Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear that the gentleman from Colorado wants to honor Federal law enforcement personnel who defended us on January 6 and otherwise, which leads me to the question of why the Republicans refused to let us have an amendment to that effect in committee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Frost).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the gentleman from Colorado say he is interested in a resolution praising the Capitol Police and so forth, which makes it all the more puzzling why the Republicans refused to let us consider an amendment to that effect to this resolution in committee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Again, if the gentleman wanted to support our Federal police, the ATF, the FBI, the Capitol Police, he had the opportunity in committee, and the Republicans refused to let us consider that. We have all of these statements from people like the chairman of the committee saying defund the FBI, defend the ATF. This is being a little, shall we say--I don't want to use the word ``hypocritical,'' but I can't think of a different word. We should oppose this resolution because it is blatantly one-sided, it blames leftist agitators improperly, and it does not deal with Federal law enforcement agencies. Mr. Speaker, in closing, police week ought to be a unifying event, a time when we can all come together in a bipartisan fashion to recognize and support the men and women of law enforcement who risk their lives to keep us and our communities safe. Instead of offering serious legislation, Republicans have brought forward misleading and incendiary political talking points that will neither protect law enforcement nor enhance public safety. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to oppose this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, first of all, if I mispronounced Mr. D'Esposito's name, I apologize. I thought I said it correctly. Secondly, I outlined in my remarks the problems with existing State bills of rights for police officers. Some States have repealed them. They have gotten in the way of investigations. They have gotten in the way of investigations of police brutality and misconduct and generally have aggravated all the reasons, all the problems that I spoke about in my opposition to the main bill. For that reason, I reiterate my opposition to this amendment, and I urge all my colleagues to vote against it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I oppose the D'Esposito amendment as its central focus is advocacy for the law enforcement officers' bill of rights, a controversial measure pushed by police unions and adopted by many States in response to demands for greater accountability and transparency following many high-profile incidents of police abuse and misconduct. While seemingly benign, the impact of a bill of rights for law enforcement officers can be profound. For decades, this type of legislation has been one of the greatest obstacles to police accountability, hindering investigations, and shielding misconduct from public scrutiny, a likely explanation for why less than half of all States have adopted one. In Maryland, the first State to adopt and the first State to repeal an officers' bill of rights, the statute was often cited as the reason for Baltimore's long history of police misconduct. In many instances, the statutes offer protections and procedural privileges to law enforcement officers facing accusations of wrongdoing or disciplinary action far beyond those afforded to other government employees or to the average civilian accused of criminal behavior. For instance, some States provide officers involved in an incident a cooling-off period of 24 hours or so before they must cooperate with internal investigators. During this cooling-off period, an officer and his or her attorney may have access to evidence collected during the investigation before the officer is interviewed. Through these statutes, officers are shielded from the very interview tactics that they use on civilians, such as lengthy interrogations or the use of aggressive or threatening questioning, or promises of rewards to induce cooperation, both of which this amendment suggests should be avoided to ensure the fair administration of justice when investigating officer misconduct and only officer misconduct. These laws can allow officers accused of wrongdoing to remain on duty for prolonged periods of time while investigations are conducted, as well as limit the types of disciplinary actions that can be taken against officers accused of wrongdoing. They also often limit the authority of civilian review boards and make it difficult for the public to access information about officers' misconduct in disciplinary proceedings and, ultimately, for civilians to hold officers accountable for their actions. These concerns have led to calls across the country to repeal or reform existing law enforcement officers' bills of rights to ensure more transparency, accountability, and fairness in the disciplinary process. When mayors and police chiefs have attempted to reform their troubled police departments, it has been their States' officers' bills of rights that have stood in the way. While this amendment might be well intentioned, it encourages States to adopt a bill of rights for local law enforcement personnel without offering any guidance so that we might not further perpetuate the already problematic nature of these measures which I have just outlined. Lastly, I note that just as the text of H. Con. Res. 40 celebrates local law enforcement while ignoring thousands of Federal, State, and Tribal law enforcement officers, so, too, does this amendment. It is for these reasons that I must oppose this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

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

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

Mr. NADLER. 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. NADLER. 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. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. NADLER. 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. NADLER. 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. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. NADLER. 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. NADLER. 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. NADLER. 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.