Providing for budget allocations, and for other purposes.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 8294.

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

Over this last year, Congress began to restore our investments after the years of disinvestment that working families, the middle class, and vulnerable people believe was wrong. Spending has favored the biggest corporations and special interests, which got heard first in Washington. But hardworking Americans are still paying high taxes and have not seen a pay increase in years.

The spike in the cost of living, gas prices, and rent are blows to so many. That has guided our priorities, and it has guided these bills.

In the Appropriations Committee, we were determined to put together bills that ensure we offset the rise in prices produced by blocked supply chains, the greed of oil companies, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

H.R. 8294, the package of the six 2023 appropriations bills before us, provides the critical funding America needs. Instead of catering to big corporations and the wealthy, we uphold our commitment with this legislation that helps lower the cost of living, creates American jobs, gives working families a better shot, and supports small businesses. As we do so, we tackle our Nation's and the world's toughest crises.

We reach some of our most vulnerable Americans by funding the programs that keep roofs over the heads of millions and keep food on the tables of millions more. We strengthen nutrition assistance through WIC, food stamps, and child nutrition programs like school meals. We increase access to affordable housing with rental assistance programs and improve the safety and living conditions of those in public housing. We also expand opportunities for families with support for homeownership programs.

These bills help invigorate rural communities as we expand broadband, strengthen water programs in rural areas, and invest in single-family home loans.

We support Native Americans and honor the Federal Government's responsibilities to Native families by investing in strong and resilient Tribal communities, including through housing, education, and healthcare programs.

We also transform the ways we meet the needs of our veterans, who deserve and who have earned our support, including the 9.2 million veterans who rely on the VA for their healthcare, by increasing funding for medical programs. For the first time ever, we put VA medical care into its own funding category so that funding for veterans does not have to compete with other critical programs.

Supporting those who protect us also means protecting servicemembers and their families and communities all over our Nation. We invest in our national security and improve our military readiness through robust investments in critical military installations at home and abroad and in the well-being of our servicemembers and their families.

At the same time, we also make our communities safer by supporting victims while fighting crime, violence, and corruption.

This package strengthens our capacity to work for all Americans. We ensure the IRS has the resources to crack down on big corporations and the wealthy who do not pay their fair share and provide better customer service to families navigating the tax system. We protect consumers with more funding for critical consumer protection agencies by strengthening our food safety

infrastructure, including oversight of the baby formula industry.

We do this while bolstering economic development in distressed communities and strengthening our economy and our economic growth by supporting small businesses and entrepreneurs as they pursue the American Dream. We create jobs and put Americans to work rebuilding our infrastructure. We help small businesses grow and thrive, foster the green energy jobs of tomorrow, and support a skilled and growing workforce.

We confront the existential threat of climate change and strengthen our resiliency on various fronts, including by investing in cleaner, safer, and more affordable American energy, advancing climate science, conserving our land and water, expanding environmental enforcement, and embracing stronger environmental justice efforts.

Finally, with inclusion of nearly 2,700 community project funding requests totaling over $6 billion, we are directly meeting the needs of Americans everywhere in ways that will have a profound and lasting impact.

When taken together, this package meets the moment at a time when so many want to see critical changes in our priorities. It reaches every corner of our Nation to give hardworking Americans, the middle class, and the vulnerable a better shot. I urge my colleagues to support these bills.

I thank the subcommittee staff, led by our clerks, for all of their work: Christina Monroe with the Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee; Martha Foley with the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee; Scott McKee with the Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee; Matt Smith with Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee; Rita Culp with the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee; and Jenny Neuscheler with the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

I also thank all the subcommittee chairs and ranking members for their efforts and their dedication to these efforts. Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee Chair Pingree is not here today, but I specifically thank her for her work. This bill makes transformative investments in our environment, and this is in large part because of her relentless advocacy.

Madam Chair, I urge support for the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies.

Madam Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

These investments in the Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation are critical to protecting and supplying communities in every district of our Nation.

Our bill increases funding for regional commissions which promote economic development in economically challenged regions and distressed counties across our country. Our bill will strengthen the foundational components that underpin every aspect of decent life in our Nation and represents a strategic investment in America's future, without question.

Madam Chair, I thank the staff who worked tirelessly to put this bill together: Scott McKee, Brian Smith, Will Ostertag, Daniela Todesco, Eric Lipka, John Howes, and Angie Giancarlo.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina, I would say that Chairman Price, this will be the last time he brings an appropriations bill to the floor of the House of Representatives. I think I speak for all of us when I say that his honesty, his integrity, his commitment to the legislative process and making it work for the people, not only in his district but all over the United States, is really pretty extraordinary.

