Prosecutors Need to Prosecute Act

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1153 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), 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 may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1153, for two measures.

First, it provides for consideration of H.R. 2377 under a closed rule. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment, provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, and provides one motion to recommit.

Second, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 7910 under a closed rule. The rule provides 2 hours of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. It provides that following debate the House will vote separately on retaining each title of the bill and provides one motion to recommit.

Additionally, the rule deems passage of H. Res. 1151 and H. Res. 1152.

Finally, the rule extends recess instructions, suspension authority, and same-day authority through June 17.

Madam Speaker, I am struggling to put into words right now the tremendous pain that so many Americans feel in the wake of the mass shootings in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, New York, pain because, once again, we are burying America's children.

The hopes and dreams and futures of our kids, birthday parties and bar mitzvahs, and summer breaks and high school graduations stolen by a senseless, unceasing drumbeat of gun violence. The lives of innocent shoppers ended in a hate-fueled rampage of white supremacy.

It does not have to be this way. What kind of country are we if we let this happen and do nothing? What does that say about our values and our priorities as a society?

I am so deeply disappointed and frustrated as a Member of Congress, but even more as a parent. What happened in Uvalde is unconscionable.

For God's sake, the parents had to submit DNA because the bodies of their fourth graders were unrecognizable. They had to identify them by their shoes because the exit wounds produced by an AR-15 were so large that their bodies were torn apart by the bullets.

Madam Speaker, 18-year-olds can't even rent a car, but they can buy guns that can tear people apart. It just doesn't make any sense.

When I think of the trauma the parents had to go through, burying their kids, knowing that this could have been prevented if bills like the ones we are considering today were passed into law, it is beyond heartbreaking.

There are no words, just sadness, when I think of my kids. Then, I think of all the parents who won't get to watch their own kids grow up.

For Uvalde, for Parkland, for Sandy Hook, for Buffalo, and all the mass shootings that have torn apart communities all across this country, I am pleading with my colleagues: Do not throw away this opportunity to get something done. Do not let partisan talking points get in the way of reasonable gun safety measures.

None of these ideas are extreme. In fact, they are what the vast majority of people in this country want us to do.

This vote will unequivocally show where each and every one of us stands: on red flag laws, on raising the age to purchase a semiautomatic rifle from 18 to 21, on gun trafficking and straw purchases, on ghost guns, on the safe storage of firearms, particularly when a minor is likely to gain access to them, on bump stocks, and on large-capacity magazines.

We will have separate votes on all of these issues. This week there will be no excuses.

Really, think about that list. None of these proposals are aimed at taking firearms away from law-abiding gun owners. They are aimed at stopping people from getting slaughtered in their schools, in churches, in grocery stores, in homes.

These bills would have stopped the shooters in Buffalo and Uvalde from buying their guns.

Madam Speaker, I am pleading with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to work with us, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The gentlewoman said Republicans stand ready to address school safety and other root causes of gun violence.

I include in the Record a May 26, 2022, article from The Texas Tribune entitled: ``Texas already `hardened' schools. It didn't save Uvalde.''

[From The Texas Tribune, May 26, 2022]

Texas Already ``Hardened'' Schools. It Didn't Save Uvalde.

(By Jolie McCullough and Kate McGee)

Four years after an armed 17-year-old opened fire inside a

Texas high school, killing 10, Gov. Greg Abbott tried to tell

another shell-shocked community that lost 19 children and two

teachers to a teen gunman about his wins in what is now an

ongoing effort against mass shootings.

``We consider what we did in 2019 to be one of the most

profound legislative sessions not just in Texas but in any

state to address school shootings,'' Abbott said inside a

Uvalde auditorium Wednesday as he sat flanked by state and

local officials. ``But to be clear, we understand our work is

not done, our work must continue.''

Throughout the 60-minute news conference, he and other

Republican leaders said a 2019 law allowed districts to

``harden'' schools from external threats after a deadly

shooting inside an art classroom at Santa Fe High School near

Houston the year before. After the Uvalde gunman was

reportedly able to enter Robb Elementary School through a

back door this week, their calls to secure buildings

resurfaced yet again.

But a deeper dive into the 2019 law revealed many of its

``hardening'' elements have fallen short. Schools didn't

receive enough state money to make the types of physical

improvements lawmakers are touting publicly. Few school

employees signed up to bring guns to work. And many school

districts either don't have an active shooting plan or

produced insufficient ones.

In January 2020, the Uvalde Consolidated Independent School

District received $69,000 from a one-time, $100 million state

grant to enhance physical security in Texas public schools,

according to a dataset detailing the Texas Education Agency

grants. The funds were comparable to what similarly sized

districts received.

Even with more funds and better enforcement of policies,

experts have said there is no indication that beefing up

security in schools has prevented any violence. Plus, they

said, it can be detrimental to children, especially children

of color.

``This concept of hardening, the more it has been done,

it's not shown the results,'' said Jagdish Khubchandani, a

public health professor at New Mexico State University who

studies school security practices and their effectiveness.

Khubchandani said the majority of public schools in the

United States already implement the security measures most

often promoted by public officials, including locked doors to

the outside and in classrooms, active shooter plans and

security cameras.

After a review of 18 years of school security measures,

Khubchandani and James Price from the University of Toledo

did not find any evidence that such tactics or more armed

teachers reduced gun violence in schools.

``It's not just guns. It's not just security,''

Khubchandani said. ``It's a combination of issues, and if you

have a piecemeal approach, then you'll never succeed. You

need a comprehensive approach.''

Insufficient Active Shooter Plans

Since the shooting, GOP lawmakers have repeatedly suggested

limiting access to schools to one door.

``We've got to, in our smaller schools where we can, get

down to one entrance,'' Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick offered at the

press conference Wednesday. ``One entrance might be one of

those solutions. If he had taken three more minutes to find

that open door . . . the police were there pretty quickly.''

There are still questions about the timing and details of

the tragedy, however, including whether the shooter busted a

lock to get into the school or if a door was unlocked. A

state police official reported Thursday that the door

appeared to be unlocked but that it was still under

investigation.

Khubchandani and education advocates said locking doors and

routing everyone through one entrance is already standard

practice in most districts. And safety leaders said locking

exterior doors is a best practice, but it's one strategy that

needs to be strictly enforced.

``Sometimes convenience can take priority over safety and

you can have a plan in place, you can have policies in

place,'' said Kathy Martinez Prather, director of the Texas

School Safety Center at Texas State University. ``They're

only as effective as they're being implemented.''

At Wednesday's press conference, Abbott emphasized that the

package of school safety laws passed in 2019 required school

districts to submit emergency operations plans to the Texas

School Safety Center and make sure they have adequate active

shooter strategies to employ in an emergency.

State law dictates that districts must be able to show how

they will prepare for, respond to and recover from disasters

like active threats, but also extreme weather and

communicable disease. These plans must include training

mechanisms, communication plans and mandatory drills. Schools

must create safety committees and establish a way to assess

threats.

But a three-year audit by the center in 2020 found that out

of the 1,022 school districts in the state, just 200 had

active shooter policies, even though most districts reported

having one. The audit revealed 626 districts did not have

active shooter policies in place and 196 districts had

insufficient policies.

Just 67 school districts had viable emergency operations

plans overall, the report found.

Martinez Prather wouldn't say if Uvalde's emergency plan

was considered adequate because of ongoing investigations

into the shooting. But said the center's review did not find

any areas of noncompliance.

The audit reviewed school districts' emergency plans in

June 2020, and Martinez Prather said she was ``absolutely''

surprised that so many schools did not have clear-cut plans,

especially after the Santa Fe shooting and others around the

country.

``Our attention to this issue should not be as close to the

nearest and latest school shooting,'' she said. ``We need to

keep sending that message that this can happen at any point

in time and to anybody.''

She said the center has spent the last year and a half

following up with schools to get their plans up to standard.

Arming Teachers and Staff With Guns

Texas leaders have already shunned the idea of restricting

gun access in the aftermath of the Uvalde shooting. In fact,

in recent years, Texas lawmakers have loosened gun laws after

mass shootings.

Instead, lawmakers point to the nearly decade-old school

marshal program in Texas as another measure to deter and

prevent mass shootings. That program was created in response

to the deadly shooting at an elementary school in Newtown,

Connecticut, that left 26 people dead, including 20 first-

graders.

Designated school employees who take an 80-hour training

course and pass a psychological exam are allowed to keep a

firearm in a lockbox on school grounds, an idea most

attractive to rural schools in areas where law enforcement

response can take longer.

After the school shooting in Santa Fe, state lawmakers

removed the cap that limited schools to one marshal per 200

students. Today, according to the Texas Commission on Law

Enforcement, which oversees the training for the program,

there are 256 marshals across the state.

While lawmakers tout it as a potential tool to prevent mass

shootings, just 6% of school districts use it, according to a

report from the Texas School Safety Center. Martinez Prather

at the Texas School Safety Center said many school districts

say it's expensive

and the training is time-consuming for educators.

Meanwhile, 280 schools are utilizing an unregulated option

known as the Guardian Program, which allows local school

boards to approve individuals in schools to carry concealed

weapons. Each ``guardian'' must have a handgun license and

take 15 to 20 hours of specialized training by the Texas

Department of Public Safety.

Nicole Golden, executive director of Texas Gun Sense, said

she's concerned by the ``minimal'' level of training school

staff go through before they are approved to have a weapon in

the classroom.

``These aren't law enforcement officers,'' she said.

