Active Shooter Alert Act of 2022

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1224 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), 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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1224, for five measures.

First, it provides for consideration of H.R. 7900 under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services, makes in order a record 650 amendments, and provides en bloc authority and one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 8296 and H.R. 8297 under closed rules. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate for each bill equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, provides one motion to recommit for each bill, and self-executes a manager's amendment on H.R. 8297.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 6538 under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of S. 3373 under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and provides one motion to commit.

Finally, the rule extends recess instructions, suspension authority, and same-day authority through July 19, 2022, and provides the majority leader or his designee the ability to en bloc requested votes on suspension bills this week.

Madam Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of meaningful legislation that I look forward to discussing with my colleagues today. I would like to start by sharing a few words on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023.

Our Nation faces real and serious global challenges to our security every day, and safeguarding our national defense is vital and necessary. The Russian Federation has launched an unprovoked invasion of the free and democratic Nation of Ukraine, while an emboldened Chinese military threatens our allies in the Pacific.

America must be prepared to face these threats by promoting political stability and diplomatic engagement and ensuring our military is prepared to meet increased threats to global stability.

I am a proud member of the House Armed Services Committee, and this year, for the 62nd consecutive year in a row, the committee has marked up and reported a National Defense Authorization Act to address our national defense needs.

The fiscal year 2023 NDAA includes critical investments in our servicemembers, bolsters our position as a leader in technological innovation to compete with countries like China, and ensures we are prepared to face the coercions of adversaries who already threaten global peace and stability.

I thank the leadership of Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Rogers for delivering a bipartisan bill that prioritizes the needs of our servicemembers and provides the resources to protect global security and peace.

Today, we are also considering the rule for the Honoring our PACT Act. It has been a long road to get here, and I thank Chairman Takano and Ranking Member Bost for their efforts to get this done.

Back home, I have had the opportunity to meet with toxic-exposed veterans and their families, and I have heard loud and clear just how necessary this legislation is for our veterans.

When we send our servicemembers into harm's way, we make a promise that when they come home, we will take care of them.

Sadly, over 3.5 million veterans were exposed to toxic fumes and carcinogens while serving our Nation, resulting in life-threatening lung diseases and cancers. Right now, they are not getting the care they need due to a disability benefits claims process that is cumbersome and places the burden to prove toxic exposure on veterans themselves.

By creating a presumption for disability, this legislation will help cut through the red tape and ensure nothing stands in the way of servicemembers receiving their care.

It is time we make good on our promise to ensure all veterans exposed to toxic substances during their service can access the essential care and benefits they have earned.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to support this bill and look forward to its passage.

Madam Speaker, the rule today also provides for consideration of the Active Shooter Alert Act, which, frankly, should have passed under suspension in June. This commonsense legislation would create a communications network to alert people when an active shooter is in their community.

It is tragic to think we even need such a system, but sadly, the fear of a mass shooting has become a persistent dark cloud shrouding our Nation.

Let's take a moment to reflect on the horrific scene on July 4 when the Highland Park community was attacked. What should have been a joyous occasion for families, friends, and community members instead became a nightmare when a dangerous person wielding a dangerous weapon fired into the crowd, killing seven and injuring dozens more.

There are those who, yet again, offered their thoughts and prayers in response to the Highland Park shooting, yet provided no real solutions. But there are solutions--in fact, this body has passed countless measures that could have helped prevent such a tragic event.

I have made my position clear--meaningful, commonsense gun reform is an absolute necessity. To my colleagues who regularly oppose solutions to gun violence, I ask: What are you willing to do to help protect our communities?

Let's at least come together on legislation that creates a warning system for communities when an active shooter is present so more innocent lives can be saved. We are talking about an alert system, just like those already in place for disasters like tornados, earthquakes, and AMBER Alerts. I can't imagine who would be opposed to such a commonsense step.

I thank the more than 40 Republicans who evaluated the merits of this straightforward bill and voted in favor this June, and I hope we can count on your vote again this week.

Any action is better than no action, which is why I am proud to support this legislation--but we also know it barely scratches the surface of the many other reforms that are needed, which is why I will continue fighting for measures to ban assault weapons, limit high- capacity magazines, and enact universal background checks on every gun sale.

Madam Speaker, I would like to end my opening remarks with comments on two fundamental healthcare bills included in this rule: The Women's Health Protection Act and the Ensuring Women's Right to Reproductive Freedom Act.

These bills will empower women and reaffirm their right to make independent and informed healthcare decisions.

Over the past year we have seen an all-out assault on women's bodily autonomy. The appalling Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade was just the beginning. We have seen States undertake efforts to criminalize a woman's right to make basic family planning decisions.

We have seen a 10-year-old child, a victim of rape, forced out of her State for the healthcare she desperately needs. We have seen increased Federal efforts to restrict access to women's healthcare, contraception, and the fundamental right to privacy.

These astounding restrictions on women are exactly why we need the Women's Health Protection Act.

The Federal law will codify the provisions of Roe v. Wade and establish a statutory right to access the healthcare all women need and deserve.

We also need to pass the Ensuring Women's Right to Reproductive Freedom Act, legislation I proudly cosponsor.

It is a sad state of affairs that we need to codify the fundamental right to interstate travel in this country, protecting women from civil and criminal liability, even when seeking an abortion in a State where it is lawful.

The fact that we have already seen efforts in State legislatures to prevent women from seeking lawful abortions across State lines completely contradicts the claim that overturning Roe v. Wade was about returning the decision to the States.

The radical right has and always will be about restricting women's rights. It is hard to believe we are living in 2022, not 1722. By passing this legislation, we are making it clear that this assault on women's rights cannot stand.