I quote from Shirley Chisholm, the first African-American woman who was elected to the House of Representatives, when she said that public service is the rent you pay for space on this Earth.

David Price has paid that rent over and over and over again.

Madam Chair, it gives me great pleasure to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), the chairman of the Transportation, and Housing, and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), the chairman of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), who is the chair of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley), the chairman of the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, first, let me just say, I thank the ranking member (Ms. Granger) for her commitment and her dedication to the Appropriations Committee and the process, a place where she has spent a number of years in the various subcommittees, and it is an honor to work with her in this effort.

I applaud the funding bills that help the middle class, working families, and small businesses, in what are desperate times. And that is what these bills do is to provide that kind of assistance to these families. I am proud to support these bills.

I listened to my colleagues about inflation, what they failed to mention, which has been really demonstrated, is that we are looking at oil companies who have consolidated; and what they are doing is buying back their stock, instead of lowering the price of gas.

They now have 26 million acres of Federal land in which they could deal with extraction, and they have the permits, but they refuse to do it. They are in the business of buying back their stock, thereby increasing inflation by keeping gas prices high.

We have the same situation in the meat industry with meat, poultry, and pork, which is continuing to raise the price because of the consolidation.

I would just mention one other thing. In the recommendations to vote ``no'' on this package, it just is interesting to look at what my colleagues view as not wanting to do; that is, to provide an increase for the Internal Revenue Service. Why is that money provided to the IRS? It is really to look at those corporations who are not paying their fair share of taxes.

So they are not much interested in seeing them pay their fair share of taxes, or the wealthiest of individuals who don't pay their fair share of taxes.

They also do not want to provide money for women, infants, and children for food. They don't want to provide money for food security, for people who are on the food stamp program.

They don't want to do anything for domestic manufacturing on clean energy, which could lower the cost of energy. So, there is a bit of disingenuousness on what we are doing with the cost.

I am proud to support these bills. I urge my colleagues to support the six-bill appropriations package, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), the chairwoman of the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 1232, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

While I have offered this en bloc amendment for the purposes of legislative efficiency, I strongly oppose it. This en bloc amendment makes severe and harmful cuts to the minibus.

The draconian cuts are indiscriminate, they are harmful, and they seek to overturn long overdue investments. I urge all Members to oppose this en bloc amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley), the chair of the Subcommittee on Financial Service and General Government.

Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies.

Mr. Chair, if my colleagues on the other side were so interested in really reducing inflation, I would hope that they would be supportive of the child tax credit, which none of them have supported, which, in fact, the majority of the people using the child tax credit are dealing with food, with clothing, with school supplies, with rent, but all of these expenses have gone up, and the money has run out.

They can't find their way clear to support a child tax credit, and that

lack of action from the Congress to renew the child tax credit is trouble, it is big trouble for these families, especially as the costs of life continue to swell due to inflation.

Let's look at the cost of inflation and why we have inflation and take a look at what the oil companies are doing with price gouging. What we ought to do is to do a windfall profits tax on people who are making money hand over fist and refuse to lower the price of gasoline at the pump because they are buying back stock to take care of themselves and their stakeholders.

That is a portion of what is causing inflation and the rise in the cost of living. If you were genuine about that, you would look at these matters as well as just talking about inflation and not looking at the root causes of it today.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield myself 45 seconds. The en bloc amendment includes a number of proposals offered by my Democratic and Republican colleagues. I urge my colleagues to support the important proposals contained in this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Schrier).

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), the chair of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Chair, I yield myself 45 seconds.

The amendments en bloc includes a number of proposals offered by my Democratic colleagues. It reflects our shared values of investing in the American people to create good-paying jobs, grow opportunity, and provide a lifeline to the vulnerable.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the important proposals contained in this en bloc, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), the chairman of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I oppose these amendments en bloc. Davis-Bacon is a pretty simple concept and a fair one. What does the Davis-Bacon Act do? It protects the government as well as workers in carrying out the policy of paying a decent wage on government contracts.

The Davis-Bacon Act requires that workers on federally funded construction projects be paid no less than the wages paid in the community for similar work. It requires that every contract for construction to which the Federal Government is a party, in excess of $2,000, contain a provision defining the minimum wages paid to various classes of laborers and mechanics.

