Condemning the atrocity that occurred in Buffalo, New York, on May 14, 2022, in which 10 Americans were killed and 3 were injured, and in which 11 of the 13 victims were Black Americans, condemning the Great Replacement Theory as a White supremacist conspiracy theory, and reaffirming the House of Representatives commitment to combating White supremacy, hatred, and racial injustice.

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

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[From The Texas Tribune, May 26, 2022]

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

(By Jolie McCullough and Kate McGee)

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

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

another shell-shocked community that lost 19 children and two

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

ongoing effort against mass shootings.

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

profound legislative sessions not just in Texas but in any

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

Uvalde auditorium Wednesday as he sat flanked by state and

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

not done, our work must continue.''

Throughout the 60-minute news conference, he and other

Republican leaders said a 2019 law allowed districts to

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

shooting inside an art classroom at Santa Fe High School near

Houston the year before. After the Uvalde gunman was

reportedly able to enter Robb Elementary School through a

back door this week, their calls to secure buildings

resurfaced yet again.

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

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

receive enough state money to make the types of physical

improvements lawmakers are touting publicly. Few school

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

districts either don't have an active shooting plan or

produced insufficient ones.

In January 2020, the Uvalde Consolidated Independent School

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

grant to enhance physical security in Texas public schools,

according to a dataset detailing the Texas Education Agency

grants. The funds were comparable to what similarly sized

districts received.

Even with more funds and better enforcement of policies,

experts have said there is no indication that beefing up

security in schools has prevented any violence. Plus, they

said, it can be detrimental to children, especially children

of color.

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

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

public health professor at New Mexico State University who

studies school security practices and their effectiveness.

Khubchandani said the majority of public schools in the

United States already implement the security measures most

often promoted by public officials, including locked doors to

the outside and in classrooms, active shooter plans and

security cameras.

After a review of 18 years of school security measures,

Khubchandani and James Price from the University of Toledo

did not find any evidence that such tactics or more armed

teachers reduced gun violence in schools.

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

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

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

need a comprehensive approach.''

Insufficient Active Shooter Plans

Since the shooting, GOP lawmakers have repeatedly suggested

limiting access to schools to one door.

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

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

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

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

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

There are still questions about the timing and details of

the tragedy, however, including whether the shooter busted a

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

state police official reported Thursday that the door

appeared to be unlocked but that it was still under

investigation.

Khubchandani and education advocates said locking doors and

routing everyone through one entrance is already standard

practice in most districts. And safety leaders said locking

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

needs to be strictly enforced.

``Sometimes convenience can take priority over safety and

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

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

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

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

At Wednesday's press conference, Abbott emphasized that the

package of school safety laws passed in 2019 required school

districts to submit emergency operations plans to the Texas

School Safety Center and make sure they have adequate active

shooter strategies to employ in an emergency.

State law dictates that districts must be able to show how

they will prepare for, respond to and recover from disasters

like active threats, but also extreme weather and

communicable disease. These plans must include training

mechanisms, communication plans and mandatory drills. Schools

must create safety committees and establish a way to assess

threats.

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

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

active shooter policies, even though most districts reported

having one. The audit revealed 626 districts did not have

active shooter policies in place and 196 districts had

insufficient policies.

Just 67 school districts had viable emergency operations

plans overall, the report found.

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

was considered adequate because of ongoing investigations

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

any areas of noncompliance.

The audit reviewed school districts' emergency plans in

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

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

especially after the Santa Fe shooting and others around the

country.

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

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

keep sending that message that this can happen at any point

in time and to anybody.''

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

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

Arming Teachers and Staff With Guns

Texas leaders have already shunned the idea of restricting

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

in recent years, Texas lawmakers have loosened gun laws after

mass shootings.

Instead, lawmakers point to the nearly decade-old school

marshal program in Texas as another measure to deter and

prevent mass shootings. That program was created in response

to the deadly shooting at an elementary school in Newtown,

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

graders.

Designated school employees who take an 80-hour training

course and pass a psychological exam are allowed to keep a

firearm in a lockbox on school grounds, an idea most

attractive to rural schools in areas where law enforcement

response can take longer.

After the school shooting in Santa Fe, state lawmakers

removed the cap that limited schools to one marshal per 200

students. Today, according to the Texas Commission on Law

Enforcement, which oversees the training for the program,

there are 256 marshals across the state.