I urge my colleagues to show this country and the world that we respect women, we trust women, and we support women and their right to make informed and independent healthcare decisions.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will make a couple of points on what I think is one of the most important issues that we will face in this Congress and in the future years.

Abortion access in America changed overnight after the Supreme Court took away a woman's constitutional right to make her own reproductive health decisions. Nearly 34 million people of reproductive age now live in a State where abortion is banned or severely restricted--one of the only times that I know of that the Supreme Court of the United States in our history took away a fundamental constitutional right to more than half of America. My 86-year-old mother who is a grandmother and great-grandmother will have had more right over her body and more decision-making under this decision than her granddaughters and great- granddaughters.

It is unconscionable, and the impact of this decision will have horrific consequences for millions of people, particularly people with the greatest burden: low-income individuals, people of color, and victims of incest and abuse. I am genuinely concerned, as are millions of people, for women's rights in this country. We refuse to be complacent, and we refuse to stand silent. We will keep fighting every single day however I can and however we can. Today that means supporting the advancement of the Women's Health Protection Act.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), who is a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

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

While this is not on the agenda, and I will remind people that we have a rule that stipulates which bills are in front of us, I note with alarm the suggestion that we ought to change the Constitution when it comes to the Supreme Court, and for fear that we are undermining the confidence of the Court, frankly, I am astonished.

How about following the current Constitution?

Forget about amending it.

How about following the one that we have?

I just note that when Merrick Garland was nominated by President Obama in March of 2016, 293 days his nomination went without any action in the United States Senate. Amy Coney Barrett was nominated September 26, a mere 6 weeks, 5 weeks before election day. Senator McConnell and the Senate didn't follow the Constitution which says advise and consent on nominations sent by the President. They did absolutely nothing with the nominee Garland. They didn't seek to do anything. In fact, Mitch McConnell talked about the politics of it.

Talk about undermining the confidence of the American public in the Supreme Court?

How about that?

Yet when President Trump just 5 weeks before a Presidential election made a nomination, it was swiftly pushed through.

Undermining confidence in the Supreme Court?

How about confirmation proceedings where Brett Kavanaugh or Neil Gorsuch both said that Roe is settled law; a precedent for 50 years?

They said it in confirmation hearings. They have said it as Senator Collins has indicated her vote hung on those words. Yet they had no intention of following those words. They misled the American public.

Undermining confidence in the Supreme Court?

I am astonished that anyone would even say it.

Frankly, when we talk about this, we know what the agenda here is. Justice Thomas gave us a clear roadmap of where this is all headed.

Undermining confidence in the Supreme Court?

Justice Thomas urged the Court to reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedence, including the right to contraception, the right to private consensual acts, and the right to same-sex marriage, characterizing the entire legal doctrine as particularly dangerous.

Undermining the confidence of the Supreme Court of the United States?

Now, Justice Kavanaugh, I will say to his credit in his concurrence, said that the Court won't go that far. But we have heard these same assurances from Justice Kavanaugh before, and I think they aren't worth the words on the paper that this is printed.

We should be very, very concerned. We should be concerned that the American public has lost confidence in the Supreme Court, but not because of the actions of anyone here or the suggestions here.

How about because of the actions of the United States Senate and the actions of the Supreme Court itself?

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Allred).

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

I appreciate the distinguished gentleman and his comments. I note, just in passing, that Article I authority given to us by the Framers actually gave us the authority to identify the size of the Supreme Court.

Constitutional amendments are not Article I. They are an extensive process that involves ratification. Article I authority, actually--I think he would make my argument--Article I authority would be the Congress making the decision on the size of the Supreme Court, which has been changed many times, from as few as six to as many as nine judges.

But having said that, and just making that point, let's talk about some of the real issues that need addressing that, frankly, are before us, because the size of the Supreme Court is not before us, as interesting as that conversation might be. Let's talk, instead, about issues that real Americans face.

While bravely serving our country, many veterans were exposed to hazards, from burn pits, PFAS, and radiation, toxic exposures that have caused cancers, infertility, respiratory conditions, and unexplained chronic illnesses. As many as 3.5 million servicemembers have been exposed to dangerous toxic fumes.

The cost of war goes far beyond the battlefield, and we have a duty to uphold our promises to toxic-exposed veterans by investing in the healthcare they need and so richly deserve.

In their time of need, veterans should be receiving high-quality care. Instead, they are being burdened with proving that their illness is connected to their service.

I have had the privilege of meeting with many veterans in my community, and the families of veterans who have been lost because of exposure, while they continue the work of having to prove that their illness is a result of exposure to toxic chemicals, to carcinogens, to burn pits.

The Honoring our PACT Act is included in this rule, and this legislation will address the wide range of issues impacting toxic- exposed veterans and their access to earned benefits and care. You can bet I am voting ``yes.''

That is one of the bills being discussed before us today, and I think people watching us on television, people watching this later, seeing clips, would be curious as to why suddenly we are talking about an issue not on the floor, not before us. But this is, the Honoring our PACT Act, before us today.

We can all do something to safeguard those who have served in our Armed Forces and their families by doing the right thing, passing this rule, and passing the underlying legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the comments from my distinguished colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Burgess. But what he points out, in my mind, reminds me how deeply personal this decision is for women involving their body and their healthcare.

I would certainly never question his credentials as a doctor or as a professional, but I have heard from a number of obstetricians and gynecologists who raise, I think, what are really important questions.

For instance, in some States, the health of the mother is the only consideration to be given when it comes to an abortion or reproductive services. Some have raised the question: How long do you wait before you can make the judgment that that is the only determination that can be made? If you wait too long, do you actually jeopardize the health of the mother by waiting so long for fear of violating a State law that restricts the right of a woman to an abortion?