The House has taken numerous votes on this issue, and on every vote this body has voted to maintain Davis-Bacon requirements. We should not be attacking working-class people, men and women who work every single day for a decent paycheck, and their wages haven't been increased with the cost of inflation. We should defeat the amendment before us today, and we should move on to more important matters.

Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), the chairman of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies for appropriations.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Spanberger).

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I just remind my colleagues, this body has rejected this amendment on a bipartisan basis time and time again.

Speaking about inflation, we know that wages have not kept up with inflation, and working people are struggling, living paycheck to paycheck. Why are we dealing with an amendment that would try to curtail wages and prevailing wages for workers every day who go on a job and put forth all of their efforts to be able to get a decent wage to take care of their children, to be able to deal with inflation?

It speaks loudly of my colleagues who refuse to believe that we need to have wages increase to help people fight inflation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume in closing.

Mr. Chair, while I have offered this en bloc amendment for legislative efficiency, I strongly oppose it.

The en bloc amendment makes severe, harmful changes to the bills that are under consideration. Included in the en bloc amendments there is a limitation on the Environmental Protection Agency to be able to hire new employees and detrimental efforts to the environment; it limits access to voting; and, in particular, infringes on a woman's access to healthcare. These amendments do not move our country forward, they really are harmful to all Americans.

Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself 45 seconds. The en bloc includes a number of proposals offered by my Democratic colleagues. It reflects our shared values of investing in the American people to create good-paying jobs, to grow opportunity, and provide a lifeline to the vulnerable.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the important proposals contained in this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley), who is the chairman of the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Auchincloss).

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 Chair, I thank the chairwoman for those kind and generous words. And I do rise in strong support of this critical legislation. As chairman of the Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, or T-HUD as we call it, I first thank my partner and ranking member, Mario Diaz- Balart, for his cooperative and collaborative relationship this year and for many years prior, including when our roles were reversed.

Madam Chair, the bipartisan work we do in assembling our subcommittee bills reflects an earlier era when the Appropriations Committee presented a united front throughout the process. That era, regrettably, has passed, but the cooperative work remains at the subcommittee level. What we have done has made this a better bill, and hopefully will help us achieve agreement eventually and finalize T-HUD and other bills.

Division A of the bill, the T-HUD section, represents our continued commitment to upgrading our aging transportation infrastructure, addressing our Nation's affordable housing and homelessness crises, bolstering our resiliency in the face of climate change and natural disasters, remedying inequities and disparities in our housing and transportation systems, and prioritizing safety--whether that is eliminating hazards in public housing or improving the certification of aircraft.

Overall, the bill includes $90.9 billion in discretionary funding; that is an increase of $9.85 billion over the current year.

The bill also provides $77.6 billion to fully fund programs that utilize the Highway Trust Fund as part of last year's historic and bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

For housing, we continue to ensure housing stability for five million people by fully renewing all Housing Choice Vouchers and meeting the renewal needs of public housing, homeless assistance grants, and several other initiatives. This is coupled with new investments, including more than 140,000 new tenant-based vouchers for low-income families and people experiencing or at risk of homelessness, over 5,600 new affordable housing units for seniors and people with disabilities, and more than 6,700 new vouchers for veterans experiencing homelessness and youth aging out of foster care.

The bill also provides an 8 percent increase for the HOME program, an 11 percent increase for NeighborWorks programs, and a historic 29 percent increase for Choice Neighborhoods, a program that, like housing for the elderly and for people with disabilities, our subcommittee has brought back into production after they were on life support.

I was able to see some of these life-changing investments firsthand in my own State in Winston-Salem, where I toured a Choice Neighborhood with my colleague, Kathy Manning. And there are more to come.

Importantly, the bill provides, for the first time, a major investment in our Nation's manufactured housing, by providing $500 million for a new program to preserve and revitalize this essential form of housing that has been too long overlooked. Many of these communities have faced significant infrastructure and resiliency challenges. This bill recognizes the opportunities that will come from direct investments in manufactured housing, a portion of our housing stock that provides for over 20 million people.

On the transportation side, the bill upholds the commitment to respond to transportation needs across all modes: highways, transit, rail, aviation, bike and pedestrian projects, and ports. It invests in the safety and reliability of our passenger and freight rail systems, including a combined $1.2 billion for the CRISI program and the Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail. That has been and remains a signature emphasis of our subcommittee.

I am particularly proud of this aspect of the bill as we build out the Raleigh to Richmond corridor, the next step in the Southeast Corridor from Washington to Charlotte and eventually Atlanta. These regional corridors represent the future of passenger rail in this country, and they are critical to reducing congestion and lowering greenhouse gas emissions.