While lawmakers tout it as a potential tool to prevent mass

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

report from the Texas School Safety Center. Martinez Prather

at the Texas School Safety Center said many school districts

say it's expensive

and the training is time-consuming for educators.

Meanwhile, 280 schools are utilizing an unregulated option

known as the Guardian Program, which allows local school

boards to approve individuals in schools to carry concealed

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

take 15 to 20 hours of specialized training by the Texas

Department of Public Safety.

Nicole Golden, executive director of Texas Gun Sense, said

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

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

the classroom.

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

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

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

direction to go in.''

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

be problematic when data shows students of color are

disproportionately disciplined.

When lawmakers decided to expand the number of marshals in

Texas schools in 2019, Black students and parents said the

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

disciplined more than other students.

The study from Khubchandani and Price pointed to a 2018

shooting at a high school in Kentucky where the shooter

killed two and injured 14 students in 10 seconds.

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

exact same spot in the school as the shooter to significantly

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

seconds is too fast to stop a school shooter with a

semiautomatic firearm when the armed school guard is in

another place in the school.''

$10 per Student for Safety

Big changes often take big money, and officials have noted

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

biennium to the Texas Education Agency. The agency then

distributes the money to school districts to use on

equipment, programs and training related to school safety and

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

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

physical security enhancements to suicide prevention

programs.

According to a self-reported survey of districts by the

Texas School Safety Center, more than two thirds of school

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

it for active shooter response training. Nearly 40% of

districts installed physical barriers with the allotment.

But Zeph Capo, president of the Texas chapter of the

American Federation of Teachers, said that money wasn't

enough to pay for the more expensive projects lawmakers were

suggesting.

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

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

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

which is really change the structures of the buildings so

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

noting that AFT believes more gun restrictions is a better

solution.

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

of money to provide grants to districts specifically for

physical security enhancements, like metal detectors, door-

locking systems or bullet-resistant glass.

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

from the state to enhance its physical security. School

officials did not respond to questions Wednesday. As of the

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

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

Other remote town school districts received comparable

grants per their student population, according to an analysis

by The Texas Tribune. For example, the Sulphur Springs

Independent School District in East Texas has only a slightly

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

funds.

According to a district document, Uvalde CISD, which

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

hardening measures in place that lawmakers and school safety

leaders recommend.

The district employed four district police officers,

installed perimeter fencing meant to limit access around

schools, including Robb, and instituted a policy that all

classroom doors remain locked during the day.

There are campus teams that identify and address potential

threats, and schools hold emergency drills for students

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

system for community members to raise concerns. Some schools

had security vestibules at their entrances and buzz-in

systems to get inside from the outdoors.

But a security vestibule, which is basically a secure lobby

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

already tight on money. In 2019, the Waller Independent

School District estimated that the addition of two of these

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

Security cameras at a small elementary school can cost more

than $20,000, according to industry experts.

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

districts have begun to rely on bond proposals to find the

money to implement some of these changes.

But Texas voters have expressed hesitancy at the ballot box

to approve such bonds in recent years, which the Texas

Association of School Boards attributed to the lingering

pandemic and political polarization. Recent changes by the

Texas Legislature have also complicated bond requests for

schools after it started to require districts to write,

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

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

Overall, Monty Exter, a senior lobbyist with the

Association of Texas Professional Educators, said the per-

student allotment and one-time grants set aside for school

security could never pay for the types of construction

projects lawmakers have touted publicly in the wake of the

shooting.

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

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

said.

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

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

[From Bloomberg, May 27, 2022]

Republicans Push Unfounded Mental Health Claim for Gun Violence

(By Emma Court)

Republican politicians from Senator Ted Cruz to Texas

Governor Greg Abbott have been quick to blame mental illness

following a deadly school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, that

killed 19 children and two teachers.

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

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

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

mentally well.

While reporting from Texas following the May 24 shooting

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

troubled individual, state officials have said he had no

documented mental health issues. Research shows that only a

very small percentage of violent behavior is connected to

mental illness.

``If we magically cured all these serious mental illnesses

tomorrow, which would be wonderful--imagine the alleviation

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

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

behavioral sciences at Duke University.