``These are school staff who have some training, and there's

really not a lot of data to support that that's the safe

direction to go in.''

Plus, Golden said, placing more guns on school grounds can

be problematic when data shows students of color are

disproportionately disciplined.

When lawmakers decided to expand the number of marshals in

Texas schools in 2019, Black students and parents said the

idea made them feel less safe in school, knowing they are

disciplined more than other students.

The study from Khubchandani and Price pointed to a 2018

shooting at a high school in Kentucky where the shooter

killed two and injured 14 students in 10 seconds.

``Armed school personnel would have needed to be in the

exact same spot in the school as the shooter to significantly

reduce this level of trauma,'' the researchers wrote. ``Ten

seconds is too fast to stop a school shooter with a

semiautomatic firearm when the armed school guard is in

another place in the school.''

$10 per Student for Safety

Big changes often take big money, and officials have noted

that the 2019 school safety bill gives about $100 million per

biennium to the Texas Education Agency. The agency then

distributes the money to school districts to use on

equipment, programs and training related to school safety and

security, a little less than $10 per student based on average

daily attendance. The money can be used broadly, ranging from

physical security enhancements to suicide prevention

programs.

According to a self-reported survey of districts by the

Texas School Safety Center, more than two thirds of school

districts have used this money for security cameras. 20% used

it for active shooter response training. Nearly 40% of

districts installed physical barriers with the allotment.

But Zeph Capo, president of the Texas chapter of the

American Federation of Teachers, said that money wasn't

enough to pay for the more expensive projects lawmakers were

suggesting.

``Districts ended up spending money on some programs, some

electronic AV equipment, but I don't think it was nearly

enough to do what needs to be done in most of the schools,

which is really change the structures of the buildings so

there's better control over entrance and egress,'' he said,

noting that AFT believes more gun restrictions is a better

solution.

The TEA also received a separate one-time $100 million pool

of money to provide grants to districts specifically for

physical security enhancements, like metal detectors, door-

locking systems or bullet-resistant glass.

It's unclear how Uvalde CISD spent the $69,000 it received

from the state to enhance its physical security. School

officials did not respond to questions Wednesday. As of the

May 2 report, the district had spent about $48,000 of the

grant, which is set to end at the end of the month.

Other remote town school districts received comparable

grants per their student population, according to an analysis

by The Texas Tribune. For example, the Sulphur Springs

Independent School District in East Texas has only a slightly

larger student population and received about $71,000 in grant

funds.

According to a district document, Uvalde CISD, which

enrolls around 4,100 students, had a variety of so-called

hardening measures in place that lawmakers and school safety

leaders recommend.

The district employed four district police officers,

installed perimeter fencing meant to limit access around

schools, including Robb, and instituted a policy that all

classroom doors remain locked during the day.

There are campus teams that identify and address potential

threats, and schools hold emergency drills for students

``regularly.'' The district employed a threat reporting

system for community members to raise concerns. Some schools

had security vestibules at their entrances and buzz-in

systems to get inside from the outdoors.

But a security vestibule, which is basically a secure lobby

to the school, can be a huge expense for school districts

already tight on money. In 2019, the Waller Independent

School District estimated that the addition of two of these

entrances to the junior high school would cost $345,000.

Security cameras at a small elementary school can cost more

than $20,000, according to industry experts.

In recent years--even before the Santa Fe shooting--school

districts have begun to rely on bond proposals to find the

money to implement some of these changes.

But Texas voters have expressed hesitancy at the ballot box

to approve such bonds in recent years, which the Texas

Association of School Boards attributed to the lingering

pandemic and political polarization. Recent changes by the

Texas Legislature have also complicated bond requests for

schools after it started to require districts to write,

``This is a property tax increase,'' on bond project signs,

even when the proposals wouldn't affect the tax rate.

Overall, Monty Exter, a senior lobbyist with the

Association of Texas Professional Educators, said the per-

student allotment and one-time grants set aside for school

security could never pay for the types of construction

projects lawmakers have touted publicly in the wake of the

shooting.

``Thinking about making significant changes to 8,000-plus

campuses, $100 million doesn't necessarily go that far,'' he

said.

Madam Speaker, we keep hearing that the epidemic of mass school shootings can be solved by hardening schools. Guess what? Robb Elementary had been hardened. We can harden schools all we want, we can turn them into fortresses, but unless we deal with the underlying issue, it is going to keep happening.

The gentlewoman from Minnesota also said mental health is a root cause. I include in the Record a Bloomberg article published May 27, 2022, entitled: ``Republicans Push Unfounded Mental Health Claim for Gun Violence.''

[From Bloomberg, May 27, 2022]

Republicans Push Unfounded Mental Health Claim for Gun Violence

(By Emma Court)

Republican politicians from Senator Ted Cruz to Texas

Governor Greg Abbott have been quick to blame mental illness

following a deadly school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, that

killed 19 children and two teachers.

The problem with that thinking is that the evidence doesn't

support it--even if common sense suggests a mass shooting,

especially of children, is not the act of a person who is

mentally well.

While reporting from Texas following the May 24 shooting

makes clear the Uvalde gunman, Salvador Ramos, was a deeply

troubled individual, state officials have said he had no

documented mental health issues. Research shows that only a

very small percentage of violent behavior is connected to

mental illness.

``If we magically cured all these serious mental illnesses

tomorrow, which would be wonderful--imagine the alleviation

of suffering--our violence problem would go down by about

4%,'' said Jeffrey Swanson, a professor in psychiatry and

behavioral sciences at Duke University.

Firearm violence is a greater risk for young males,

individuals with a violent childhood and those who abuse

drugs and alcohol. While mental illness can contribute to gun

violence, the vast majority of those suffering from mental

illness will never engage in violent acts, Swanson said.

Attributing school shootings to mental illness, meanwhile,

increases the stigma around such conditions, which include

depression, schizophrenia and psychosis, according to

experts.

Gun Deaths

National Rifle Association leaders are expected to shift

the focus away from gun policies that put deadly weapons in

the hands of the public when their national convention kicks

off in Houston on Friday. The organization called the Uvalde

massacre ``the act of a lone, deranged criminal'' in a

statement.

Around 45,000 people died from gun-related deaths in the US

in 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention. More than half those deaths were suicides, and

many of the remainder were murders.

Guns are also now the leading cause of death among children

and adolescents, surpassing car crashes, drug overdoses and

drownings, according to recent CDC data.

Texas is fiercely pro-gun rights, and Abbott last year

signed legislation allowing Texans to carry handguns without

a license.

Abbott, at a press conference in Uvalde, suggested that

access to guns isn't the issue.

``We haven't had episodes like this before,'' Abbott said.

``One thing that has substantially changed is the status of

mental health in our communities.''

In truth, shooters in the US have tried to kill in places

like schools, malls and bars for decades.

Cruz, who is expected to be at the NRA event, has described

the shooting as the actions of a ``violent psychopath.'' He

also said none of the gun-law proposals made by Democrats

would have stopped it.

Democrats have been quick to dispute those claims. ``Spare

me the bull,'' Democrat Chris Murphy of Connecticut said to

reporters after urging his colleagues to take action against

gun violence.

Other countries have mental health problems too but rarely

have mass shootings, President Joe Biden said in a May 24

speech in which he pleaded for gun reform and called for

standing up to gun manufacturers.

``They have mental health problems. They have domestic

disputes in other countries. They have people who are lost,''

Biden said. ``But these kinds of mass shootings never happen

with the kind of frequency they happen in America.''

Widespread Misconception

Many people associate mental illness with violence, likely

because of how these conditions are portrayed in the media,

including in reporting about shootings like Uvalde.

Mental illness can also be an easy scapegoat for making

sense of tragedies like

Uvalde, which are devastating and hard to comprehend, said

Lynsay Ayer, a senior behavioral scientist at Rand Corp., a

nonprofit research organization.

``People want to explain it, to say `this person wasn't

thinking rationally, wasn't thinking like you and me,

something went wrong in their brain wiring,' '' she said.

Blaming mental illness is ``convenient, but it's overly

simplistic and runs the risk of hurting people who have

mental health problems.''

People with mental health disorders are, in fact, more

likely to be the victims of violence than a perpetrator, Ayer

said.

Using mental illness as an explanation for such events also

plays into outdated tropes, like the idea that ``something is

wrong with'' those individuals, said Hannah Wesolowski, chief

advocacy officer for the National Alliance on Mental Illness.

``I think people confuse having a mental health condition

with being troubled, and they are not one and the same,'' she

said. Mental illness is defined by specific medical

guidelines. It's also widespread, affecting one in five US

adults every year.

Gun violence remains poorly understood. One reason: Since

1996, Congress has limited federal funding of research into

the subject. While that's now changing, gaps in understanding

remain. Studying mass shootings is also challenging because

such events are relatively rare, Ayer said.

(Everytown for Gun Safety, which advocates for universal

background checks and gun-safety measures, is backed by

Michael Bloomberg, founder and majority owner of Bloomberg

News parent company Bloomberg LP.)

Madam Speaker, let me set the record straight.

Yes, we have people with mental health issues in America. So do other countries. Only here in America do we have widespread, fatal gun violence to the extent that we do, so spare us the lectures.

I should say, under GOP Governor Greg Abbott, Texas is last--last--in the Nation for mental health access.