The bill also provides robust funding for our transit infrastructure, including $3 billion for Capital Investment Grants, or New Starts, to create new transit routes nationwide, and $646 million for Transit Infrastructure Grants to help transit agencies innovate and improve public transit.

Madam Chair, before closing, I, too, thank our staff for their immeasurable contributions to this bill and for guiding the Members and staff on both sides of the aisle through this process.

Starting with our wonderful chief clerk, Christina Monroe, as well as Josephine Eckert, Winnie Chang, Xavier Arriaga, Samhita Subramanian, and Rachel Keyes, along with Leigh Whittaker on my personal staff, and Doug Disrud on the minority side.

Since this is my last time presenting the T-HUD bill, I also want to mention all of the staff who helped me and my colleagues through the subcommittee process since I took on the ranking member and eventually the chairman's role. That includes three previous clerks: Kate Hallahan, Joe Carlisle, Matt Washington; and it includes Angela Ohm, Sarah Puro, Becky Salay, Jenny Neuscheler, and Gladys Barcena at the subcommittee, as well as Laura Thrift, Kate Roetzer, Sean Maxwell, and Nora Blalock from my own staff. A hearty thanks to all of you.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, this year's T-HUD will make forward-looking investments in our housing and transportation infrastructure while bolstering safety and uplifting vulnerable populations. It will benefit communities across America and lay a strong foundation for economic growth and resiliency.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to sit up and take notice of this. This is quite an amendment--quite a radical amendment.

It indiscriminately would cut a total of 36 percent from programs in Transportation and Housing without any regard for the merits of the programs, just indiscriminate whacking away.

This is only in the T-HUD section of the bill, and I will limit myself to that. I can't imagine that Members would dream of supporting this amendment.

Investments in our transportation and housing infrastructure will stall. Jobs will be lost. Some of our most vulnerable people, including veterans, children, will be harmed.

This amendment will result in a reduction--I want to stress--in the very programs Republicans profess to support. Let me give you some good examples.

The FAA's Contract Tower Program that enjoyed strong bipartisan support, critical to air safety--whacked away.

NeighborWorks, which supports local solutions to expand affordable housing, increased housing counseling assistance, and strengthens economic development. We increase NeighborWorks under bipartisan urging--slashed.

Community Project Funding. Republicans and Democrats alike have requested these appropriations to address transportation and housing challenges in their local communities. Believe me: If we don't do it, no one will. Those would be drastically cut.

Port infrastructure, another Republican emphasis--cut.

The amendment would even cut the small amount of defense spending included in the T-HUD section of the bill: That would be directed to critical maritime security programs.

Here is what else this amendment would mean the eviction of tens of thousands of low-income households, half of which are elderly or disabled, a growing backlog of roof, elevator, and other critical health and safety repairs to public housing; thousands of homeless veterans, survivors of domestic violence, youth out on the street; and a halt in the production of affordable housing, which already is in short supply.

Roads, bridges, aviation, transit, rail, and port systems across rural and urban communities--having their repair and upkeep halted or slowed, becoming less safe.

The bill before us helps us make progress in rebuilding and restoring our infrastructure. This amendment would take us backward.

It is strange, isn't it, that deficits only seem to matter when it comes to helping people keep a safe roof over their heads and creating a more resilient infrastructure that can withstand the next tornado or earthquake or flood, something every one of our districts benefits from.

This isn't just a run-of-the-mill amendment. I suggest that Members look carefully at what is in it and what it would do and what kind of totally justified criticism they will be subject to if this amendment even comes close to passing. I urge its defeat.

Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment. It seeks to waive longstanding prevailing wage requirements that are contained in the Davis-Bacon Act.

This act ensures that workers are paid decent wages while preventing contractors from undercutting competitors by offering wages or setting wages below prevailing levels.

Davis-Bacon helps protect workers. It helps protect the government. Davis-Bacon applies government-wide, but it does particularly apply to the T-HUD sections of the bill. Hence, I strongly oppose it.

I often noted immodestly over these last years when everybody was talking infrastructure--and ``Infrastructure Week'' almost became a punch line--that while everybody else was talking about it, we were doing it. We were doing it on the T-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee and in the Congress, year after year, plugging away at our infrastructure needs.

And that is what we have done. We have actually made investments in the annual T-HUD bill, and these investments are practically synonymous with construction. That is what they are about. Construction. Construction workers.