Firearm violence is a greater risk for young males,

individuals with a violent childhood and those who abuse

drugs and alcohol. While mental illness can contribute to gun

violence, the vast majority of those suffering from mental

illness will never engage in violent acts, Swanson said.

Attributing school shootings to mental illness, meanwhile,

increases the stigma around such conditions, which include

depression, schizophrenia and psychosis, according to

experts.

Gun Deaths

National Rifle Association leaders are expected to shift

the focus away from gun policies that put deadly weapons in

the hands of the public when their national convention kicks

off in Houston on Friday. The organization called the Uvalde

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

statement.

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

in 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention. More than half those deaths were suicides, and

many of the remainder were murders.

Guns are also now the leading cause of death among children

and adolescents, surpassing car crashes, drug overdoses and

drownings, according to recent CDC data.

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

signed legislation allowing Texans to carry handguns without

a license.

Abbott, at a press conference in Uvalde, suggested that

access to guns isn't the issue.

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

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

mental health in our communities.''

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

like schools, malls and bars for decades.

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

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

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

would have stopped it.

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

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

reporters after urging his colleagues to take action against

gun violence.

Other countries have mental health problems too but rarely

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

speech in which he pleaded for gun reform and called for

standing up to gun manufacturers.

``They have mental health problems. They have domestic

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

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

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

Widespread Misconception

Many people associate mental illness with violence, likely

because of how these conditions are portrayed in the media,

including in reporting about shootings like Uvalde.

Mental illness can also be an easy scapegoat for making

sense of tragedies like

Uvalde, which are devastating and hard to comprehend, said

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

nonprofit research organization.

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

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

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

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

simplistic and runs the risk of hurting people who have

mental health problems.''

People with mental health disorders are, in fact, more

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

said.

Using mental illness as an explanation for such events also

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

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

advocacy officer for the National Alliance on Mental Illness.

``I think people confuse having a mental health condition

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

said. Mental illness is defined by specific medical

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

adults every year.

Gun violence remains poorly understood. One reason: Since

1996, Congress has limited federal funding of research into

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

remain. Studying mass shootings is also challenging because

such events are relatively rare, Ayer said.

(Everytown for Gun Safety, which advocates for universal

background checks and gun-safety measures, is backed by

Michael Bloomberg, founder and majority owner of Bloomberg

News parent company Bloomberg LP.)

Madam Speaker, let me set the record straight.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[From Yahoo! News, April 4, 2022]

Republican-Controlled States Have Higher Murder Rates Than Democratic

Ones: Study

(By Ben Adler)

Republican politicians routinely claim that cities run by

Democrats have been experiencing crime waves caused by failed

governance, but a new study shows murder rates are actually

higher in states and cities controlled by Republicans.

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

former President Donald Trump asserted at a March 26 rally in

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

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

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

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

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

First Step Act that let thousands of violent felons on the

street who have now committed innumerable violent crimes,''

Cotton said during a speech in the Senate.

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

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

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

death and decay and liberal policies.''

But a comparison of violent crime rates in jurisdictions

controlled by Democrats and Republicans tells a very

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

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

2020 election have higher murder rates than those carried by

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

often in conservative, rural states.

The study found that murder rates in the 25 states Trump

carried in 2020 are 40 percent higher overall than in the

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

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

highest per capita murder rate--Mississippi, Louisiana,

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

for Trump.

There are some examples of states Biden won in 2020 that

also have high per capita murder rates, including New Mexico

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

murder rates, respectively. And there are Trump-supporting

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

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

more murders per capita than the Northeast, interior West and

West Coast, the study found.

Those findings are consistent with a pattern that has

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

of violent crime than the nation as a whole.

``We as criminologists have known this for quite some

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

University Southeast, told Yahoo News. ``States like

Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama have historically had high

crime rates.''

Criminologists say research shows higher rates of violent

crime are found in areas that have low average education

levels, high rates of poverty and relatively modest access to

government assistance. Those conditions characterize some

portions of the American South.

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

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

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

They are among the states with the highest levels of

substance abuse. All of those factors contribute to people

engaging in criminal behavior.''

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

Rosenfeld, a professor of criminology at the University of

Missouri-St. Louis and former president of the American

Society of Criminology, told Yahoo News about the Third Way

report. ``In Republican states, states with Republican

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

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

but it's a fact nonetheless.''