Just one final thing. We keep hearing about the inconveniences of these proposals: safe storage, background checks, waiting lists. I get it. There may be some inconvenience here, but stack that up against the carnage, stack that up against the mass shootings, the daily killings in this country. I mean, for once, can we put that first over the inconvenience of going through a background check? This is a moment I hoped that we could actually do something, but instead we are complaining about inconveniences. Give me a break.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bowman).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

Madam Speaker, the gentlewoman from Minnesota made a reference to the United States in comparison to other countries. I am holding this chart up here. You may not be able to see, but this is the number of gun deaths. The U.K. is way down here, France, Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, all free countries. You may not be able to see because it is so small, compared to the United States. You sure as hell can see the number of gun deaths here in the United States. It is unacceptable. It is unacceptable. And it is about time that Democrats and Republicans all agree that it is unacceptable, and that is what this debate is about.

If we want to talk about other countries around the world that are free, lots of countries that enjoy freedom do not have the number of gun deaths and massacres. Their parliaments and their Congresses are not meeting to grieve over the execution and the mass killing of little children in schools like we do on a regular basis.

The only question for people here is whether we are going to do anything or whether this is going to be business as usual: Take the money from the gun lobby and do nothing.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross), a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules.

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

Madam Speaker, I began this debate by appealing to my colleagues to try to find common ground and come together and do something about this gun violence epidemic. And yet, we hear the same old tired red State versus blue State talking points directly from the gun lobby.

Madam Speaker, since it was brought up, I include in the Record an April 4,

2022, Yahoo News article entitled, ``Republican-controlled States have higher murder rates than Democratic ones,'' according to the study.

[From Yahoo! News, April 4, 2022]

Republican-Controlled States Have Higher Murder Rates Than Democratic

Ones: Study

(By Ben Adler)

Republican politicians routinely claim that cities run by

Democrats have been experiencing crime waves caused by failed

governance, but a new study shows murder rates are actually

higher in states and cities controlled by Republicans.

``We're seeing murders in our cities, all Democrat-run,''

former President Donald Trump asserted at a March 26 rally in

Georgia. ``People are afraid to go out.''

In February, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., blamed Democrats for

a 2018 law that reduced some federal prison sentences--even

though it was signed by Trump after passing a GOP-controlled

Congress. ``It's your party who voted in lockstep for the

First Step Act that let thousands of violent felons on the

street who have now committed innumerable violent crimes,''

Cotton said during a speech in the Senate.

Last December, Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, told Fox News

viewers, ``America's most beautiful cities are indeed being

ruined by liberal policies: There's a direct line between

death and decay and liberal policies.''

But a comparison of violent crime rates in jurisdictions

controlled by Democrats and Republicans tells a very

different story. In fact, a new study from the center-left

think tank Third Way shows that states won by Trump in the

2020 election have higher murder rates than those carried by

Joe Biden. The highest murder rates, the study found, are

often in conservative, rural states.

The study found that murder rates in the 25 states Trump

carried in 2020 are 40 percent higher overall than in the

states Biden won. (The report used 2020 data because 2021

data is not yet fully available.) The five states with the

highest per capita murder rate--Mississippi, Louisiana,

Kentucky, Alabama and Missouri--all lean Republican and voted

for Trump.

There are some examples of states Biden won in 2020 that

also have high per capita murder rates, including New Mexico

and Georgia, which have the seventh- and eighth-highest

murder rates, respectively. And there are Trump-supporting

states with low murder rates, such as Idaho and Utah. Broadly

speaking, the South, and to a lesser extent the Midwest, has

more murders per capita than the Northeast, interior West and

West Coast, the study found.

Those findings are consistent with a pattern that has

existed for decades, in which the South has had higher rates

of violent crime than the nation as a whole.

``We as criminologists have known this for quite some

time,'' Jennifer Ortiz, a professor of criminology at Indiana

University Southeast, told Yahoo News. ``States like

Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama have historically had high

crime rates.''

Criminologists say research shows higher rates of violent

crime are found in areas that have low average education

levels, high rates of poverty and relatively modest access to

government assistance. Those conditions characterize some

portions of the American South.

``They are among the poorest states in our union,'' Ortiz

said of the Deep South. ``They have among the highest rates

of child poverty. They are among the least-educated states.

They are among the states with the highest levels of

substance abuse. All of those factors contribute to people

engaging in criminal behavior.''

``I thought that was a very good study,'' Richard

Rosenfeld, a professor of criminology at the University of

Missouri-St. Louis and former president of the American

Society of Criminology, told Yahoo News about the Third Way

report. ``In Republican states, states with Republican

governors, crime rates tend to be higher. I'm not certain

that's related to the fact that the governor is a Republican,

but it's a fact nonetheless.''

(While the Third Way study divided states by presidential

vote in 2020, using gubernatorial party affiliation leads to

similar results because most states have recently chosen the

same party for governor and for president. Based on

presidential vote, eight of the 10 states with the highest

murder rates lean Republican, versus seven of the top 10 if

one uses the governor's party.)

Although murder rates tend to be highest in the South, the

biggest increases in 2020 were found in the Great Plains and

Midwest, according to Third Way. The largest jumps were in

Wyoming (91.7 percent higher than in 2019), South Dakota (69

percent), Wisconsin (63.2 percent), Nebraska (59.1 percent)

and Minnesota (58.1 percent). Wyoming, South Dakota and

Nebraska all voted for Trump and have Republican governors.

Wisconsin and Minnesota voted for Biden and are led by

Democrats.

Few large cities are governed by Republicans--only 26 of

the 100 largest U.S. cities have Republican mayors--making

apples-to-apples comparisons difficult. But cities that do

have Republican mayors do not have lower murder rates than

similarly sized Democratic-led cities, the study found.

Some experts warn against the impulse to use crime data to

score quick political points.

``Being a Republican or Democratic state or city is

correlated with many other issues,'' David Weisburd, a

professor of criminology and executive director of the Center

for Evidence-Based Crime Policy at George Mason University,

wrote in an email to Yahoo News. ``That means that the murder

rate may be due to the state being Republican, or it may be

due to the fact that Republican states have many other risk

factors related to crime or murder rates. Even with a very

comprehensive modeling of all of these factors, it is very

difficult to get a valid causal result for explaining crime

rates.''

That argument cuts both ways, however. Weisburd also thinks

the claims of Trump and other Republicans who say Democrats

have caused a crime wave in the cities and states they govern

are unfounded. ``I don't think this argument can be supported

no matter which way you go,'' Weisburd said.

Murder rates in the U.S. rose dramatically in 2020 from

record lows, and the increases are similar across states--

regardless of partisan preference. For homicides in 2020,

Third Way found a 32.2 percent uptick in Trump-backing states

versus a 30.8 percent rise in those that voted for Biden.

Some states with large cities, such as New York and

Pennsylvania, saw larger-than-average increases: New York

went up 47 percent and Pennsylvania is up 39 percent. But the

largest increases were in rural, Republican-led states,

including Montana (+84 percent and South Dakota (+81

percent).

The higher national murder rate is naturally causing public

concern, although violent crime does remain far below its

early 1990s high point. ``Using the FBI data, the violent

crime rate fell 49 percent between 1993 and 2019,'' from 757

incidents per 100,000 people to 379 per 100,000, the Pew

Research Center noted last November. Between 2019 and 2020,

the murder rate jumped from 6 homicides per 100,000 people to

7.8 homicides per 100,000, but that was still 22 percent

below the rate in 1991 of 10 homicides per 100,000.

Madam Speaker, Republicans would rather point fingers than look in the mirror, but a recent study found that the highest murder rates are often in conservative, rural States. The five States with the highest per capita murder rate: Mississippi, Louisiana, Kentucky, Alabama, Missouri--all lean Republican.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the summary of a December 16, 2021, report from Everytown Research & Policy, entitled, ``City Dashboard: Murder and Gun Homicide Report.''

[From Everytown Research, Dec. 16, 2021]

Summary: City Dashboard: Murder and Gun Homicide Report

(By Everytown Research & Policy)

In the midst of one public health epidemic, COVID-19, 2021

and 2020 were also two of the deadliest years on record for

another public health crisis--gun violence. The United States

saw a 33 percent increase from 2019 to 2020 in the rate of

gun homicides. This upward trend continued--but slowed--

through the end of 2021 during which time there was an

additional 7 percent increase in gun homicides relative to

2020.

Due to limited funding and inconsistent data collection,

data on city gun violence is too often old, incomplete, and

conflicting from one federal agency to another. Below is the

most recent, available, reliable data on murders (firearm and

non-firearm) from 2016 to the first three quarters of 2021

and on gun homicides from 2016 to 2020 in nearly 500 cities.

Madam Speaker, I will debunk some myths. Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco do not have the highest gun violence rates in the country.

You don't measure gun violence rates by the raw number. These are big cities. Of course, they are going to have more gun deaths than other places. You measure these rates by measuring per 100,000 people. When you do that, these cities aren't even in the top 20.

Jackson, Mississippi; Gary, Indiana; St. Louis, Missouri; New Orleans; Memphis--the list goes on and on. Find a new talking point.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a February 28, 2018, piece from ABC News entitled, ``Trump calls for raising minimum age to buy all guns to 21.''

[From ABC News, Feb. 28, 2018]

Trump Calls for Raising Minimum Age To Buy All Guns to 21

(By Jordyn Phelps)

President Trump again called for raising the minimum legal

age to purchase all guns to age 21 during a meeting with

lawmakers on guns and school safety Wednesday, while

suggesting that those who are staying silent on the topic are

``afraid'' to come up against the NRA,

``I'm going to give it a lot of consideration,'' Trump

said. ``People aren't bringing it up because they're afraid

to bring it up. You can't buy a handgun at 18, 19 or 20. You

have to wait until you're 21. You could buy the weapon used

in this horrible shooting at 18. You are going to decide--the

people in

this room pretty much--are going to decide. I would give very

serious thought to it.''