There are countless transportation formula and competitive grant programs, as well as affordable housing programs in the bill that follow Davis-Bacon requirements--have done so happily and productively over many years--and they would suddenly face new standards.

Davis-Bacon has helped construction workers in all trades all throughout the Nation since 1931, and there is no need to abandon it now--although Republicans have been trying to abandon it for a good number of those years.

Instead of actively trying to reduce wages, we should be working to lift up workers and increase wages. The Congress has rejected similar amendments in the past because there is a strong bipartisan support in this body for fair labor standards for construction contracts.

So it is my hope that we stop disrespecting working people. Stop disrespecting working people. Stand up for working people. Defeat this amendment before us today.

Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to oppose the en bloc amendment.

Mr. Chair, I would urge my colleagues to support my amendment, amendment No. 133 of division D, a part of en bloc No. 5.

This amendment would prohibit the SEC from implementing provisions of its proposal entitled Enhancement and Standardization of Climate- Related Disclosures for Investors that mandate disclosure of Scope 3 emissions.

Scope 3 emissions include emissions from activities in an organization's supply chain. Public companies have no ownership--and little to no control--of these emissions.

Recently, I led a bipartisan letter with 118 Members of Congress expressing concern about the proposed rule's impact on farmers.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the letter.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, May 25, 2022.

Hon. Gary Gensler,

Chair, Securities and Exchange Commission,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chair Gensler: We write to express significant

concerns with the impact the Securities and Exchange

Commission's (SEC) proposed rule on ``Enhanced and

Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for

Investors'' will have on the agricultural community.

It is our strong belief that this proposed rule, if

promulgated, would be a significant and unworkable regulatory

burden, and a considerable departure from the SEC's mission

to protect investors, facilitate capital formation, and

foster fair, orderly, and efficient markets. It is not within

the purview of the SEC to regulate farmers and ranchers,

which is what this rule would do by requiring public

companies to disclose their Scope 3 greenhouse gas (GHG)

emissions. To do business with public companies, small farms

would be required to disclose a significant amount of

climate-related information. But unlike large corporations,

small farms do not have full-scale compliance departments.

Imposing these additional reporting requirements could

disqualify small, family-owned farms from doing business with

companies which could lead to more consolidation in the

agriculture industry.

Farmers are already regulated by agencies at the local,

state, and federal levels. There are currently multiple

programs at the federal level to help farmers implement

conservation practices. Bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.--

specifically unelected SEC staff--who have no jurisdiction

over environmental policy and who have never stepped foot on

a farm should not have such influence over how farmers take

care of their land.

We also have concerns about the specific information from

each farm that would have to be reported under this proposal.

The time and energy put into complying with this new

regulation will divert American farmers away from their

primary goal of producing our nation's food, fuel, and fiber.

As this rule is written, it is also unclear how farmers will

be protected from privacy concerns as they, unlike

corporations, live at their places of business where they

would now have to disclose significant amounts of

information. In American Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA, the

8th U.S. Circuit Court for Appeals affirmed that public

disclosure of farmers' personal information would constitute

a ``substantial'' and ``clearly unwarranted invasion of

personal privacy.'' Similarly, the SEC should consider how

the disclosure of Scope 3 GHG emissions could have privacy

implications for farmers and scrap this rule entirely to

ensure their private property information would not end up on

any public disclosures.

Finally, we are concerned that the comment period, although

recently extended until June, is inadequate given the

magnitude of this proposed rule, which totals 510 pages and

has 1,068 technical footnotes. The Commission's use of

abbreviated comment periods for complex rules like this as

well as the lack of consistency across rulemakings is

troubling, as it will result in less, much-needed input from

the public on these important issues.

We appreciate your attention to our concerns and request a

response no later than June 24, 2022.

Sincerely,

John Rose, Member of Congress; Scott DesJarlais, M.D.,

Member of Congress; David Kustoff, Member of Congress;

French Hill, Member of Congress; Glenn ``GT'' Thompson,

Member of Congress; Mark E. Green, MD, Member of

Congress; Elaine G. Luria, Member of Congress; Virginia

Foxx, Member of Congress; Ron Estes, Member of

Congress; Mariannette Miller-Meeks, M.D., Member of

Congress; Mo Brooks, Member of Congress; Barry Moore,

Member of Congress; Ben Cline, Member of Congress;

Thomas Massie, Member of Congress; Jerry L. Carl,

Member of Congress; Ted Budd, Member of Congress; Andy

Biggs, Member of Congress; Mary E. Miller, Member of

Congress.