Then there is the question of miscarriages. Many, many women have miscarriages. And concerns have been expressed by their doctors of when we provide care after the fact or during a miscarriage, will there be questions raised about whether or not that was actually an abortion instead of a miscarriage? Will we be jeopardizing our careers? Will we be putting our professional license into question?

These are very difficult questions to answer. I am certainly no expert in them, but they raise, to me, significant questions.

As many have pointed out, there will be abortions in the United States. There will be abortions in Texas. There will be abortions in Mississippi. There will be abortions in every State in this country.

The question is: Are they going to be safe? Are women going to suffer unduly? Are there going to be deaths of women because they weren't given access to safe, reproductive care that is ultimately, as I said, so deeply personal, so deeply involved in their autonomy?

Those are the questions before us. They are deep-seated questions. They are important questions. But, ultimately, we side with the right of a woman to make the decision for herself.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about another important piece embodied in the rule, and it is related to the question of alerts and the Active Shooter Alert Act.

It is no secret our country is plagued by gun violence. This year alone, the Gun Violence Archive counted at least 323 mass shootings. It is hard to even process that--323 mass shootings in the United States. We are just halfway through the year.

On May 14, ten Black Americans were targeted in a racially motivated mass shooting at a local Tops grocery store 60 minutes from my home in Buffalo, New York.

Ten days later, the deadliest shooting since Sandy Hook took place in Uvalde, Texas, where 19 kids and 2 teachers were gunned down at Robb Elementary School.

Just a week ago, on July 4 in Highland Park, Illinois, seven people at a 4th of July parade were killed by a gunman during a mass shooting incident. Hard to imagine. So many of us were at parades and activities just like that in our hometowns. Seven people dead.

I have made my position and others have made their position very clear on gun reform, that meaningful, commonsense reform is an absolute necessity. I am committed to fighting for the change that will provide real change and save real lives, big changes.

But, in the meantime, I think this demonstrates our willingness to find common ground on solutions. Again, the Active Shooter Alert Act is bipartisan. It is something we should all be able to get behind on voting ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I begin by thanking the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma. We have the great privilege of serving together on the Rules Committee. We spend many hours together, and I almost always--almost always--find myself in agreement with him.

He is thoughtful. He is dedicated to this institution, committed to the important principles of our democracy and the Constitution, and I consider it a privilege to be able to serve with him and to learn from him, and I appreciate his thoughtfulness in this debate as well.

I also thank my colleagues for their words in support of the rule before us today. A vote in favor of the rule today, in my view, says volumes about what we value. Support for this rule shows we value our servicemembers who put their lives on the line for this country each and every day. When they come home, we will be here to take care of them.

A ``yes'' vote shows we value our defense preparedness and ensures our Nation is ready to face the very real and serious global challenges threatening our security. It also demonstrates a willingness to do the bare minimum to address gun violence by ensuring our communities can effectively be able to alert people when an active shooter is in the area.

Last, but certainly not least, a vote in favor tells women in this country that we value and respect them. We support their right to manage their own healthcare.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle can attempt to misdirect and confuse the issues at hand all they want, but the reality is we are presenting concrete proposals to address real issues facing our Nation when it comes to national defense, and I appreciate the bipartisan support for that, the NDAA, gun reform, women's rights, support for veterans. I choose to be on the right side of history on these issues. I am voting ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6538) to create an Active Shooter Alert Communications Network, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 6538.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this bill, H.R. 6538, the Active Shooter Alert Act, bipartisan legislation which I introduced with Congressman Upton and 16 other original Republican and Democratic cosponsors to help keep our communities safer in the event of an active shooter.

Between 2000 and 2020, there were close to 400 active shooter events, including 40 active shooter incidents in 2020 and 61 such incidents in 2021 alone.

In 2016, in Congressman Upton's backyard, we saw a Michigan Uber driver go on a shooting rampage and then continue picking up passengers.

In 2019, a shooter drove around a community in Texas, killing 7 and wounding 25 people.

In 2021, a shooter traveled 30 miles, murdering eight people at various Atlanta-area spas.

Just this past April, a shooter attacked a subway station full of people in Brooklyn and was then on the run for 24 hours before police finally detained him.

Such active shooters have become ubiquitous, so frequent that some of these horrific events barely make headlines. This is not normal, and we cannot let it become normalized. We cannot become numb to these events or settle for the status quo. We need to act now to make our communities safer, and that includes providing law enforcement with every tool they need to do so.

Law enforcement has asked for ways to better alert their communities when active shooter incidents arise. This legislation answers that call.

The Active Shooter Alert Act creates an AMBER Alert-like program for active shooter events. This bill will provide law enforcement with cutting-edge technology to send notifications

to our smartphones and let communities know if there is an active shooter in a certain area so they know to stay away.

The bill also instructs the Department of Justice to consult with police safety experts, including officers who have responded to these incidents, to develop best practices and protocols for sending out these alerts. This will allow law enforcement to learn from each other as they adapt this alert system to the needs of the communities, if they so choose.

Developing this kind of technology and infrastructure, and identifying best practices, would be a massive undertaking for many local police departments. Some communities simply don't have the resources to do it on their own. However, we already have these resources at the Federal level.

This legislation simply gives every law enforcement agency across the country the option to access the Federal alert system so they can send alerts in their area.

Nothing in this bill is mandatory for law enforcement agencies to adopt, but it will provide access to an important tool for law enforcement departments across the country, regardless of their size or location.

It is, sadly, becoming more and more necessary to have these protocols in place. As we have seen time and time again, when there is an active shooter situation, law enforcement does all they can to keep people in the surrounding area safe, including going door to door to either evacuate or tell people to shelter in place. But that takes time, time that could cost lives.