While noting the NRA's opposition to proposals to raise the

minimum age to purchase firearms, the president made the case

that raising the minimum age is common sense.

``The NRA is opposed to it and I'm a fan of the NRA. No

bigger fan. I'm a big fan of the NRA. These are great people.

Great patriots. They love our country but that doesn't mean

we have to agree on everything,'' Trump said. ``It doesn't

make sense that I have to wait till I'm 21 to get a handgun

but I can get this.''

The president also signaled his support for the Manchin-

Toomey proposal that was defeated back in 2013, and is in the

process of being reworked, that calls for expanding

background checks on guns sales to include firearms sold at

gun shows and on the internet.

The president suggested that the measure failed back in

2013 because President Barack Obama was in office at the

time, saying ``that was your problem,'' in reference to

Obama. But in fact, Obama backed the bill at the time.

He asked Sen. Pat Toomey, a Pennsylvania Republican, if the

bill he's sponsoring with Senator Joe Manchin, a West

Virginia Democrat, would proposing raising the purchasing age

for certain guns.

``We don't address it,'' Toomey told the president.

``You know why, because you're afraid of the NRA,'' the

president said in reply.

Wednesday evening, the NRA responded to Trump's proposals.

In a statement, spokesperson Jennifer Baker said: ``While

today's meeting made for great tv, the gun-control proposals

discussed would make for bad policy that would not keep our

children safe. Instead of punishing law-abiding gun owners

for the acts of a deranged lunatic our leaders should pass

meaningful reforms that would actually prevent future

tragedies.''

``They can start by fixing the broken mental health

system,'' her statement continued, ``strengthening background

checks to ensure the records of people who are prohibited

from possessing firearms are in the NICS system, securing our

schools and preventing the dangerously mentally ill from

accessing firearms.''

At the White House meeting, the president repeatedly

expressed his support for legislation to improve the nation's

background check system but said such a measure should not

also include a provision to expand concealed carry law to

allow people with concealed carry licenses to carry their

firearms across state line.

``I'm with you but let it be a separate bill,'' Trump told

Louisiana Republican Rep. Steve Scalise, who was gunned down

during a congressional baseball practice last year. ``You'll

never get this passed if you add concealed carry to this,

you'll never get it passed. I don't think--again, you'll

never get it passed. We want to get something done.''

The president also vowed to ban bump stocks through

executive action, telling the lawmakers that the rapid-fire

devices are ``gone.''

``I'm going to write that out. We can do that by executive

order,'' the president said, noting that ``the lawyers'' are

working on the language.

Last week, Trump said he ordered the Justice Department to

move to ban the rapid-fire devices that were used in the Las

Vegas massacre last year. Bump stocks were not used in the

Parkland shooting.

Madam Speaker, the very person that everybody on the other side of the aisle is so afraid to take on, so frightened of, says that we should raise the age to 21.

Madam Speaker, former President Donald Trump said it himself: ``You can't buy a handgun at 18, 19, or 20. You have to wait until you're 21. You could buy the weapon,'' meaning an AR-15, ``used in this horrible shooting at 18 . . . It doesn't make sense.''

I mean, come on. Trump said this in 2018, and these guys here are telling us that somehow this is a violation of the Constitution? Give me a break.

We are here to try to save the lives of America's kids. And there should be more outrage on the other side of the aisle, not the usual talking points that we hear over and over and over again from the gun lobby. If this isn't important, then nothing is.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle), a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

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

Let me remind everybody that 21 people were killed in Uvalde, 19 children. Ten people were killed in Buffalo. I say that because I think my colleagues need to be reminded about why we are here today, not to talk about the budget, but to talk about saving lives.

I also remind them that the shooter in Buffalo and the shooter in Uvalde went in and legally purchased an AR-15 at 18 years old.

Our bill that we are talking about here today would have prevented that. Whatever they are doing for the previous question--I don't know what it is--would not.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a member of the Rules Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, you got to be kidding me. The gentleman from Missouri comes down here for 3 minutes and unloads on everybody here about a technical provision that doesn't even spend any money. It is a technical provision to allow us to go forward with our appropriations work.

Not a mention of the children who were killed in Uvalde or the people who were killed in Buffalo--not a mention. What the hell is wrong with this place?

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record--since the gentleman didn't have the dignity to acknowledge those who were killed--the names of those who were murdered in Uvalde and Buffalo.

Robb Elementary School--Uvalde, TX (May 24, 2022)

19 Children, 2 Teachers--21 Total Fatalities, 18 injured

Makenna Lee Elrod, age 10;

Layla Salazar, age 11;

Maranda Mathis, age 11;

Nevaeh Bravo, age 10;

Jose Manuel Flores Jr., age 10;

Xavier Lopez; age 10;

Tess Marie Mata, age 10;

Rojelio Torres, age 10;

Eliahna ``Ellie'' Amyah Garcia, age 9;

Eliahna A. Torres, age 10:

Annabell Guadalupe Rodriguez, age 10;

Jackie Cazares, age 9;

Uziyah Garcia, age 10;

Jayce Carmelo Luevanos, age 10;

Maite Yuleana Rodriguez, age 10;

Jailah Nicole Silguero, age 10;

Amerie Jo Garza, 10;

Alexandria ``Lexi'' Aniyah Rubio, age 10;

Alithia Ramirez, age 10;

Irma Garcia, age 48; and

Eva Mireles, age 44.

Madam Speaker, I will respond to the gentlewoman from Minnesota.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record this Business Insider article entitled ``Host Republican leaders told their Members to vote against eight gun-safety bills, citing opposition from the NRA and Gun Owners of America.''

[From Insider, June 8, 2022]

House Republican Leaders Told Their Members To Vote Against 8 Gun- Safety Bills, Citing Opposition From the NRA and Gun Owners of America

(By Bryan Metzger)

House Republicans are poised to vote against eight bills

aimed at preventing gun violence on Tuesday, in part due to

opposition from powerful pro-gun groups on the right.

House Democratic leaders have scheduled votes for Wednesday

evening on the ``Protecting Our Kids Act''--a package of

seven gun violence-related measures that includes raising the

age for legal purchase of semiautomatic rifles and shotguns

to 21, closing the ``bump stock'' loophole, and other

measures aimed at preventing the illegal trafficking of guns.

The House will also vote on the ``Federal Extreme Risk

Protection Order Act,'' a federal ``red flag'' bill that

would allow family members and law enforcement officials to

temporarily block firearm access to those who a court

determines pose a danger to themselves or others.

In a ``whip notice'' sent to rank-and-file members on

Tuesday afternoon, House GOP leadership urged a ``no'' vote

on all eight bills, referring to the seven-bill package as

the ``Unconstitutional Gun Restrictions Act.'' They wrote

that House Democrats had ``thrown together this reactionary

package comprised of legislation that egregiously violates

law-abiding citizens' 2nd Amendment rights and hinders

Americans' ability to defend and protect themselves and their

families.''

The email also noted the opposition of the National Rifle

Association and Gun Owners of America, including links to

talking points from the NRA about both the gun package and

the red flag law. Leaders also noted the opposition of

Heritage Action for America, an advocacy group tied to the

conservative Heritage Foundation.

``Due to the importance of this issue, votes on this

legislation will be considered in future candidate ratings

and endorsements by the NRA Political Victory Fund,''

declares one of the memos shared by party leaders.

It's not uncommon for party leaders to note the opposition

of outside groups to major pieces of legislation. For

example, in a February whip notice urging Republicans to vote

against a major piece of legislation aimed at boosting the US

semiconductor industry, GOP leaders noted the opposition of

the Federation for American Immigration Reform, National

Taxpayers Union, and Americans for Prosperity.

But the two gun groups' inclusion--and the NRA's threat to

downgrade candidate ratings or withhold endorsements should

any Republicans back the measures--underscores the enduring

influence of pro-second amendment groups on the right,

despite the NRA's recent financial troubles and shrinking

membership.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), a member of the Rules Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, the gentlewoman mentioned our gun laws, and just to demonstrate the absurdity of the gun laws that are in place, I include in the Record the Texas Parks & Wildlife ``Migratory Game Bird Hunting Methods'' list of regulations, which is valid September 1, 2021 through August 31, 2022.

[From the Texas Parks & Wildlife, Sept. 1, 2021]

Migratory Game Bird Hunting Methods

(By Texas Parks & Wildlife)

Harvest Information Program (HIP)

No person shall hunt migratory game birds in this state

unless that person is HIP-certified in Texas. The federally-

mandated Harvest Information Program (HIP) improves harvest

information for all migratory game birds. Hunters who buy a

Migratory Game Bird Hunting Endorsement, including Super

Combos, will be asked a few simple questions about their

migratory bird hunting activities.

Please report Migratory Game Bird bands. Check migratory

game birds harvested (especially doves) for leg bands and

report them to reportband.gov.

Means and Methods

Shotguns, lawful archery equipment, falconry, dogs,

artificial decoys, and manual or mouth-operated bird calls

are legal.

A shotgun is the only legal firearm for hunting migratory

game birds. Shotguns must not be larger than 10-gauge, must

be fired from the shoulder, and must be incapable of holding

more than three shells. Shotguns capable of holding more than

three shells must be plugged with a one-piece filler which

cannot be removed without disassembling the gun, so the gun's

total capacity does not exceed three shells.