(While the Third Way study divided states by presidential

vote in 2020, using gubernatorial party affiliation leads to

similar results because most states have recently chosen the

same party for governor and for president. Based on

presidential vote, eight of the 10 states with the highest

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

one uses the governor's party.)

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

biggest increases in 2020 were found in the Great Plains and

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

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

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

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

Nebraska all voted for Trump and have Republican governors.

Wisconsin and Minnesota voted for Biden and are led by

Democrats.

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

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

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

have Republican mayors do not have lower murder rates than

similarly sized Democratic-led cities, the study found.

Some experts warn against the impulse to use crime data to

score quick political points.

``Being a Republican or Democratic state or city is

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

professor of criminology and executive director of the Center

for Evidence-Based Crime Policy at George Mason University,

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

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

due to the fact that Republican states have many other risk

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

comprehensive modeling of all of these factors, it is very

difficult to get a valid causal result for explaining crime

rates.''

That argument cuts both ways, however. Weisburd also thinks

the claims of Trump and other Republicans who say Democrats

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

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

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

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

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

regardless of partisan preference. For homicides in 2020,

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

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

Some states with large cities, such as New York and

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

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

largest increases were in rural, Republican-led states,

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

percent).

The higher national murder rate is naturally causing public

concern, although violent crime does remain far below its

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

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

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

Research Center noted last November. Between 2019 and 2020,

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

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

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

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

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

[From Everytown Research, Dec. 16, 2021]

Summary: City Dashboard: Murder and Gun Homicide Report

(By Everytown Research & Policy)

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

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

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

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

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

through the end of 2021 during which time there was an

additional 7 percent increase in gun homicides relative to

2020.

Due to limited funding and inconsistent data collection,

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

conflicting from one federal agency to another. Below is the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[From ABC News, Feb. 28, 2018]

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

(By Jordyn Phelps)

President Trump again called for raising the minimum legal

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

lawmakers on guns and school safety Wednesday, while

suggesting that those who are staying silent on the topic are

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

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

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

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

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

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

people in

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

serious thought to it.''

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

minimum age to purchase firearms, the president made the case

that raising the minimum age is common sense.

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

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

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

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

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

but I can get this.''

The president also signaled his support for the Manchin-

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

process of being reworked, that calls for expanding

background checks on guns sales to include firearms sold at

gun shows and on the internet.

The president suggested that the measure failed back in

2013 because President Barack Obama was in office at the

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

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

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

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

Virginia Democrat, would proposing raising the purchasing age

for certain guns.

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

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

president said in reply.

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

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

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

discussed would make for bad policy that would not keep our

children safe. Instead of punishing law-abiding gun owners

for the acts of a deranged lunatic our leaders should pass

meaningful reforms that would actually prevent future

tragedies.''

``They can start by fixing the broken mental health

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

checks to ensure the records of people who are prohibited

from possessing firearms are in the NICS system, securing our

schools and preventing the dangerously mentally ill from

accessing firearms.''

At the White House meeting, the president repeatedly

expressed his support for legislation to improve the nation's

background check system but said such a measure should not

also include a provision to expand concealed carry law to

allow people with concealed carry licenses to carry their

firearms across state line.

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

Louisiana Republican Rep. Steve Scalise, who was gunned down

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

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

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

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

The president also vowed to ban bump stocks through

executive action, telling the lawmakers that the rapid-fire

devices are ``gone.''

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

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

working on the language.

Last week, Trump said he ordered the Justice Department to

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

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

Parkland shooting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Makenna Lee Elrod, age 10;

Layla Salazar, age 11;

Maranda Mathis, age 11;

Nevaeh Bravo, age 10;

Jose Manuel Flores Jr., age 10;

Xavier Lopez; age 10;

Tess Marie Mata, age 10;

Rojelio Torres, age 10;

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

Eliahna A. Torres, age 10:

Annabell Guadalupe Rodriguez, age 10;

Jackie Cazares, age 9;

Uziyah Garcia, age 10;

Jayce Carmelo Luevanos, age 10;

Maite Yuleana Rodriguez, age 10;

Jailah Nicole Silguero, age 10;

Amerie Jo Garza, 10;

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

Alithia Ramirez, age 10;

Irma Garcia, age 48; and

Eva Mireles, age 44.