Mike Carey, Member of Congress; Pete Sessions, Member of

Congress; Lance Gooden, Member of Congress; Tracey

Mann, Member of Congress; Jodey C. Arrington, Member of

Congress; William R. Timmons IV, Member of Congress;

Chris Jacobs, Member of Congress; Mike Rogers, Member

of Congress; Kelly Armstrong, Member of Congress; Doug

LaMalfa, Member of Congress.

David Rouzer, Member of Congress; Alex X. Mooney, Member

of Congress; Troy Balderson, Member of Congress; Paul

A. Gosar, D.D.S., Member of Congress; Beth Van Duyne,

Member of Congress; Ken Buck, Member of Congress;

Steven M. Palazzo, Member of Congress; Austin Scott,

Member of Congress; Louie Gohmert, Member of Congress;

Dan Bishop, Member of Congress.

Chip Roy, Member of Congress; Dan Crenshaw, Member of

Congress; Rodney Davis, Member of Congress; Michael

Guest, Member of Congress; Gary J. Palmer, Member of

Congress; John Katko, Member of Congress; Rick W.

Allen, Member of Congress; Richard Hudson, Member of

Congress; Trent Kelly, Member of Congress; Kevin Brady,

Member of Congress.

Yvette Herrell, Member of Congress; Jake Ellzey, Member

of Congress; Michelle Fischbach, Member of Congress;

Jackie Walorski, Member of Congress; Brett Guthrie,

Member of Congress; Robert J. Wittman, Member of

Congress; Bill Posey, Member of Congress; Michael

Cloud, Member of Congress; Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,

Member of Congress; Markwayne Mullin, Member of

Congress.

Debbie Lesko, Member of Congress; James Comer, Member of

Congress; Charles J. ``Chuck'' Fleischmann, Member of

Congress; Ann Wagner, Member of Congress; Harold

Rogers, Member of Congress; Russ Fulcher, Member of

Congress; A. Drew Ferguson IV, Member of Congress; Jay

Obernolte, Member of Congress; Mike Johnson, Member of

Congress; Adrian Smith, Member of Congress.

Stephanie Bice, Member of Congress; Matthew Rosendale,

Sr., Member of Congress; Daniel Meuser, Member of

Congress; Lisa C. McClain, Member of Congress; Julia

Letlow, Member of Congress; Dusty Johnson, Member of

Congress; Greg Pence, Member of Congress; Darin LaHood,

Member of Congress; Jake LaTurner, Member of Congress;

Vicky Hartzler, Member of Congress.

Sam Graves, Member of Congress; Guy Reschenthaler, Member

of Congress; Tim Walberg, Member of Congress; Tim

Burchett, Member of Congress; James R. Baird, Member of

Congress, Ranking Member, Research and Technology; Neal

P. Dunn, Member of Congress; Mark E. Amodei, Member of

Congress; Clay Higgins, Member of Congress; Pete

Stauber, Member of Congress; Andrew S. Clyde, Member of

Congress.

Ashley Hinson, Member of Congress; Andy Barr, Member of

Congress, Blaine Luetkemeyer, Member of Congress; Ralph

Norman, Member of Congress; Mike Bost, Member of

Congress; Anthony Gonzalez, Member of Congress; Diana

Harshbarger, Member of Congress; Randy Feenstra, Member

of Congress; Jack Bergman, Member of Congress; Gregory

F. Murphy, M.D., Member of Congress.

Warren Davidson, Member of Congress; John R. Moolenaar,

Member of Congress; Jim Jordan, Member of Congress;

Roger Williams, Member of Congress; Jim Banks, Member

of Congress; Troy E. Nehls, Member of Congress; Robert

B. Aderholt, Member of Congress; Brad R. Wenstrup,

D.P.M., Member of Congress; Brian Babin, D.D.S., Member

of Congress; Elissa Slotkin, Member of Congress.

Bill Huizenga, Member of Congress; David G. Valadao,

Member of Congress; Lee Zeldin, Member of Congress;

Bruce Westerman, Member of Congress; Steve Womack,

Member of Congress; Bryan Steil, Member of Congress;

Earl L. ``Buddy'' Carter, Member of Congress; Tom

McClincock, Member of Congress; David P. Joyce, Member

of Congress; W. Gregory Steube, Member of Congress.

Mr. Chair, the proposal would drive capital away from smaller suppliers that may not have the resources to measure their greenhouse gas emissions. SEC Chair Gensler points to significant investor demand for requiring this type of information, but the demand is coming from large asset managers and climate activists, not retail investors.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.