Hunting is permitted in the open or from a blind or other

type of concealment or from floating craft or motor boat

provided that all motion resulting from sail or motor has

ceased. Sails must be furled and motor turned off before

shooting starts.

A craft under power may be used to retrieve dead or

crippled birds; however, crippled birds may not be shot from

such craft under power.

No person, while hunting waterfowl anywhere in the state,

may possess shotgun shells containing lead shot or loose lead

shot for use in muzzleloaders. Approved shot includes steel

(including copper, nickel or zinc-coated steel), bismuth-tin,

tungsten-iron, tungsten-polymer (e.g. moly-shot), and any

other nontoxic material approved by the Director of the

Madam Speaker, shotguns used for duck hunting can't hold more than three shells. Let me repeat: In order to protect the duck population in Texas, shotguns cannot hold more than three shells. Imagine if our Republican friends could muster the same courage to protect America's children.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, we have no further requests for time on our side, and I am ready to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record Newsweek's May 27, 2022, article entitled ``More Children Have Been Shot Dead in 2022 Than Police in the Line of Duty.''

[From Newsweek, May 27, 2022]

More Children Have Been Shot Dead in 2022 Than Police in the Line of

Duty

(By Gerrard Kaonga)

More children have been shot and killed in the U.S. this

year than police while on duty, according to new data.

The Officer Down Memorial Page website records the death of

police officers across the country and honors them for their

service.

As well as showing a picture of the deceased officer, it

also shows where they were stationed, the date of their death

and the cause.

According to the website, in 2022, 20 officers have been

killed after being involved in a shooting.

In comparison, in 2022, 24 students have been killed as a

result of shootings at school, according to data collected by

Education Week.

``School shootings, terrifying to students, educators,

parents and communities, always reignite polarizing debates

about gun rights and school safety,'' the Education Week

report read.

``To bring context to these debates, Education Week

journalists began tracking shootings on K-12 school property

that resulted in firearm-related injuries or deaths.''

According to the Education Week report, there have been 27

school shootings in 2022 and 119 in total since 2018, when

they began tracking such incidents.

The Robb Elementary School shooting, which resulted in 21

people being killed--19 children and two adult staff, lifted

the number of children killed in school shootings above the

number of police officers shot dead in the line of duty.

The other school shootings that brought the total number to

24 deaths included an attack at Tanglewood Middle School,

Greenville, South Carolina, on March 31.

A 12-year old student was shot and killed at the school. At

the time, this was the youngest age a student had been killed

in a school shooting in 2022.

Another incident that contributed was the Eisenhower High

School shooting, Yakima, Washington, on March 15, that

resulted in one student being killed and another injured.

There was also a shooting at East High School in Des

Moines, Iowa, on March 7 that resulted in a 15-year-old boy

being killed and two female students getting injured.

The second shooting of 2022 that resulted in a fatality of

a student was at the South Education Center, Richfield,

Minnesota, on February 1.

Large Number of School Shootings

A shooting outside the South Education Center left a 15-

year-old student dead and a 17-year-old student critically

wounded.

The first incident of 2022 that resulted in a student's

death was at Oliver Citywide Academy, in Pittsburgh,

Pennsylvania on January 19. This resulted in a 15-year-old

boy

being shot and killed as he waited to go home.

President Joe Biden addressed the issue in a speech on

Tuesday and said it was time America stood up to the gun

manufacturing industry. Biden also reflected on the frequency

of mass shootings in America in his speech.

``It's been 3,448 days--10 years since I stood up at a high

school in Connecticut--a grade school in Connecticut, where

another gunman massacred 26 people, including 20 first-

graders, at Sandy Hook Elementary School,'' he said.

``Since then, there have been over 900 incidents of gunfire

reported on school grounds. Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High

School in Parkland, Florida. Santa Fe High School in Texas.

Oxford High School in Michigan. The list goes on and on,''

Biden said. ``And the list grows when it includes mass

shootings at places like movie theaters, houses of worship,

and, as we saw just 10 days ago, at a grocery store in

Buffalo, New York.''

``I am sick and tired of it. We have to act. And don't tell

me we can't have an impact on this carnage,'' Biden said.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.

Madam Speaker, will the bills before us pass the Senate? I sure as hell hope so. None of these proposals are extreme. Quite the opposite. In fact, they are what the vast majority of people in this country-- Democrats, Republicans, Independents--want us to do. Maybe they will get changed in the Senate. Even if our Senate colleagues do not take up these exact bills, I will tell you what this process we are going through will absolutely do and why our efforts here are worthwhile.

This process will unequivocally show where each and every one of us stand in the wake of this unspeakable tragedy. More importantly, it will demonstrate which of the solutions we are putting forward have majority support in this half of the Congress.

As our Senate colleagues discuss gun violence solutions, they will have no doubt as to where the House of Representatives stands on red flag laws; raising the age to purchase a semiautomatic rifle from 18 to 21; gun trafficking and straw purchases; ghost guns; safe storage of firearms, particularly when a minor is likely to gain access; bump stocks; and large-capacity magazines.

We will have separate votes on all of these issues. This is on top of the background check bill and the Charleston loophole bills we have already sent them.

This week there will be no excuses. We will vote on these ideas one issue at a time. None of these proposals are aimed at taking guns away from law-abiding citizens. They are aimed at stopping people from getting slaughtered in their schools, in their churches, in grocery stores, and in their homes. These ideas won't solve every problem or stop every shooting, but no sane person can come to the conclusion that these proposals would not save lives.

I know that things like background checks and waiting until you are 21 to buy an AR-15 and smaller magazine capacity may seem like an inconvenience to some people. But when stacked up against the carnage we have seen in this country, I think we can all live with a little inconvenience.

Madam Speaker, I cannot be any clearer. These bills will keep people from dying, but only if they become law or if similar bills become law.

I know that everybody hates Congress. Hell, I even hate Congress sometimes. But, Madam Speaker, don't listen to the NRA or extremists on this bill. Vote your conscience.

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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1404 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 1404, making in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations, or her designee, to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 6833. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 8987, the Fairness for 9/11 Families Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and provides one motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I am sure we will have a spirited debate on this rule, but before we do, I want to begin by expressing my heartfelt sympathy for the people of Florida. The catastrophic devastation left behind by Hurricane Ian is unlike anything we have seen in quite some time.

Our hearts are with those whose lives have been lost and their loved ones, and we pray for those who are missing that they will be located safely and soon. If there is one thing we know, it is that the people of Florida are strong. This is not their first hurricane. They will recover and they will come back stronger than ever.

I want to thank all of the first responders who have sprung into action to save lives: from local police, fire, and EMS, all the way up to our Federal response at FEMA. The people of Florida ought to know that America stands with them. Part of standing with the people of Florida is passing this important legislation to keep the government open during this critical moment.

Madam Speaker, with less than 24 hours until the end of the fiscal year, today we are here to do our job. We, in Congress, have a responsibility to the American people to keep the lights on. In addition to preventing the furlough of thousands of Federal employees, averting a shutdown will also ensure that our constituents can continue to receive the vital government services that they need.

The last shutdown, when the Republicans were in charge of the House and the Senate and the White House, was the longest shutdown in our history. It cost our economy an astounding $11 billion.

In contrast, Democrats are doing our job. We are keeping the government open as we finish up bipartisan, bicameral negotiations on a longer-term fiscal year 2023 appropriations package.

This CR also provides Ukraine with the security, economic, and humanitarian assistance that they need to fight back against Russia's brutal invasion. With Russia holding fake elections to annex parts of Ukraine, the Ukrainian people urgently need our support to protect their families and defend global democracy.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I mentioned earlier the devastating hurricane in Florida. We also just had an awful hurricane in Puerto Rico. The people of Puerto Rico are still reeling from the damage of Hurricane Fiona. Also, the people of Alaska are recovering from a terrible typhoon.

This bill contains money to support communities across the United States as they recover from natural disasters.

Madam Speaker, we are talking about hurricane relief for God's sake. I am begging my Republican friends, can we please at least come together on providing relief to communities devastated by hurricanes?

Can we all agree that we ought not shut the government down in the middle of a major natural disaster response?

The funding in this bill will help families and small businesses get back on their feet and rebuilt from extreme weather events while repairing damage to critical infrastructure.

This is a bipartisan bill, Madam Speaker. It earned 72 votes in the Senate. I don't think you can get 72 votes in the Senate on what to have for lunch, let alone on government funding legislation.

Madam Speaker, I am going to again plead with my colleagues, do not vote against additional funding to help people recover from hurricane damage, please, especially my Republican friends from Florida. A vote against this CR is a vote against funding for help with hurricane recovery in your own State.

I just hope that we are not at the point where we have become so partisan and so polarized that we can't even agree on this.

Madam Speaker, this rule also includes H.R. 8987, the Fairness for 9/ 11 Families Act. This bill will ensure thousands of 9/11 families and victims who received some but not all of the compensation that they deserve are made whole.

Both of these measures deserve broad support today. Americans are depending on us to get this done.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I appreciate my friend from Pennsylvania reciting the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee's greatest hits, but let me remind people who are watching why we are here today.

We are here today to move two important pieces of legislation forward; one that would help 9/11 families, which I hope we all can agree is worth supporting; and the second is to make sure that the government doesn't shut down; that we continue to provide funding that will help aid some of the natural disasters that we are seeing happen all over this country.

