FBI supports law enforcement in Indian country.

We need these resources, and I am incredibly insulted when the gentleman, my good friend from Texas, my neighbor, actually says of local law enforcement that these programs are a waste. Go and talk to the people who rely on them. They are not duplicative. They are not a waste. They are essential.

Let me do just one last little fact check on that. When you look at who has the most homicides and some of the highest crime rates, it is indeed Republican States. Yes, it is unfortunate, and it is something we need to work on. Democrats raise this issue all the time, but the highest levels of crime and homicides are--let me go through those States--Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, sadly, New Mexico, Missouri, Arkansas, South Carolina. See a little trend there? It is actually Republicans. Don't come and talk to us about that. It is dangerous to live and work in many Republican-led States.

Let's get back to what we do to honor and respect law enforcement on this Police Week.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

We have heard a lot of claims today, but here is what remains true. Democrats support law enforcement, not just with words, but with action, with our votes. We back them with funding, with resources, and, importantly, with respect.

That is why, under Democratic leadership, we increased funding for local and Federal law enforcement, including the very FBI that solves crimes in our rural and Tribal communities.

We don't just say these things. We show up for law enforcement. We stand with the Capitol Police who defended our democracy and our lives on January 6. We honor their courage. We mourn those who died, and we refuse to excuse the violent criminals who attacked them.

Unfortunately, too many of our Republican colleagues have chosen loyalty to Donald Trump over loyalty to the truth and over loyalty to the officers who keep us safe. You cannot say you support and respect law enforcement and stay silent as Trump pardons the violent criminals who battered the police on January 6. You can't say you support law enforcement when you refuse to do something as simple as hanging a plaque to honor their sacrifices.

While Republicans hold up empty slogans, Democrats fight for the health and dignity of the American people. We fought all night long to protect 8.6 million Americans from losing Medicaid, for the mother caring for a child with disabilities. We fought to protect the senior in rural New Mexico who has to drive hours just to see a doctor and will have to drive hours more when their Medicaid cuts destroy our world healthcare system. Why? So Republicans can hand out tax cuts to billionaires.

Do the millionaires and billionaires you are protecting really need more? They already have so much. They will drown and bury the veteran, the pregnant mother, the disabled worker with paperwork while they will just give away a bigger tax cut to the wealthiest among us. That just doesn't seem fair.

Mr. Speaker, I say that this is about values. This is about who do you value and what will you do when it actually comes down to vote?

Democrats value and choose to protect people like Julie, who crawled up these Capitol steps 35 years ago to demand dignity and now returns to beg us not to be forgotten. We are not forgetting her, and Democrats will not stop fighting for her and for millions more.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 405, I call up the bill (H.R. 2255) to allow Federal law enforcement officers to purchase retired service weapons, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2255.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2255, the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act, will allow current or former Federal law enforcement officers in good standing to purchase a retired service weapon at salvage value from the Federal agency that issued the service weapon to the officer.

Under the bill, the administrator of general services would be required to establish a program to provide these purchases.

To be eligible to participate in the program, the officer must be in good standing with the agency and any firearm sold through the program must be sold within 6 months of the date when the firearm was retired.

Current Federal regulations require all Federal law enforcement agencies to destroy their firearms after they are retired from official use.

This regulation costs the American taxpayers millions of dollars every year. For example, in 2022, the Fraternal Order of Police notified Congress that multiple Federal law enforcement agencies were in the process of replacing their service weapons. The replacement of these service weapons accounted for the destruction of approximately 20,000 firearms, costing the taxpayers roughly $8 million.

Not only would this legislation cause agencies and the taxpayers to avoid that cost, but it would also recoup some of the taxpayers' dollars for the initial purchase of the firearm. American taxpayers should not be forced to pay for a service weapon twice, once at the initial purchase when it was acquired by the agency and then again when it is needlessly destroyed at the end of its life.

Law enforcement officers should have the opportunity to purchase the service weapon they used while serving in law enforcement.

By allowing officers to purchase their retired service weapons, this provides a starting point to keeping them safe so that they may protect their communities as well as themselves and their families.

This legislation is supported by 10 law enforcement organizations, the Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National Fraternal Order of Police, Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Major County Sheriffs of America, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Narcotics Officers' Associations' Coalition, the National Sheriffs' Association, the Sergeants Benevolent Association NYPD, and the National Treasury Employees Union.

I hope my colleagues across the aisle recognize this bill not as a partisan measure but, much like it was last year, in fact, bipartisan when it was voted on in the House.

This is a commonsense, cost-saving initiative that supports law enforcement and the American taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, just to discuss a few of the extraneous comments that were made by the minority party, the officer that is currently employed by a Federal law enforcement agency must be in good standing. In order for that to happen, obviously, they are not committing crimes.

Some of these things that are kind of coming out that the majority party is talking about or has talked about is the officer must be in good standing. If they have blemishes on their record, they are no longer employed or employable by that Federal agency.

