[Pages H2067-H2071]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SERVICE WEAPON PURCHASE ACT OF 2025

  Mr. FRY. 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 405, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
the Judiciary, printed in the bill, is adopted and the bill, as 
amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 2255

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Law Enforcement 
     Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act of 2025''.

     SEC. 2. PURCHASE OF RETIRED FIREARMS BY FEDERAL LAW 
                   ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of General Services 
     shall establish a program under which a Federal law 
     enforcement officer may purchase a retired firearm from the 
     Federal agency that issued the firearm to such officer.
       (b) Limitations.--A Federal law enforcement officer may 
     purchase a retired firearm under subsection (a) if--
       (1) the purchase is made during the six-month period 
     beginning on the date the firearm was so retired; and
       (2) with respect to such purchase, the officer is in good 
     standing with the Federal agency that employs or employed 
     such officer.
       (c) Cost.--A firearm purchased under this section shall be 
     sold at the salvage value for such firearm taking into 
     account the age and condition of the firearm.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the term ``Federal law enforcement officer'' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 115(c)(1) of title 18, 
     United States Code, and includes a retired Federal law 
     enforcement officer;
       (2) the term ``firearm'' has the meaning given that term in 
     section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, excluding any 
     machinegun (as defined in section 921(a)(24) of such title) 
     not lawfully possessed before section 922(o) of such title 
     took effect;
       (3) the term ``retired firearm'' means any firearm that has 
     been declared surplus by the applicable agency; and
       (4) the term ``salvage value'' means the value of an asset 
     after it has become useless to the owner or the amount 
     expected to be obtained when a fixed asset is disposed of at 
     the end of its useful life.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees.
  The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Fry) and the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Raskin) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.

                              {time}  1230


                             General Leave

  Mr. FRY. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRY. 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. RASKIN. 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

[[Page H2068]]

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

[[Page H2069]]

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.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. FRY. 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.
  Mr. RASKIN. 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?
  Mr. FRY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RASKIN. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina for the 
purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. FRY. 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.
  Mr. RASKIN. 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?
  Mr. FRY. They don't take those weapons home with them is the whole 
point. Under GSA--
  Mr. RASKIN. Are they not issued to the officer?
  Mr. FRY. To answer the gentleman's first question, if you are in good 
standing, then that means that you cannot have committed a felony.
  Mr. RASKIN. 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?
  Mr. FRY. The prohibited purchaser statute would preclude them from 
being able to purchase that to begin with.
  Mr. RASKIN. There is nothing that would actually prevent the sale 
actually by GSA, right? Who would effectuate the provisions of the 
prohibited purchaser statute?
  Mr. FRY. 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.
  Mr. RASKIN. 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?
  Mr. FRY. No. What I am saying is that these things are not actually 
in reality. People are not issued helicopters, grenades, or whatever 
else.
  Mr. RASKIN. Then why is it in this bill?
  Mr. FRY. Because they are not actually issued it.
  Mr. RASKIN. Neither are machine guns. The gentleman excluded machine 
guns.
  Mr. FRY. You cannot buy these things on the street.
  Mr. RASKIN. 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

[[Page H2070]]

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.

                              {time}  1300

  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

[[Page H2071]]

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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. FRY. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Williams of Texas). All time for debate 
has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 405, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________