While it is too early to have a damage assessment from Hurricane Ian and actually know what the true cost of all this is going to be, make no mistake, this CR will help. There is money for 2022 disasters and community development block grants for disaster recovery above the OMB request.

More importantly, we included language to give FEMA a full year's worth of funding up front, not just for the 2\1/2\-month CR period; and more help will come for Florida, as we find out what is needed.

Communities across America are currently dealing with record-breaking numbers of storms. According to The Washington Post this morning, ``Since 2017, an unprecedented number of storms rated Category 4 or stronger have lashed the U.S. shoreline: Harvey, Irma, Maria, Michael, Laura, Ida, and now Ian. They all qualify as `rapid intensification events,' when a storm's wind speeds increase by at least 35 miles within 24 hours.''

People should read The Washington Post about what is happening as a result of these storms.

We have an obligation to help all of these communities. But you know what won't help? A government shutdown in the midst of a natural disaster of this magnitude.

Again, I would point out to my colleagues here, we think it is unacceptable to ever shut down the Federal Government. My Republican friends obviously have a different point of view because when they were in charge, when they controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House, they shut the government down, the longest government shutdown in our history, and it was costly. To even contemplate doing that in the face of these natural disasters is unbelievable.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

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

I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments, and I hope that she will vote for the rule because if the rule doesn't pass, we can't bring this bill up for a vote. I agree with her; this is incredibly important. So I hope all my colleagues will vote for the rule, not just to help 9/11 families, but also to keep the government open during this really critical time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I am embarrassed for my friends on the other side of the aisle. I just saw the bill. I am looking at the bill, and all it does is ask for more reports, more paperwork. I don't know. I kind of think it is silly that that is going to fight crime, asking for more reports and more paperwork. Give me a break.

We are here today, Madam Speaker, to try to bring two important bills to the floor, one to help 9/11 families and the other, Madam Speaker, to keep the government open because if it shuts down amidst all of these natural disasters, things are going to be incredibly worse for everybody who right now is suffering. And this is what they come to the floor with? This is what they want to talk about?

If you want to talk about what they are about, let's look at their poorly named ``Commitment to America,'' which I guess is a rip-off on Contract with America, which basically would gut Social Security and Medicare. They want to ban abortion nationwide, and they want to make it easier for people to overturn the will of the American people in elections.

I mean, that is the radical agenda they are all pushing here.

Here we are, at this moment, trying to make sure that essential funding is there to help deal with these natural disasters, and this is what we get? This is like we hear the greatest hits from the National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee. They use Russian B-roll in their rollout of their Commitment to America. Come on.

At this moment, right now, we have two bills that, quite frankly, should enjoy huge bipartisan support. We ought to move forward to help the 9/11 families, and at the same time, we ought to keep this government open. Then, that gives us time to work out a longer term bill, which we can vote on after the election.

But turn on the news. Look at what is happening in Florida right now. Look at what happened in Puerto Rico. Look at what is happening in Alaska. People need help. We have a responsibility.

Look at what is happening in Ukraine. Do we support helping preserve democracy in Ukraine or not? That is what is at stake here.

So, we can try to cut a political ad on the House floor here. Fine. But let's not kind of make-believe that what my friends are trying to do is somehow real or will make any kind of a difference. It is a sound bite, plain and simple.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

My friend can yell all that she wants, but what I took exception to is the fact that a proposal that essentially does nothing more than call for more reports to be sent to the Committee on the Judiciary is somehow fighting crime.

I would also tell my friends, let's not talk about defunding the police when my friends on the other side of the aisle have Members that are now selling T-shirts to defund the FBI and law enforcement or the fact that many of them voted against bills last week that actually provided more funding to the police.

Come on. Reports somehow are going to fight crime? I mean, if that is your crime-fighting solution, well, America is in trouble.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Let me say this again: a reporting requirement. I mean, all of us are against violent crime, and we are against all the things that the gentleman listed. That is why we brought a group of bills to the floor last week to try to deal with some of these challenges. Again, many of my Republican colleagues voted against it.

I am not questioning why my friends bring these items to the floor. I know why they do it. It is politics 101. But I do have to say that I do have a problem when they come to the floor and say that they are making a proposal that will somehow do something. A reporting requirement, more paperwork to the Committee on the Judiciary, oh, boy, that is really going to stop carjackings, that is going to stop murder. Give me a break.

If you want to come up with something that actually does something, we are all willing to work with you. But to come to the floor to say, oh, a reporting requirement, more paperwork going to the Committee on the Judiciary is somehow going to do something to prevent crime, I mean, I don't know anybody who believes that.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I have great respect for the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), but I will take exception with his characterization of us passing messaging bills.

Let me just go through a few items here that we did pass and that have been signed into law:

The Honoring our PACT Act for our veterans.

The Inflation Reduction Act.

The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.

The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the biggest investment in infrastructure ever in this country. A bill, by the way, that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted against, but they were at the announcement of moneys to rebuild bridges and roads in their district even though they voted against it.

The Postal Service Reform Act.

Protecting Medicare and American Farmers from Sequester Cuts Act.

The American Rescue Plan Act.

I could go on and on and on. These aren't messaging bills. These are major investments in our country that will have an impact for generations, that will help our children, that will help our senior citizens, that will help our veterans.

This is what we are supposed to be doing, helping uplift the American people, investing in our country. So that is not messaging. That is real work.

Today's bills aren't messaging bills, either. I mean, helping 9/11 families. That is not a messaging bill. That is real. It is something we should do. We ought to be together on that.

This continuing resolution, this is important, especially in light of all the natural disasters that are happening in this country right now.

Madam Speaker, this should be simple. We have an obligation to fund the government. We have a bipartisan bill, again, that had 72 votes in the Senate. We have a bipartisan bill that not only will keep the lights on but will provide critical funding to help communities devastated by recent natural disasters.

Now, House Republicans have made it clear that they would rather brag about their dangerous, extreme, unpopular agenda than do real work. All I can say to that is that Democrats are committed to putting people over politics.

The Republicans' radical agenda bans abortion, and we want to protect Americans' right to affordable, accessible healthcare and safeguard America's right to reproductive care.

We are here to defend Americans' right to vote. They want to make it easier to overturn elections.

We want to protect Social Security. You saw the agenda that the Republican leaders in the Senate unveiled. They gut Social Security.

There is a contrast here. But today, we are here to advance relief for communities hit by natural disasters, pass overdue benefits for 9/ 11 families, and keep the government running.

What does putting people over politics mean?

It means that we come together to make sure that the people of Florida have what they need to get through this terrible disaster.

It means that we are there for the people of Puerto Rico and that we are there for the people of Alaska, that we are there for people anywhere in this country, whether it is a red State or blue State, who are dealing with these natural catastrophes.

That is what this is about. If this went down and we shut the government down, the pain that people are already dealing with would only increase. Shame on us for doing that.

Now, I get it, Madam Speaker. There are some people here who don't really care about whether the government stays open or shuts down.

I remind you again, when my friends were in charge, when the Republicans controlled the House, when they controlled the Senate, when they controlled the White House, they shut the government down. They walked away. The longest shutdown in history. Billions and billions and billions of dollars it cost our economy.

We had to clean up their mess when we took over. Today, we are doing what is right for the American people, for all people. This is not about politics. This is about putting people over politics. 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 thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, my very good friend, Chairman McGovern, for yielding me the customary time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by associating myself with the chairman's very appropriate remarks about the unfolding disaster in Florida and the southeast. It is something that moves all Americans. Florida, and frankly all of the region, is in our prayers and in our thoughts as they deal with an unprecedented natural disaster.

Madam Speaker, today's rule covers two items. The first I will discuss is H.R. 8987, the Fairness for 9/11 Families Act. This bill would shift just under $3 billion from the CARES Act small business loan fund to the United States

Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund to compensate victims of the 9/11 terror attacks.

Last night at the Rules Committee we heard testimony on this bill, which unfortunately, is the only hearing this bill will receive this Congress. My Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee testified at length about the efforts they have gone to in order to work with the majority on this matter. But instead of working together in a bipartisan manner, the majority instead chose to move ahead on this bill with no hearing or markup held in the committee of jurisdiction.

This represents a complete failure of regular order. Madam Speaker, it results in a lack of process that is unfair to everyone. It is especially unfair to the victims of 9/11 who deserve both a bipartisan process and a bipartisan bill that everyone can support. It did not have to be this way, and it is unfortunate that the majority decided to treat this issue with less than the gravity it deserved.

Despite these procedural failures, however, I intend to support this legislation, but we could have and should have done much better.

Our second bill is the Senate amendment to H.R. 6833, a continuing resolution funding the government through December 16 of 2022.

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that Congress has waited until the last minute to take up the serious work of funding the government and keeping it open. It is equally unfortunate that our only option for doing so is the flawed, inadequate bill that does not meet the needs of the American people.

Despite this bill's flaws, there is much to like in it and much that I do support. I voted in favor of the omnibus spending bill back in March, and this bill would maintain those spending levels through the middle of December. I support additional funding for Ukraine as they seek to defend themselves against Vladimir Putin's unjust and illegal invasion, and I support additional funds for disaster relief.

But just as important as what is included in this bill is what is not included in this bill and should have been.

It is undeniable that we are facing a humanitarian crisis on our southern border, caused in large part by the Biden administration's unwillingness to confront what is staring them in the face. The administration asked for $1.8 billion to assist migrants, which they have received in this legislation, but they did not ask for a single penny to secure the border.