More than anyone, law enforcement understands the strain an active shooter puts on a community in an ongoing crisis. In these stressful, life-or-death situations, law enforcement is too often, in many cases, relying on social media to communicate with the surrounding community so that no one accidentally walks into the line of fire, including other members of law enforcement.

Law enforcement deserves the best tools available, certainly better than Twitter, to communicate with their communities.

Now, if you look at the after-action reports in so many of these active shooter incidents, they all recognize that it would have been so helpful to have a way to quickly and safely communicate with other members of law enforcement or the local community about an active shooter.

I am proud that this bill has the endorsement of law enforcement organizations across the country at the national, State, and local levels and that it is a resoundingly bipartisan effort.

I thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have supported this commonsense measure and Mr. Upton for leading this effort with me. I encourage a ``yes'' vote.

Just to be clear, this is legislation endorsed by the National Sheriffs' Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Police Foundation, the National Association of Police Organizations, Major Cities Chiefs Association, National District Attorneys Association, and many other local law enforcement agencies.

The men and women who are protecting our communities are saying they need this. It is bipartisan. I urge everyone to vote for it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean), an important member of the House Judiciary Committee.

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

I will make a couple of points quickly. This legislation has nothing to do with limitations on the Second Amendment. It has nothing to do with red flag laws. It has nothing to do with this claim of defunding the police.

I have lots of material for the Record that shows police departments have been cut in other communities led by Republican mayors and Republican Governors. Let's not have that debate. This is about a simple provision that will save lives.

With all due respect to my colleagues who claim they understand what this legislation is about, I trust the judgment of the men and women who are actually going into active shooter situations. I don't think there is a single Member who has spoken who has been responsible for responding to an active shooting incident. I think it is time we respect the men and women who actually do that every day.

The men and women of law enforcement are pleading for this legislation to help keep them safe, as well as the communities they serve. I won't be so presumptuous, Madam Speaker, to think I have better judgment on that question than they do. That is why they have all endorsed this bill.

The third thing I will say: Mr. Massie said, Madam Speaker, that this question wasn't answered. I will answer it again, the same way I answered it in committee.

The standards are established by law enforcement. Active shooter alerts already exist in some States and in some local communities. There are a set of protocols.

Obviously, they don't wait until the shooting has concluded to notify people. They use common sense, their own standards about when they see a danger; someone with a gun that is expressing some intention to use it or whatever standard they consider appropriate as members of law enforcement to alert the community. This is common sense.

The problem is, there are a lot of small departments that don't have the ability to access this system or to understand best practices or to see the research about how it is used most effectively. This would allow them to have access to that.

Not a single jurisdiction that doesn't want to use it is required to. There is no Federal Government power here. It is making it available. If you decide as a local law enforcement agency or State you don't want to use it, you don't have to, but it is making it available. This will save lives.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his thoughtful words.

I also want to mention that some of my colleagues earlier in the debate said creating this is going to create a fear of shooting. That is what Democrats are really up to, and the 15 or 16 Republicans that are the original co-sponsors of this bill.

Well, I would ask one question: When we created the AMBER Alert to help families find a child who is lost, or the Silver Alert, it didn't create any great fear. It effectively made sure when seniors were lost, they were found. When children were lost, they were found. So that is a specious argument.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I will respond briefly to the last speaker suggesting that somehow this isn't going to solve all the problems of gun violence. No one suggested it is.

This is a simple bill that is introduced to protect law enforcement and members of the community when an active shooter happens. We can continue to fight about how we should reduce gun violence, but when it occurs, this will save lives. It is not intended to be the solution, the big answer to everything. It is intended to save lives.

I will repeat again--with all due respect to my Republican colleagues who think they are experts in policing, who think they know better than law enforcement what they need when they run into danger--it is easy to say that in the comfort of the House Chamber, where you are protected by Capitol Police and you get alerts.

These are men and women who are running into bullets and communities that are threatened. You raised what happened on 14th Street. A young man who works for me received a notice 35 minutes after the scene was cleared through his Ring security system in his building that there was an active shooter. Had there been one in place, he would have been notified and not walked into danger.

You have the National Sheriffs' Association, the FOP, and others saying this will be very helpful. These are people who, admittedly, actually are responsible for keeping communities safe, unlike anyone who just spoke on the Republican side. They say it will help us keep communities safe.

The CEO of the National Sheriffs' Association said: ``This alert system will be another excellent tool for law enforcement to do its job.''

Bryan Porter from the National District Attorneys Association: ``This bipartisan legislation creates a new alert system for law enforcement to alert the public when there are active shooters while also providing resources as our members work to keep our communities safe.''

Jeri Williams, president of the Major Cities Chiefs Association: `` . . . which will undoubtedly be a valuable tool and resource for law enforcement agencies.''

Bill Johnson, the National Association of Police Organizations: ``The Active Shooter Alert Act will assist law enforcement in alerting citizens of an active shooter situation in their vicinity, keeping them away from the incident and maintaining their safety.''

Finally, Patrick Yoes, the national president of the Fraternal Order of Police: This bill will help ``improve the ways officers and agencies communicate with the public about active threats.''

I could read 10 more quotes from people who actually do this work.

The North Carolina Association of Chiefs of Police has also endorsed this bill, which I think should be important to Mr. Bishop, who just spoke.

Look, these are men and women who do the job every day, and they are saying they need this, that it will be useful. It doesn't solve all the problems, but it works, and the notion that, ``Well, you can just do it. It is redundant,'' it is just not true.

This bill has in it provisions that will provide for the development of protocols, the sharing of best practices, a law enforcement advisory group, things that will make sure the active shooter alert works even better. It is made available to communities that may not have all those resources to support the implementation of this system.