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

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

[From Insider, June 8, 2022]

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

(By Bryan Metzger)

House Republicans are poised to vote against eight bills

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

opposition from powerful pro-gun groups on the right.

House Democratic leaders have scheduled votes for Wednesday

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

seven gun violence-related measures that includes raising the

age for legal purchase of semiautomatic rifles and shotguns

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

measures aimed at preventing the illegal trafficking of guns.

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

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

would allow family members and law enforcement officials to

temporarily block firearm access to those who a court

determines pose a danger to themselves or others.

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

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

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

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

that House Democrats had ``thrown together this reactionary

package comprised of legislation that egregiously violates

law-abiding citizens' 2nd Amendment rights and hinders

Americans' ability to defend and protect themselves and their

families.''

The email also noted the opposition of the National Rifle

Association and Gun Owners of America, including links to

talking points from the NRA about both the gun package and

the red flag law. Leaders also noted the opposition of

Heritage Action for America, an advocacy group tied to the

conservative Heritage Foundation.

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

legislation will be considered in future candidate ratings

and endorsements by the NRA Political Victory Fund,''

declares one of the memos shared by party leaders.

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

of outside groups to major pieces of legislation. For

example, in a February whip notice urging Republicans to vote

against a major piece of legislation aimed at boosting the US

semiconductor industry, GOP leaders noted the opposition of

the Federation for American Immigration Reform, National

Taxpayers Union, and Americans for Prosperity.

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

downgrade candidate ratings or withhold endorsements should

any Republicans back the measures--underscores the enduring

influence of pro-second amendment groups on the right,

despite the NRA's recent financial troubles and shrinking

membership.

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

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

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

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

Migratory Game Bird Hunting Methods

(By Texas Parks & Wildlife)

Harvest Information Program (HIP)

No person shall hunt migratory game birds in this state

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

mandated Harvest Information Program (HIP) improves harvest

information for all migratory game birds. Hunters who buy a

Migratory Game Bird Hunting Endorsement, including Super

Combos, will be asked a few simple questions about their

migratory bird hunting activities.

Please report Migratory Game Bird bands. Check migratory

game birds harvested (especially doves) for leg bands and

report them to reportband.gov.

Means and Methods

Shotguns, lawful archery equipment, falconry, dogs,

artificial decoys, and manual or mouth-operated bird calls

are legal.

A shotgun is the only legal firearm for hunting migratory

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

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

more than three shells. Shotguns capable of holding more than

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

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

total capacity does not exceed three shells.

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

type of concealment or from floating craft or motor boat

provided that all motion resulting from sail or motor has

ceased. Sails must be furled and motor turned off before

shooting starts.

A craft under power may be used to retrieve dead or

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

such craft under power.

No person, while hunting waterfowl anywhere in the state,

may possess shotgun shells containing lead shot or loose lead

shot for use in muzzleloaders. Approved shot includes steel

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

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

other nontoxic material approved by the Director of the

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

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

[From Newsweek, May 27, 2022]

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

Duty

(By Gerrard Kaonga)

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

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

The Officer Down Memorial Page website records the death of

police officers across the country and honors them for their

service.

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

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

and the cause.

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

killed after being involved in a shooting.

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

result of shootings at school, according to data collected by

Education Week.

``School shootings, terrifying to students, educators,

parents and communities, always reignite polarizing debates

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

report read.

``To bring context to these debates, Education Week

journalists began tracking shootings on K-12 school property

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

According to the Education Week report, there have been 27

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

they began tracking such incidents.

The Robb Elementary School shooting, which resulted in 21

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

the number of children killed in school shootings above the

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

The other school shootings that brought the total number to

24 deaths included an attack at Tanglewood Middle School,

Greenville, South Carolina, on March 31.

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

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

in a school shooting in 2022.

Another incident that contributed was the Eisenhower High

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

resulted in one student being killed and another injured.

There was also a shooting at East High School in Des

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

being killed and two female students getting injured.

The second shooting of 2022 that resulted in a fatality of

a student was at the South Education Center, Richfield,

Minnesota, on February 1.

Large Number of School Shootings

A shooting outside the South Education Center left a 15-

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

wounded.