The Biden administration has sought to add workers elsewhere in the government, like 87,000 new employees at the IRS, but they did not ask for money to add any new Border Patrol agents to help address this Biden-made crisis on the southern border. This could and should have been addressed in this bill, but it is not.

Similarly, the bill does nothing to address the high price of energy or provide new sources of energy. We should be doing everything we can to provide secure, reliable, and inexpensive energy to the American people. Instead, the President is spending his time chastising energy companies. We should have addressed this issue in this bill, too, but we did not.

Nor does this bill address other crises affecting the American people, including inflation and the economic recession, both caused by the reckless and profligate spending policies of the Biden administration and this majority. I could go on and on, but the point remains: so much should have been in this bill but is not.

I hope that if my friends in the majority take anything from today's discussion, it is this: it is high time for them to get serious about appropriations and about holding bipartisan discussions with Republicans on full-year spending bills.

Consider where we are: the House Appropriations Committee, I am proud to say, passed all 12 bills out of committee this summer, yet, as of today, only six have passed the floor. It is the majority's responsibility to bring those bills to the floor.

In the Senate, which Democrats also control, the record is even worse. Not a single bill has been passed out of the Senate Appropriations Committee. In addition, no serious negotiations have taken place between Republicans and Democrats and between the House and the Senate. These negotiations have been postponed all summer and into the fall while the House takes up one political messaging bill after another.

Madam Speaker, we need to focus on the serious business of funding government. In order to accomplish that goal and achieve a bipartisan agreement, four conditions will have to be met.

First, defense spending will have to go up to meet the level authorized in the fiscal year 2023 NDAA. The level included in the House defense appropriations bill is wholly inadequate to meet America's defense needs and must go up to reach a final deal.

Second, non-defense discretionary spending will have to come down. The House non-defense appropriations bills were all marked up at a bloated level of spending which cannot be justified. These numbers must be reduced for an agreement to be had.

Third, longstanding bipartisan pro-life policies that have historically been carried in appropriations bills must be restored. The majority stripped these out in the Appropriations Committee this year, but they must go back in. I cannot emphasize this point strongly enough, Madam Speaker. No Republicans--and I mean no Republicans--will vote for these bills unless these bipartisan pro-life riders are restored.

Fourth, the 12 House Appropriations Committee bills include countless poison pills that have to come out. These are liberal policy riders on all matters of topics, ranging from climate change to abortion to labor law. They have to come out to reach a bipartisan deal. The appropriations bills cannot pass this House and pass the Senate unless there is a bipartisan deal.

Madam Speaker, we can reach a bipartisan, bicameral, full-year spending deal if my friends in the majority get serious about negotiating. At the end of the day, Republicans must be included in these negotiations. If the majority continues to dither, we are headed for a year-long continuing resolution. That is a bad outcome for the institution, a bad outcome for the government, and a bad outcome for the American people.

When the majority begins to seriously negotiate on a bipartisan appropriations package, I will certainly be there to help. But neither I, nor many of my colleagues, will participate in kicking the can down the road so my Democratic friends can ignore their responsibility to govern until after the upcoming election.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), my good friend and my fellow member of both the Appropriations Committee and the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis), my good friend.

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

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 7967, the Prosecutors Need to Prosecute Act, for immediate consideration. The bill will ensure that the perpetrators of violent crimes are held accountable for their actions and that victims of violent crimes receive the justice that they deserve.

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

Madam Speaker, America's largest cities are in the midst of a wave of violent crime, making some of them nearly unlivable. This spike in violent crime has many causes, but one factor is undeniably making the problem worse: That is the fuzzy-headed ideology followed by woke prosecutors who are refusing to do their jobs and prosecute violent offenders.

As part of the Commitment to America, Republicans have made it clear

that we will fund the police; that we will take clear steps to stop the scourge of fentanyl coming over the southern border into our Nation; and that we will crack down on prosecutors and district attorneys who refuse to prosecute violent criminals.

H.R. 7967 fulfills that commitment. It would require the same prosecutors to report annually on the cases they receive and their decisions to prosecute or not prosecute. As Justice Louis Brandeis said, ``sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.''

This reporting would allow the citizens of our great cities to see, once and for all, just what this wave of progressive woke prosecutors is actually up to, and just how many violent crime cases they are refusing to prosecute out of ideology.

To further explain the amendment, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis), my good friend, the author of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to quickly respond to my friend.

Crime is also a problem all across the country, and we will work with you on the 9/11 survivors bill, which I point out, again, was originally my colleague from New York's bill as opposed to a Democratic proposal. But I will give you credit for picking up a good idea that my friend originated.

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis), my friend, to respond.

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

Madam Speaker, it has become all too common in recent years to learn about the perpetrators of violent crime who should have been locked up for earlier incidents. All too often, we hear that a woke prosecutor decided not to pursue charges against a criminal for an earlier violent act, only for that same criminal to then offend again and again. As part of our Commitment to America, House Republicans will take action to end this practice.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany) to speak more about this

issue and the solution contained in H.R. 7967.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

Madam Speaker, it is deeply unfortunate that we have once again waited until the last minute to fund the government. With no time left for negotiations, the majority is putting forward a bill to fund the government that was not subject to bipartisan negotiations in the House. It is no surprise, then, that this bill fails to accomplish so many things that are necessary to address the crises currently confronting the Nation.

I am an appropriator, and I would advise my friend that the Appropriations Committee--and I give great credit to my friend, the chairwoman of that committee, Ms. DeLauro from Connecticut, and the ranking member, Ms. Granger from Texas--actually got all 12 bills done by the end of July and out of committee.

Six of those have come across the floor. That is a good thing. Six others

have not. That includes, by the way, the bills to defend the United States of America, the largest spending bill. It includes the bill to defend our southern border.

The reality is, they haven't come to the floor because my friends don't have the votes to pass them. Many of their own Members want to reduce the size of defense as opposed to increase it in a dangerous world. Many of their friends simply don't want to do anything to secure the southern border.

Now, the reality is, in the end, I think we will get both those things done, and there will have to be a bipartisan negotiation to do it. There has been absolutely no negotiation since July in the House.

I also point to the United States Senate, which is not the responsibility of my friends, but their party controls it. That body has not moved a single bill out of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Not one.

Now we are asked, because we are in an emergency, to kick the can down the road. My friends have had months to deal with this issue and to engage in serious bipartisanship. They have chosen not to do that. They would rather do messaging bill after messaging bill after messaging bill. That is what we have been dealing with.

Frankly, the Rules Committee, unusually, has become a committee of original jurisdiction in bill after bill after bill because those bills have not gone through the committee. They are raced through the Rules Committee to come to the floor to make a political point on the eve of an election. That is a bad way to govern.

Now, I am hopeful once we get to the other side of the election, my friends will sit down, and we will arrive at a bipartisan agreement on funding the government, which is the primary responsibility of Congress, in my view. But so far those negotiations have not taken place. We don't have agreed-upon top lines.

My friends can't pass important bills, so they are left to linger. And then they come to us at the very last minute and say, gosh, you have to help us here in this emergency.

We are going to pass the bills. The government is not going to shut down. Nobody here has the illusion that it will. But we should not be in this situation. Both sides have done this, I will grant my friend that. But this is a particularly egregious process of no negotiations on things like defense and securing the southern border.

We live in a dangerous world. We don't need a CR in defense; we need a bill. Actually, the Democratic-controlled House Armed Services Committee produced a bill. It is just $30 billion more than the President asked for because that is what that committee felt we needed. It passed on a bipartisan basis.

Why can't we move the appropriations level up to do what a Democratic-controlled House Armed Services Committee asked us to do?

Our friends have not wanted to deal with that issue.

We know we have a crisis on the southern border. You can turn on the television and see it every night. You can look at the fentanyl pouring into the country. You can see the tragedy of human trafficking.

Is there anything in this bill that asked us to do anything different, anything new?

Has any legislation come to the floor to do that?

No. We are just asked, please allow us to continue the current state of affairs to exist on the southern border. That is a travesty.

When you say, well, we are bringing irrelevant issues, the reality is you won't bring the relevant issues to the floor. You won't bring the relevant appropriations bills to the floor.

But make no mistake, Republicans have put forward a Commitment to America to address the concerns of our citizens:

We will fund the police and uphold law and order.

We will add needed security infrastructure at the southern border.

We will achieve longer and healthier lives for our citizens.

We will ensure that America has an all-of-the-above energy policy that provides consistent, low-cost energy to keep our economy strong. That is something my friends don't want to deal with.

We will end the majority and the Biden administration's reckless spending policies that have led to record inflation and stifling economic recession.

This administration inherited a V-shaped recovery, and a 1.4 percent inflation rate. Now we are in a recession with a 40-year-high, 8.3 percent inflation rate. That is a record of disaster. We ought to be talking about those issues, not maintaining the status quo.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me be clear: House Republicans condemn the violence in Buffalo, Uvalde, Tulsa, and Philadelphia. We stand ready to work with the majority to directly address school safety, mental health, and the root causes of gun violence.

Unfortunately, the bills we are considering today under the rule are nothing more than an attempt by Democrats to try to push their antigun agenda.

H.R. 7910 is a grab bag full of far-left proposals that will not effectively address gun violence but will severely limit America's Second Amendment rights.

There are a few provisions I would like to point out.

The bill raises the legal age of gun ownership to 21. This provision is very likely unconstitutional. Even a liberal district court in California has already determined that with regard to similar restrictions.