Can anyone say that every single American doesn't deserve to get this information, and every member of law enforcement doesn't deserve to get this information, so they don't go into a dangerous situation?

I know it is difficult because you somehow have it in your head that Democrats are up to something. Fred Upton, Victoria Spartz, Peter Meijer, Nancy Mace, Don Bacon, Andrew Garbarino, Jay Obernolte, Jefferson Van Drew, Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, Brian Fitzpatrick, John Carter, Tom Rice, Michael McCaul, Kelly Armstrong, David McKinley, and Julia Letlow are all Republican original cosponsors. Do you think they are up to something, too? They are just trying to keep their communities safe and give law enforcement the tools they need.

We can argue about the underlying cause of crime. I am happy to have that debate. This bill is not about that. It is about protecting people when an active shooter incident happens.

The final thing I would say is, if you look at the after-action reports that are done after active shootings, almost without exception, they all reference that it would have made a real difference if we had a good communication system.

In the situation Mr. Upton talked about in Kalamazoo, in their after- action report, they said neither the Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety nor the Kalamazoo County Sheriff's Office ``had a strong social media presence at the time of the shooting,'' which ``hampered the departments' ability to update the community on the progression of the incident, notify them when the arrest was made, and reassure them that they were indeed safe from further violence.''

In the Columbine shooting, in the after-action report, they say: Our schools' greatest vulnerabilities exist because of voids in basic security policies and strategies, such as effective communications and notification systems.

In the Broward County incident at the Hollywood airport in 2017, they write in their after-action report: ``Review and budget for improvements to public notification systems, including visual paging, overhead announcements, and mass notification systems'' would be helpful. It was noted during the event that airport patrons lost personal items except one, their cellular phones. The ability to reach every cell phone with messages enables law enforcement to provide instant information directly to victims. It goes on and on and on.

Again, police are asking for this. The after-action reports underscore the need for it.

Set aside the fact that the lead sponsor or the author is me. There are 15 other Democrats, 15 other Republicans, very bipartisan, and I haven't heard any argument why we shouldn't give law enforcement what was identified as one of their top priorities during National Police Week.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I were a classroom teacher right now, I would say to the gentleman from Ohio: Focus. Focus. Pay attention to what we are talking about.

What we are talking about is an active shooter alert. We are not talking about a red flag bill. We are not talking about any effort to undermine the Second Amendment. We are not talking about education policy. We are talking about one thing: Can we help keep people safe?

This is not redundant because while it is being used by 1,400 cities and towns around the country, there are thousands and thousands who have not used it because they can't access it because they don't have the resources, the protocols, the best practices. This will allow them.

If we save one life, if because of the active shooter alert we save one child, one police officer, it will have been worth it.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 6538. Give our brave law enforcement men and women who keep our communities safe every tool they need to keep themselves safe and keep the communities they serve safe. Don't take my word for it; take theirs. They have all endorsed it. They are asking for a ``yes.''

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my very good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, today's rule covers several major items. The first that I will discuss, H.R. 7900, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2023, is of the greatest importance to the Nation and to the world.

For 61 years in a row the NDAA has become law. As I reminded my colleagues in the Rules Committee yesterday, this record of achievement has only been possible because of the immense cooperation from both sides of the aisle and is a testament to what we can accomplish when we focus on our shared goals as a Nation.

Working together, Democrats and Republicans on the Armed Services Committee produced a bipartisan product. I applaud Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Rogers, and all the members of the Armed Services Committee for their efforts.

Madam Speaker, it is no secret that the world has become a more dangerous place in recent years. Last year saw the Taliban--a corrupt and militant organization known for supporting and providing sanctuary to terrorists--complete its takeover of Afghanistan.

Earlier this year, the world was shocked by Vladimir Putin's brazen, unprovoked, and indeed outright criminal invasion of Ukraine, Russia's democratic neighbor to the west.

Communist China continues its history of aggression in Asia and the Pacific Rim, including increasingly aggressive acts toward Taiwan.

North Korea has continued an aggressive posturing toward the United States and our democratic allies in Asia.

Iran continues its long march toward becoming a nuclear state.

It is more important than ever that Congress speaks with one voice when it comes to setting our national defense policy and funding priorities each year so that we can ensure we counter aggressive actors and offer our allies the support they need to protect themselves.

One of the most important things accomplished in this year's NDAA is actually what it did not do. For the second year in a row, the Armed Services Committee rejected President Biden's proposed defense budget number and authorized a better, higher number to ensure that our national defense is properly funded.

Indeed, President Biden's first two budget proposals looked set to continue the chronic underfunding of the Obama-Biden years, during which time our military readiness declined and our rivals on the international stage were empowered.

The increased funding in this bill will go a long way toward ensuring that America's military is ready to confront any challenge. It will ensure that our armed services personnel receive a 4.6 percent pay raise, the largest in history, with additional pay bonuses to personnel who make the least to offset the inflation caused by this administration's policies.

On the whole, I am proud to support this legislation and I encourage the entire House to support this measure and send it on to the Senate.

Madam Speaker, our second item in the House is S. 3373, the Honoring our PACT Act. While this bill has gone through a frustratingly long process to get to this point, I believe we have failed to provide our Nation's toxic-exposed veterans with the care that they need for far too long.

I will be the first to admit that this bill is not perfect. I share the concerns of many about the use of mandatory spending in this bill. Given the importance of this issue to veterans nationwide, and to those in my district, I cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Imperfect though it is, this bill does take important strides forward, and I plan to support it on final passage.

Unfortunately, two other bills contained in this rule are partisan and stand no chance of becoming law. The Democratic majority is attempting to insert a right to an abortion into Federal law, preempting every State law that seeks to protect life.