Second of all, grenade launchers are not issued by Federal law enforcement agencies. They might be used by Federal law enforcement, but they are not issued to that officer. Sawed-off shotguns, the same thing, they are not issued to an officer. The officer must be in good standing.

In the event that the officer is retired within that 6-month period, these weapons don't sit around with their name on them in a locker room somewhere waiting for the weapon to also be retired. It is then issued to another officer.

The program only extends if you are retired, and you happen to have the ability when you are retired to purchase that retired service weapon, you have a 6-month period in which to do that. The window is very short.

GSA, under the bill, has every opportunity to come up with the rules and regulations related to this. A lot of this is distraction. This is the same bill that we passed last year. In fact, 13 Democrats supported this bill. The smoke and mirrors that is created by the minority just don't actually exist in reality.

This is a very commonsense bill. Law enforcement officers put their lives on the line every single day. They should be able to purchase their service weapon. If the officer is retired and their service weapon is retired roughly commensurate to when they actually physically retire, then they can also purchase that. Anyone who is actually charged and convicted with a crime, that the gentleman talks about, would be precluded from doing this.

GSA has all the rights to come up with the regulations themselves. The statute is very clear. Law enforcement officers are not issued machine guns. They are not issued grenade launchers. They are not issued sawed-off shotguns or missile launchers or helicopters. These are not part and parcel to an officer's weapons in the line of duty. They are issued handguns, maybe a shotgun, and maybe a rifle. That is it.

These things are ultimately distractions. The DOGE stuff I won't respond to at all because it doesn't need to be.

This is a commonsense bill supported by a lot of law enforcement agencies, a lot of law enforcement organizations, and was voted on in a bipartisan fashion last Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman said it applied to grenade launchers, sawed- off shotguns, and the like. Those are permitted to be used, but they are not issued to an officer.

They don't take those weapons home with them is the whole point. Under GSA--

To answer the gentleman's first question, if you are in good standing, then that means that you cannot have committed a felony.

The prohibited purchaser statute would preclude them from being able to purchase that to begin with.

GSA comes up with the regulations. That is laid out very clearly in the bill that they would come up with those regulations on an officer.

No. What I am saying is that these things are not actually in reality. People are not issued helicopters, grenades, or whatever else.

Because they are not actually issued it.

You cannot buy these things on the street.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2255, the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act, is a very commonsense piece of legislation supported by Republicans and, at least last Congress, by 13 Democrats, as well. Fourteen Members across the aisle voted in favor of this same exact bill, and I encourage more Members to do so as we honor police this week and into the future.

Law enforcement officers are faced with danger every single day, not only on the job, but when they return to their homes. This commonsense bill honors them a little bit and shows them that we want them to have these weapons in their homes to protect them, their property, and their families, as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy) for the opportunity to speak today, and I think 4 minutes will turn out to be an appropriate amount of time.

My colleague on the other side talked about the nature of things being deadly. I would like to talk about that.

On April 17, less than 1 month ago, at 11:56 in the morning, a shooter carrying a gun walked onto the campus of Florida State University and began to shoot students and adults. It was a gun crime that we would all agree was horrific.

Mr. Speaker, I am new in this place. I only got elected here a month ago. What I will tell you of my observation of my first 4 weeks of being here is I hear a lot of canned speeches that don't actually address the bills and issues that the American people have sent us here to work on. I think it is why we may be held, to some degree, in such low regard.

During this shooting at 11:56 on April 17, seven people were shot. Fortunately, five were not killed. We only know one of them. She was a graduate student. The other names have not been released. In that shooting, two were killed.

Robert Morales was 57 years old and a dining coordinator at Florida State. Tiru Chabba was a vice president at the food service company at Florida State.

Why do I tell this story? Law enforcement at Florida State did everything right. They rushed to the scene. They subdued the shooter. Mr. Speaker, do you know how long it took them to do that? It took them 4 minutes, the amount of time that I will speak here today. In those 4 minutes, with law enforcement doing everything, seven people were shot, and two were killed.

H.R. 2243 would say that if any one of them were a retired or an off- duty law enforcement officer, they could have protected themselves.

When these horrific things happen, the fact of the matter is that it will take law enforcement time to get there. Mr. Speaker, the only way for you to defend yourself is for you to do it.

I am not saying that, had that bill passed, these seven people wouldn't have been shot. I don't know if there was retired law enforcement there. I don't know that any of these people were that.

I know that when shooters consider the places that they are going to go, one of the things they think about is what might be the response. When we tell people who have spent their entire careers and who are trained--not just anyone but someone who for their entire career gave themselves selflessly to protect us all, when we tell that person because they are off-duty, because they are retired, all of that service is no longer useful, we needlessly put people at risk.

I don't want another shooting like we had at Florida State. God forbid, if there ever is another one, I want people there to respond. I am grateful to the law enforcement officers who took longer to get there than my speech will take, but I worry about what will happen next time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Bacon for bringing this bill forward. I thank Representative Roy for giving me the opportunity to speak. We were told we should stand up for our citizens in this process. When we stand up to keep them safe, that is exactly what we are doing.