This bill broadens the definition of ``frame or receiver'' that could define multiple parts of the same gun as separate firearms. Each of these parts would need its own distinct serial number or risk becoming a classified ghost gun. This could turn millions of legal guns into contraband, and law-abiding gun owners into felons.

H.R. 2377 is another reminder the Democrats fundamentally have no respect for Second Amendment rights. It shows their lack of respect for Fourth Amendment rights also. This bill destroys the presumption of innocence that is the bedrock of our justice system.

It does away with the notion that an individual is innocent until proven guilty, and instead makes anyone subject to an extreme risk protection order guilty until proven innocent with what amounts to another version of a red flag law.

They also want to mandate a system for gun storage in private homes, which is unconstitutional, and almost impossible to enforce without stripping even more rights from law-abiding citizens. Democrats are picking and choosing legal standards to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights based on how closely those rights are aligned with their political agenda.

Furthermore, the universe of individuals who can petition a court for an extreme risk protection order under this bill is far too broad, and it creates a process that is ripe for abuse. This bill would create an opportunity for a disgruntled ex-roommate or predatory domestic partner to use the judicial system to harass and burden an individual by requiring law enforcement to seize that individual's firearms and ammunition.

Federal law already prohibits dangerous and unfit individuals from purchasing or possessing firearms. An individual with a misdemeanor domestic

violence conviction, an individual involuntarily committed to a mental institution or adjudicated mentally defective, or an individual who is an unlawful user of controlled substances are all prohibited from possessing or purchasing a firearm under current law.

Democrats rejected an amendment that will allow for transfers of a firearm to a victim of domestic violence for self-defense. Under this bill, a friend or neighbor trying to help a victim would be charged with gun trafficking.

These bills are not about public safety, they are about the left's antigun agenda.

During the Judiciary Committee's consideration of this bill, the chairman of the committee conceded that the strict gun laws in liberal jurisdictions don't work because criminals are able to obtain guns elsewhere illegally. A Member from Tennessee on that committee admitted that the Democrats' bills will make it harder for law-abiding Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Another Member, one from New York, threatened to abolish the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court if any of our Nation's checks and balances stood in the way of the Democrats' agenda to trample the Second Amendment.

The majority will argue that these are commonsense proposals, but they fail to explain the details and the real effects of these provisions.

And what are law-abiding gun owners concerned about? They are concerned about the attack on their constitutional rights provided in the Second Amendment.

All of us recognize the recent tragedies, and our heart goes out to the parents, the families, and communities, but the root causes must be addressed. Simply attacking law-abiding gun owners will not solve the problem. Addressing the causes will.

House Republicans stand ready to address the root causes of these senseless acts of violence, but not at the cost of America's constitutional rights.

Madam Speaker, I oppose the rule, and I ask Members to do the same. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I just want to make a couple of comments. The gentleman from Massachusetts, with all due respect, mentioned other countries. I will just point out that other countries don't have the freedoms and don't live the way we do in our great democracy or Republic, whichever, and they don't have the constitutional rights that we have under the Second Amendment.

Our citizens ask to have that Constitution respected, and I don't believe I used the word ``inconvenient'' at all. What I used are the words, ``trampling our constitutional rights,'' and that is what I think is important here, that we do not talk about the gentleman from Massachusetts mentioning these inconvenient things. I am talking about our citizens' constitutional rights under the Second Amendment.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

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 immediately consider the Prosecutors Need to Prosecute Act, legislation authored by Representatives Malliotakis and Tiffany that ensures accountability for those charged with keeping our streets, our schools, and our communities safe.

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

Madam Speaker, while my colleagues in the majority believe that the best approach to addressing violence is to strip away American's constitutional rights, Republicans stand with parents and communities in ensuring those who commit crimes are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And those who don't, will be held accountable. Just last night, families in San Francisco ousted their district attorney for failing to keep their streets free from criminals.

Americans are fed up with liberal prosecutors letting criminals run rampant for the sake of woke idealism. This legislation will ensure the Department of Justice and the American public have the data and information necessary to hold those responsible for keeping our streets safe accountable.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis) to further explain this amendment.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 10 seconds to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

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

My colleague from Massachusetts continues to use his talking points and mentions the gun lobby, and I want to point out that I hear from many of my constituents who are law-abiding gun owners and who are extremely concerned and oppose this bill.

As a matter of fact, I met with a group of students from my district this morning who oppose this legislation. Even students know that this bill will do nothing to stop gun violence, but they do understand it will trample Second Amendment rights.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith).

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

Madam Speaker, we already have gun laws in this country and yet those laws continue to be broken. If Democrats want to talk about common sense, how about we talk about enforcing the laws that already exist.

Communities across the country are making it clear that they want people who commit crimes to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law; yet, liberal prosecutors are letting criminals go free with minimal punishment. This is not woke. This is dangerous.

Criminals need to be held accountable for their actions, and that is why we offered the PQ we did.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, why are we here debating legislation we know will never become law, and when there are--completely separate from this proposal--bipartisan efforts going on in the Senate? We know this is not a genuine effort by the Democrats as they went right to extremes of what they know will divide this country, and would not work with Republicans or accept any of the reasonable amendments that were put forward in committee.

This is a political ploy being put on by the Democrats for them to use as talking points, and it is at the expense of a tragedy and the heartache of so many across this country.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, these bills are not about keeping kids and communities safe from violent criminals, they are about furthering a blanket anti- gun agenda. This is one-size-fits-all gun restriction legislation that would punish law-abiding gun owners and fail to improve public safety. My colleagues on the left know it.

This was not a bipartisan effort and these bills will never make it through the Senate. With very real problems to solve, why are Democrats wasting precious time on something that will never make it into law? If Democrats were serious about addressing gun violence, they would engage in meaningful conversation about public safety instead of this agenda- driven political theater.

The sad fact is that the Democrats' approach demonstrates that these bills and the issue of gun violence on the whole are nothing more than political talking points in an election year. This is designed to advance the radical Democrat base that believes no private citizen should ever be able to own a gun.

They should be ashamed of themselves for putting us through this political show rather than working with Republicans on a bipartisan solution to gun violence.

Madam Speaker, I oppose the rule and I ask Members to do the same. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to comment on one portion of the rule, H.R. 8987, which is a bill that is incredibly important to me and to those that I represent. As a matter of fact, I drafted the legislation. On August 5, I had introduced the language as part of H.R. 8667. We garnered bipartisan support for this very important bill.

What the bill does is finally make whole so many of our families that were affected by 9/11 because they lost loved ones, but they were not compensated properly under the United States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorist Fund.

So we are talking about 5,347 widows and children that were excluded from this fund by this body; and it was an injustice that should have never been allowed to happen. As a result of their initial exclusion, widows and children missed the first two payments of the USVSST fund, creating a massive disparity between their restorative justice payments and others that were included.

This bill would catch up those widows and children to the other victim groups and ensure that, moving forward, they are no longer left out, forgotten, or excluded. So this bill is truly about fairness and doing what is right for the wives and the children or the husbands and the children of our first responders killed on September 11.

Twenty-one years later, this House is finally going to do the right thing, and I am very happy to have played a part in helping them move this forward.

In the gallery I have a special guest, Angela Mistrulli, who is the head of the 9/11 Children for Justice. She is a tireless advocate who has been affected personally, and I thank her for working with our office over the last 6 months and the advocacy of all of her members in seeing this through. I hope all my colleagues support this on the floor when it comes up later today.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge that we amend the rule to also include H.R. 7967, which is the Prosecutors Need to Prosecute Act. My legislation would hold prosecutors accountable and create transparency by letting the public know how many cases prosecutors are declining to prosecute, the number of offenses committed by career criminals, and the number of criminals released.

Over the past 2 years, we have seen a disturbing trend in progressive district attorneys in cities across the country who are refusing to prosecute violent criminal offenders. Look no further than my city of New York, our city of New York, where Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg released a Day 1 memo initially directing his staff not to prosecute certain crimes, including drug possession, trespassing, sex trading, driving with a suspended license, resisting arrest, and public obscenity. He even directed his staff to downgrade felony charges filed by our police, including armed robbery, weapons charges, and drug dealing.

Worst of all, his office will no longer seek sentences of life without parole, which means that the most heinous murderers, including terrorists, serial killers, cop killers, and perps who kill young children in connection with sex crimes will be released back onto our streets in 20 years or less.

These policies have sent a clear message to the criminals. It is, go ahead, break the law because we will not enforce it. With prosecutors that refuse to prosecute, violent career super-criminals are free to wreak havoc on our streets.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question today so we can hold woke prosecutors accountable for failing to do their jobs and protect.

We want to be able to add this legislation to the rule because it is incredibly important that the public knows which prosecutors are refusing to do their job; and as we saw in San Francisco, they did repeal one of their prosecutors. Many States, like ours, do not have a recall law, but this would give them the information they need to make informed decisions when it comes to selecting who is going to be the prosecutors for their cities, because prosecutors should actually be prosecuting crimes. They should not be acting like criminal defense attorneys.

Madam Speaker, I understand that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't believe in transparency, that they believe this information should be kept from the public. But these prosecutors work for us.

Quite frankly, crime has soared in my city. People are getting killed. People are getting assaulted. Nearly every single category of crime has risen in New York City, and our prosecutors are refusing to put people behind bars.

If the Democrats feel that public safety and crime skyrocketing in America's cities is not an issue, that explains why you support defunding the police, bail reform, and all of these ridiculous policies.