On the recordMay 17, 2023
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. McCORMICK. Mr. Chair, I am going to define once again what this bill is about because I disagree wholeheartedly. If it is at the end of its service life, if it is no longer useful, it is going to be salvaged. Salvaged. We are defining what is happening at the end of a useful life value. Salvaged. It is going to be destroyed. That is what the government will do with it. The government is not going to sell it; the government is going to salvage it. The government is not going to put it on the market, the fair market for a used weapon, they are going to destroy it.…