They want to require all States to permit abortion on demand at any time up to the point of birth. They want to outlaw commonsense restrictions, like

preventing late-term abortions, preventing sex-selective abortions, and preventing abortions targeting fetuses with Down syndrome.

They want to prevent States from adopting commonsense protections for the unborn, such as banning mail-order and telemedicine abortion services. They want to limit the rights of parents by creating a cause of action for outsiders to interfere with the parent-child relationship. That would be an unconscionable state of affairs, Madam Speaker.

I remind my colleagues of the words of the Declaration of Independence: that the right to life is one of those inalienable rights endowed upon us all, including unborn children, by our Creator.

I will always stand strongly in favor of defending life, and I proudly stand in opposition to these bills today.

Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H. Res. 11 for immediate consideration. This resolution proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require that the Supreme Court of the United States be composed of nine Justices.

Madam Speaker, the Supreme Court has been set at nine Justices for 153 years. Fundamentally changing the composition of the Court to satisfy the demands of one political party would permanently erode the independence of the judicial branch and forever alter the separation of powers, which is the very foundation our Constitution and our Nation were built upon.

The independence of the judicial branch is too sacred to subject it to the political issue of the day. The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is not a popularity contest, and the Court's decisions should not be based on polls. The Supreme Court's duty is to the Constitution and ensuring that adherence to the laws of the land.

To further explain the amendment, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), who is my very good friend and the author of the resolution.

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

Madam Speaker, as has become all too common with the Democratic majority, when the status quo doesn't lead to the outcome they want, they simply change the rules to suit their needs.

You need to only look at the last 2 years for evidence: fundamentally changing the way the House operates through the use of proxy voting; a complete lockdown of alternative ideas; fewer and fewer committees doing the work to make the law rather than score political points--all aimed at protecting their razor-thin majority at the expense of the institution and the Nation.

Democrats' current obsession with the Supreme Court is no different, but instead of accepting the independence of the judiciary, the majority is, instead, intent on fixing the rules of the game to ensure their own victory. This amendment to the Constitution would prevent that from happening and would ensure, once and for all, that the Supreme Court will be independent and free of meddling based on the political ideas of the day.

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

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong), my very good friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my very good friend and a distinguished member of the Rules Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice), my very good friend and a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for the time, and frankly, for the thoughtful and wide-ranging debate. It is not a surprise that a rule that covers five very different pieces of legislation would provoke that kind of discussion.

I want to begin in the areas we agree. There are actually three areas in this bill that I will be voting for. Most importantly, quite frankly, is the National Defense Authorization Act.

There is going to be some opposition to that. It was a give-and-take bill, but I remind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that it actually came out of committee on a 57 to 1 vote; 57 to 1. That says a lot of wonderful things about the leadership of Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Rogers on that committee and its ability, after considering over 600 or 700 amendments itself, to find common ground and move forward.

For my colleagues that vote no, that is fine. Again, there is always something in a bill this size you can find to disagree with, but I will remind my friends on my side of the aisle that every single Republican on the committee voted for the bill. So I think it is going to pass and pass quite easily.

I also want to associate myself with my friend's support of the toxic burn pit bill. It is a bill that I have some serious problems with, such as the manner in which it was funded and some of the procedures by which it moved, but it is a much better bill than we have seen before. It is a step in the right direction.

There is no question my friend is correct when he talks about our obligation as a Congress to look after the men and women who have put their lives on the line for us and suffered egregious harm.

I hope we can do better in the future. I hope we can even revisit some of the financing measures here, but it is important that it get done and that it passes, and I look forward to working with my friend to do that.

I agree with him on the AMBER Alert bill as well, and I will be supporting it. There are some concerns on my side of the aisle about that, and I understand those concerns. Again, I think this is a commonsense measure.

The area that I will not be able to join my friend on does deal with the fundamental protection of human life and the effort of this body to pass legislation that it knows will go nowhere in the Senate simply to make a point.

We ought to be working to find common ground, not to dig down the divisions that we have even more deeply. So I will oppose the rule partly because I oppose some of the measures in the rule; also, because I certainly would like the previous question to be considered.

I thought both of my friends from North and South Dakota made some excellent points on the need to codify the number nine or at least have a discussion about that in this body, and obviously, if we defeat the previous question, we intend to do that.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the chair very much for yielding.

Let me acknowledge both my good friend, Mr. Cicilline, and my good friend, Mr. Upton, for their thoughtfulness.

Let me provide a response and relief to my good friend from Florida. First of all, I champion the heroes who run into burning buildings, law enforcement that save persons who are under attack, and the outstanding heroes of natural disasters and manmade disasters. They are valuable.

But I do want to answer the question that we have seen, i.e., Uvalde a lot of good guys with guns and nothing happened. And so this active shooter legislation is common sense. Let me dispel your fears. There is modern-day technology that experts run by FEMA under the DOJ will, in fact, be able in this active shooter legislation pinpoint where the active shooter may be.

I have here a list of shootings that have gone on in Uvalde; Buffalo; Boulder, Colorado; Atlanta; Dayton; El Paso; Virginia Beach; Thousand Oaks; Pittsburgh; Parkland; Sutherland; Las Vegas; Orlando; Oregon; Rosenberg; and Oak Creek.

I can assure you that the active shooter legislation would have been effective.

Individuals had gotten the guns legally, allegedly, but no one gave notice to those people that a shooting was going on.

In recent weeks and months and years, we have mourned the loss of life resulting from an ever-increasing number of active shooters. Communities in every corner of this country are suffering.