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

death was at Oliver Citywide Academy, in Pittsburgh,

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

boy

being shot and killed as he waited to go home.

President Joe Biden addressed the issue in a speech on

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

manufacturing industry. Biden also reflected on the frequency

of mass shootings in America in his speech.

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

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

another gunman massacred 26 people, including 20 first-

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

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

reported on school grounds. Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High

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

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

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

shootings at places like movie theaters, houses of worship,

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

Buffalo, New York.''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider the Prosecutors Need to Prosecute Act, legislation authored by Representatives Malliotakis and Tiffany that ensures accountability for those charged with keeping our streets, our schools, and our communities safe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose the previous question so that we can immediately consider my bill, H.R. 7967, the Prosecutors Need to Prosecute Act.

My legislation will hold prosecutors accountable and create transparency by letting the public know how many cases prosecutors are declining to prosecute, the number of offenses committed by career criminals, and the number of criminals released.

Over the past 2 years, we have seen a disturbing trend in progressive district attorneys in cities across the country who are refusing to prosecute violent criminal offenders.

Look no further than my city of New York, where Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg released a ``Day One'' memo initially directing his staff not to prosecute certain crimes, including: drug possession, trespassing, driving with a suspended license, sex trading, resisting arrest, and public obscenity.

He even directed his staff to downgrade felony charges filed by our police, including armed robbery, weapons charges, and drug dealing. Worst of all, his office will no longer seek life sentences without parole, which means the most heinous murderers, including terrorists, serial killers, cop killers, and perps who kill young children in connection with sex crimes will be released back on to our streets in 20 years or less.

These policies have sent a clear message to criminals, and that message is: Go ahead, commit crime, break the law, because we will not enforce it. What is the point of creating laws if the ones currently on the books are not enforced?

With prosecutors that refuse to prosecute, it is no surprise that crime is surging in cities across America. In Boston and Los Angeles, if you want a designer purse, toiletries, or food, you can break into any store and take it. No questions asked.

This week, LA's District Attorney George Gascon doubled down on the light sentence given to a teen driver who mowed down a mother and her newborn baby last summer. The teen only received juvenile probation, which authorities say is less than military school and a little bit tougher than summer camp.

In 2020, defund the police rioters and looters created chaos in my city of New York, destroying storefronts; they assaulted police officers, and they even put police cars on fire. While police made hundreds of arrests, New York City district attorneys dismissed the majority of those charges filed.

In the Bronx, more than 60 percent of arrestees had their charges dropped, and of the 485 rioters arrested in Manhattan, 222 individuals had their charges dropped entirely, while 73 received lesser counts.

The same goes for Federal prosecutors in Portland, Oregon, who dismissed roughly half the cases charged in connection with violence and anti-police protests.

In Philadelphia, 23-year-old Police Corporal James O'Connor was gunned down and killed in 2020 by a career felon and wanted gangbanger because the DA's office allowed him to freely roam the streets. Perhaps if the DA's office had done its job, Corporal O'Connor would be alive today. We had a similar story in my city of New York as well.

In Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco, on New Year's Eve 2020, a man slammed a stolen car into two women crossing the street, killing them both. The man, who had a lengthy criminal rap sheet, was out on parole, thanks to San Francisco's soft-on-crime DA Chesa Boudin, the son of a domestic terrorist cop-killer associated with the far-left militant group, Weather Underground.

Well, you know what? Voters have had enough of the violence and crime plaguing our communities and endangering their families. In fact, just last night, when San Francisco voters recalled Boudin, they sent a clear message that prosecutors who fail to do their job will be removed from office.

Madam Speaker, our Nation is under attack by criminals with no regard for property and life, and rogue district attorneys who allow them to wreak havoc on our streets.

Madam Speaker, I close with the words of the late Democrat Senator Robert Kennedy: ``Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on.''

Let's stop siding with the criminals preying on our cities. Let's stop emboldening the district attorneys to lay idly by as crime plagues our streets.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support my legislation today. It is time to support our citizens, not criminals.

Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the previous question so that the House can consider the Prosecutors Need to Prosecute Act.

Madam Speaker, it is no secret that crime is out of control in this country. Annual homicide records have been broken in at least a dozen major cities. Brazen smash-and-grab robberies in broad daylight are a daily occurrence. Killing, severe beatings, armed robberies, carjackings, sexual assaults, arson, and looting have become a common feature on the evening news.

Yet, rogue prosecutors in cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Philadelphia, New York City, and Milwaukee continue to release predators from custody almost as fast as the police can arrest them.

The use of no-cash bail policies, plea bargains, and a complete refusal to put dangerous repeat offenders behind bars has demoralized our police and endangered our communities, and America's most iconic cities resemble a Third World country.

I will give you an example in my home State. In Milwaukee County, we witnessed back at Christmas a massacre at the Waukesha County Christmas Parade, 6 people dead, 60 injured. How? With a guy that had a rap sheet that had felonies, misdemeanors, statutory rape, resisting arrest, and strangulation, and he was out on $1,000 bail.

Here is the worst part, though: That district attorney, John Chisholm in Milwaukee County, here is what he said years ago about his philosophy. ``Is there going to be an individual I divert, or I put into treatment program, who is going to go out and kill somebody? You bet. Guaranteed. It is guaranteed to happen. It does not invalidate the overall approach.''

That is what we have for district attorneys around the United States.

Americans are sick and tired of the lawlessness, and they are demanding accountability.

Madam Speaker, each year, jurisdictions across the United States benefit from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program, which provides funding to States, Tribes, and local governments to support a range of justice-related programs.

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule, calling for immediate consideration of the Prosecutors Need to Prosecute Act. It would, among other things, mandate that district attorneys report to Congress on how often they follow through, holding criminals charged with violent

crimes, like murder, rape, arson, crimes involving illegal guns, and motor vehicle theft accountable.

They would also be required to disclose how often they prosecute the initial charges, how often they secure convictions, whether or not those charged were already on probation or parole, and how many offenders were released without bail.

Madam Speaker, the American people need to know if the people they have entrusted to keep their neighborhoods safe are actually using their tax dollars to finance this crime wave.

It is time to end the policy of underwriting progressive policies that endanger the lives and livelihoods of decent, hardworking Americans, and that starts with transparency.

I urge my colleagues to stand with us for safer communities and oppose the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

We learned in the Rules Committee yesterday--in fact, the gentlewoman from Minnesota pointed out--how Republicans had little opportunity to provide any input into these bills that are going to be provided for in this rule. Unfortunately, the Speaker has no interest in involving half of the Representatives in this country in addressing an issue we all care about: Keeping Americans safe.

Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, it was stated that Republicans vote against all mental health bills. I don't know where that concept comes from. Republicans passed into law the 21st Century Cures Act, which represents the most significant reform to the mental health system in several decades.

Republicans have also taken steps to reform the National Instant Criminal Background Check System with the so-called Fix NICS Act of 2017, which improved reporting to the database.

Unfortunately, we also know the Department of Justice inspector general reported that only 1 percent of individuals who try to purchase a firearm illegally, and it is known they are trying to purchase a firearm illegally, are prosecuted.

So, I have introduced a bill, H.R. 194, to require the Department of Justice to recommence this reporting to Congress so that Congress can have a better idea of how many guns exist illegally in commerce and, ultimately, to ensure that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives recovers these illegal firearms.

Republicans would have also engaged on the issue of the age of purchase, but honestly, as brought up by Representative Massie yesterday during the Rules Committee hearing, let's examine all the data points to determine whether the age for law enforcement officers, military service, and the Selective Service should also be considered. But that was not on the table.

Then, as if to underscore just how partisan and one-sided this rule is today, there is a provision in the rule that deems a $1.6 trillion budget resolution for fiscal year 2023. Madam Speaker, I am a member of the Budget Committee, and during the Rules Committee hearing yesterday was the first time I heard about this budget resolution. It is a 9 percent increase over fiscal year 2022 and $21 billion over President Biden's fiscal year 2023 budget proposal.

We have a problem with inflation in this country. We have a problem with inflation because the Federal Government and congressional Democrats and the Biden administration are overspending what the economy can tolerate. Yet, here we are, adding a 9 percent increase on a resolution that is deemed passed when the rule is voted on. We don't even get to debate the pros and cons in the committee. It is just deemed passed when the rule is passed. I have to ask: When will this partisan policymaking end?

Half the country represented by Republicans deserve--and we have a mandate from our constituents--to be part of the legislative process.

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