For instance, eight people were killed roughly 30 miles apart in three spas. No active shooter alert. If that had been done, someone could have been prepared that an active shooter that had a propensity to go into spas was killing people. He ran around creating havoc.

We know what happened in Uvalde, Texas--no notice that there was havoc going on in Robb Elementary School. Tell that to the parents.

Highland Park, Illinois, a Fourth of July parade ended abruptly as the shooting came. If we had had that, there might have been relief.

Please realize that we are here trying to save lives. In saving lives, yes, we want a ban on the assault weapons, but we would hope that you would join us on a bipartisan bill that will simply notify people what is happening, not deny them their due process rights.

H.R. 6538 is an important bill that would authorize the Department of Justice to coordinate an active shooter alert network. We will be listening to law enforcement and those with technology to ensure that the system works.

AMBER Alerts, for those of us in disaster territory and storm territory, work.

Mr. Speaker, I will not leave the floor without trying my best to give the names from Uvalde: Makenna, Layla, Maranda, Nevaeh, Jose, Xavier, Tess, Rojelio, Eliahna, Eliahna, Annabell, Jackie, Uziyah, Jayce, Maite, Jailah, Irma, Eva, Amerie, Alexandria, and Alithia; and those of this great community of Buffalo: Roberta, Margus, Andre, Aaron, Geraldine, Celestine, Heyward, Katherine, Pearl, and Ruth. These are people who have died. Highland will have their list of names added to this.

Support the AMBER Alert that makes the difference in an active shooting so that even though there are good guys out there, you can tell the people to save their lives. For the little 2-year-old that we will hear about soon, support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6538, the ``Active Shooter Alert Act of 2022.''

In recent weeks, months, and years, we have mourned the loss of life resulting from an ever-increasing number of active shooter incidents where perpetrators committed mass shootings in multiple locations.

Communities in every corner of this country have been subjected to the fear and uncertainty created by active shooters in their midst.

Last year, there were 61 active shooter incidents in the United States. Approximately 27 of those incidents involved an active shooter moving from one location to another.

For instance, 8 people were killed roughly 30 miles apart at three spas in the metro Atlanta area last year. The gunman was later apprehended some 150 miles south of Atlanta.

In May this year, as we all know, 19 fourth graders and two teachers in Uvalde, Texas were slaughtered in a mass shooting that began when the perpetrator shot his grandmother in the home they shared, drove away, and crashed his vehicle outside Robb Elementary, where he entered and committed unspeakable acts.

And just a week ago in Highland Park, Illinois, a Fourth of July parade ended abruptly when a shooter opened fire on spectators, then fled the scene, prompting a citywide search.

While the actions of these individuals and other active shooters are unacceptable and require Congress to enact measures to put an end to such evil acts, we must also be prepared if these situations occur, and do all we can to help law enforcement save more lives.

Law enforcement's response to an active shooter is a dynamic situation--oftentimes chaotic--that involves many variables, requires swift, consequential decision-making, and places great strain on law enforcement command staff and their officers on the ground.

Their goal is to save the lives of victims and prevent others from unknowingly entering the area or walking into the line of fire--at all times focusing on containing, neutralizing, and apprehending the shooter.

We all saw the video of the band members in Highland Park who continued to march along the parade route as shots rang out above their heads. We saw the confused looks on the faces of the spectators as they tried to determine if the loud bangs were gunshots or fireworks.

An Active Shooter Alert could have helped those people fully ascertain the danger they were in and get to safety faster. An Alert might have saved the life of the woman who unknowingly walked directly into the line of fire of the Buffalo Shooter in the Tops parking lot.

Centers of higher learning and primary education, businesses, local jurisdictions, and law enforcement agencies have already implemented some systems to alert students, employees, patrons, and community members of the presence of an active shooter, and to help manage the response, and provide updates about the ongoing crisis via text message and/or social media.

Many of these systems face low enrollment and messaging delays that sometimes contribute to confusion around the incident. In the case of social media--insufficient account visibility means fewer people are made aware of an existing threat to their safety.

Law enforcement needs a reliable method of communication to rapidly notify as many people as possible within the vicinity of an ongoing active shooter incident; provide instructions to avoid the area or shelter in place; and announce when the area has been restored to safety.

H.R. 6538, the Active Shooter Alert Act of 2022, would authorize the Department of Justice to coordinate the creation of an Active Shooter Alert Network, enabling law enforcement to send active shooter alerts to mobile devices within their communities using the same system that issues AMBER Alerts, severe storm and extreme weather events warnings, and other emergency situations.

This legislation would ensure that an advisory panel--comprised of law enforcement officers, public safety experts, and emergency response officials experienced in responding to active shooter situations--has input in the development of best practices for issuing alerts effectively.

DOJ would oversee establishment of the advisory panel; establish and promote adoption of the best practices; and coordinate with FEMA, the Department of Transportation, and the FCC to issue alerts for the network and to provide a report to Congress on the effectiveness of the network.

Although this system would be available to law enforcement agencies to use on a voluntary basis, I expect many agencies will elect to participate based on the many endorsements received from law enforcement agencies.

I thank ACAL Subcommittee Chairman Cicilline for his leadership on this lifesaving, bipartisan legislation that I am proud to cosponsor along with Representatives Deutch, Spartz, Upton, Thompson, Meijer, and Mace.

Uvalde Shooting Victims

Makenna Lee Elrod, 10

Layla Salazar, 11

Maranda Mathis, 11

Nevaeh Bravo, 10

Jose Manuel Flores Jr., 10

Xavier Lopez, 10

Tess Marie Mata, 10

Rojelio Torres, 10

Eliahna ``Ellie'' Amyah Garcia, 9; who was just days from turning 10 years old

Eliahna A. Torres, 10

Annabell Guadalupe Rodriguez, 10; cousin and best friend to Jackie Cazares, 9, another victim

Uziyah Garcia

Jayce Carmelo Luevanos, 10

Maite Yuleana Rodriguez, 10

Jailah Nicole Silguero, 10

Irma Garcia, 48; a teacher of over two decades

Eva Mireles, 44

Amerie Jo Garza, 10

Alexandria ``Lexi'' Aniyah Rubio, 10

Alithia Ramirez, 10

Buffalo Shooting Victims

Roberta A. Drury of Buffalo, N.Y.--age 32

Margus D. Morrison of Buffalo, N.Y.--age 52

Andre Mackneil of Auburn, N.Y.--age 53

Aaron Salter of Lockport, N.Y.--age 55

Geraldine Talley of Buffalo, N.Y.--age 62

Celestine Chaney of Buffalo, N.Y.--age 65

Heyward Patterson of Buffalo, N.Y.--age 67

Katherine Massey of Buffalo, N.Y.--age 72

Pearl Young of Buffalo, N.Y.--age 77

Ruth Whitfield of Buffalo, N.Y.--age 86

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

The Active Shooter Alert Act is unnecessary. It gives more authority to the Biden Justice Department, the most political Justice Department in history.

States already utilize emergency alert systems to warn the public about natural and human-made disasters, extreme weather events, active shooter situations, and other emergencies. Federal, State, and local officials already use the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System to send emergency alerts to mobile devices and to alert media platforms.

According to a 2020 report from the Government Accountability Office, every State has at least one alerting authority, and there are more than 1,400 alerting authorities across the country.

If the States are already using an alerting system to notify the public about imminent threats, what is this bill really doing? What is this bill really about? This bill is creating a new Federal job at the Biden DOJ to encourage State and local governments to issue public alerts any time a firearm is used to threaten anyone anywhere.

Don't take my word for it. During the markup, Congressman Jones admitted that:

This bill would be most effective at reminding us that the

threat of gun violence exists all around us, but it does

little to actually protect us from it.

That is right. This bill is about Democrat fear-mongering that guns are ever-present threats, and we cannot be safe until Big Government rounds up every last gun.

In fact, Congressman Jones went further and called on the committee to consider another bill that would ban assault weapons. The Democrat chair of the committee followed up by voicing his support for that very concept.

No wonder the Democrats want to push forward a bill that will create a reminder that ``the threat of gun violence exists all around us.'' They want to create a culture of fear so they can achieve their ultimate goal, which is getting rid of the Second Amendment.

If they really wanted to improve emergency alerts for active shooters, we would be moving a bill to improve the IPAWS wireless emergency alerts that are sent to mobile devices.

In a recent report, GAO stated that local alerting officials had expressed concerns about the inability to target WEA alerts with accuracy, which made local officials reluctant to even use the system at all.

They have got a system out there. Let's improve the system and alert people to emergencies, not have legislation that is about ultimately undermining the Second Amendment.

We could have had hearings. We could have received expert testimony. We could have been able to fully vet this initiative. This legislation is simply another failed attempt by Democrats to ``do something'' about the surge in violence and crime across the country.

If we need to do something, we should start by supporting law enforcement and the rule of law instead of demonizing our police and actively encouraging illegal entry into this country.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would point out, we are not trying to hide behind the Second Amendment--we are trying to defend it. We are defending it.

It is an important part of our Bill of Rights, an important part of our Constitution.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie), no better defender of the Second Amendment, and the co-chair of the Second Amendment Caucus.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).

Madam Speaker, such irony. Democrats lecturing Republicans on law enforcement and respect for law enforcement. This from the party who spent an entire summer talking about defunding the police, who had elected officials in this body, Democrats in this body, raise money to bail out the rioters and looters who they called peaceful protesters who were attacking police, and now he is going to lecture Republicans on respect for law enforcement. I mean, you can't make it up. This is how the Democrats operate today.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop), my friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

First, as the gentleman from North Carolina said, this bill is redundant. There are 1,400 alerting authorities across the country that already alert citizens in those communities to an active shooter, so it is redundant.

Second, it does seek to undermine the Second Amendment. Don't take my word for it. Take one of the Democrat supporters of the legislation on the Judiciary Committee. Here is what he said:

This bill would be most effective at reminding us that the

threat of gun violence exists all around us, but it does

little to actually protect us.

You have to view it in context. Remember, the last 4 weeks, all Democrats have talked about is taking away people's Second Amendment liberties.

We have this huge debate going on in the Senate right now, red flag laws where you have no due process. Someone who doesn't like you comes and says, ``We are going to take away so-and-so's firearm,'' and goes to a judge or law enforcement to take away their firearm. There is a hearing you are not allowed to be at. They take it away, and then you have to go get it back. Your fundamental liberty, taking your property, your rights from you, this is the context with which they bring this legislation.

The third reason, I don't know who in their right mind would want to give the Department of Justice more authority in light of what we have seen from this Department of Justice. Frankly, I don't know why you would give any Democrat-run Department of Justice more authority after what we have seen from the Obama Justice Department and now what we see from the Biden Justice Department.

The Obama Justice Department spied on Presidential campaigns. The Biden Department of Justice is treating moms and dads as terrorists, using domestic terrorism, counterterrorism measures, the PATRIOT Act, against parents, for goodness sakes.

We know that because we have had multiple FBI agents come forward as whistleblowers and tell us about the

over two dozen investigations into parents. One of those parents was investigated simply because they owned a firearm. That is the context and why we have concerns with this legislation.

I hope we vote ``no'' on this. More importantly, I hope the Senate doesn't pass this package they are talking about, which would certainly undermine liberties of law-abiding American citizens.

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

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