H.Res. 1224

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

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

General Leave

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about following the current Constitution?

Forget about amending it.

How about following the one that we have?

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

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

How about that?

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

Undermining confidence in the Supreme Court?

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

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

Undermining confidence in the Supreme Court?

I am astonished that anyone would even say it.

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

Undermining confidence in the Supreme Court?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1224, I call up the bill (S. 3373), as amended, to improve the Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant and the Children of Fallen Heroes Grant, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on S. 3373, as amended.

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

Madam Speaker, I stand before this Chamber in support of S. 3373, as amended, which is now the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act of 2022.

This measure addresses a technical drafting error in the Senate amendment to my PACT Act. As you know, the PACT Act passed the House with strong bipartisan support in March of this year.

Today, despite the current rancorous political debates taking place across America, this Chamber has the chance to help the country heal after 20 years of war.

We have an opportunity to make good on the promise we made to our servicemembers when our country sent them into harm's way: that we would take care of them and pay for that care when they come home.

For too long, veterans have faced an uphill battle to prove that the rare illnesses and cancers they were experiencing stemmed from their time in the military.

For too long, Congress and the Department of Veterans Affairs have been slow to accept responsibility and cost of that care, and for too long the United States has not made good on our promise to our veterans.

But today, I make a plea for unity so that we may right this wrong and make good on our commitment to honor our pact with America's veterans. Today, we can finally recognize toxic exposure as a cost of war.

In the past, we saw Vietnam war veterans living with the effects of Agent Orange, fighting the VA for the care and benefits they were due. The Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act was signed into law in 2019, but it came nearly four decades too late. This bill could have been passed 2 years earlier when my friend, then-Republican chairman, Dr. Phil Roe, was leading this committee, but two Senators held up that bill. During that needless delay, many veterans succumbed to their illnesses, and their families were not compensated. Now is our chance to make amends for that.

There is absolutely no reason for veterans and their survivors to fight the VA for the care and benefits they have earned through their service. Never again should veterans be made to suffer the indignity of fighting their own government.

After Blue Water, I vowed that we would never again fail to live up to our promises to our veterans. That is why, at the beginning of the 117th Congress, I made addressing the effects of toxic exposure my top priority as chairman.

Throughout our history, America has cast aside party affiliation on behalf of veterans, coming together to pass landmark legislation to properly recognize those who have served, such as in 1944 when Congress passed the GI Bill. The GI Bill was transformational for a generation of veterans. By 1956, nearly 8 million veterans had used the GI Bill's education benefits and millions more still benefit from it today.

We have an opportunity to make a generational impact today. The PACT Act will directly affect one out of every five veterans, or 3.5 million people. It will also send a strong message to future generations of veterans that America will take care of them when their service ends.

The way this country has dealt with toxic exposure has been piecemeal and inadequate. President Biden recognizes this, too. Shortly after he was sworn in, I met with the President about our shared priorities for veterans. Upon learning of my goal to pass comprehensive legislation to help toxic-exposed veterans, the President leaned over to me and talked about his son, Beau, who served near burn pits in Iraq and Kosovo.

It might be hard for most Americans to imagine what a burn pit looks like because they are illegal in the United States. Picture walking next to and breathing fumes from a burning pit the size of a football field. This pit contained everything from household trash, plastics, and human waste to jet fuel and discarded equipment burning day and night. Beau Biden lived near these burn pits and breathed the fumes that emanated from them.

President Biden believes that constant exposure to these burn pits, and the toxic fumes they emitted, led to Beau's cancer and early death. It was during that meeting when I knew I had a partner in President Biden.

At the State of the Union, President Biden called on Congress to pass bipartisan legislation to comprehensively address the effects of toxic exposure and improve the delivery of benefits for toxic-exposed veterans. I cannot thank him enough for throwing his support behind this effort and placing those who have served our country at the center of his unity agenda.

To my colleagues who previously voted ``no'' on the PACT Act in March, I ask you the same question I asked you then: Are you willing to support our troops and honor our Nation's promise to them? Or will you allow naked partisanship to once again deny our veterans the care they deserve?

Just this Congress alone, every single Democrat in this body voted to make sure each day in uniform counts toward GI Bill benefits. Every single Democrat voted to ensure a smooth transition from Active Duty to civilian life. Every single Democrat voted to honor our pact with toxic-exposed veterans. There is no question as to where Democrats stand on prioritizing America's veterans. We are backing up our thank- you with concrete action.

Frankly, all the bills that I mentioned should have passed with unanimous support. If the American people knew the context of these bills and knew the content of them, they would demand unanimous support from this Chamber.

But I take this moment now to recognize my Republican colleagues in this Chamber who put keeping our promise to veterans above partisanship. I thank the Republican cosponsors of this bill, Representatives Fitzpatrick and Cline.

Further, I recognize the 34 Republicans who in March showed their support for veterans by voting ``yes'' on final passage, including Veterans' Affairs Committee members, General Bergman and Representative Mace. I also recognize the commitment of Representatives Bilirakis and Kinzinger, who do not serve on this committee, but demonstrated early leadership by supporting this legislation. I am also glad to see my colleague, Ranking Member Bost, finally stand in support of this bill today.

Moreover, in June, an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 84 Senators voted in favor of the PACT Act in the Senate. This proved the value of the cause and showed that it had momentum, so the trajectory of this effort is clear.

But here is also a very rare situation where there is a chance for redemption. For those of my Republican colleagues who previously hesitated, sat on the sidelines, or chose politics over veterans, you get a second chance to do the right thing. There is no reason why this time this measure should not garner at least 400 votes in this Chamber.

Why is it that a Republican leader and Republican whip, who aspire to be in the majority but do not show the fortitude to govern, are continuing to oppose this bill and are asking you to do the same? Do not let them stand in the way with unconvincing arguments about budgetary constraints when the true cost of war, the human cost of war, is abundantly clear.

For example, as the House considers the National Defense Authorization Act this week, a bill that authorizes $838.8 billion, spending which I believe could be justifiable, I am reminded of the stark reality of how this Congress approaches Federal spending.

It has become a battle of defense spending versus everything else. That everything else includes veterans, schoolchildren, the elderly, and our constituents. I vigorously object to veterans being pitted against their fellow Americans to fight for funding. Do

we really want to support veterans by limiting school lunches for children? Do we support veterans by limiting help for seniors? You can be damn sure our veterans didn't sign up to serve our country, watch their families make sacrifices, or go to war far from home so Members of this body could perpetuate a false choice that pits Americans against one another.

The right choice, the choice we are going to make today, is simple: Recognize toxic exposure as a cost of war, period.

Using hypocritical arguments about fiscal responsibility as a reason to oppose this bill when the truth of the moral responsibility of caring for our veterans is made crystal clear, is not consistent with American values. Make no mistake: When our country goes to war, we don't nickel and dime the Department of Defense, and we shouldn't try to pinch pennies when it comes to covering the care for toxic-exposed veterans.

We don't hear these arguments about needing offsets when we are asked rightly to support more body armor or protection from IEDs. This Congress steps up to the plate to provide our servicemembers with what they need to fight our wars. So why are Members of this body arguing that we need to scrounge around to find money for our veterans? It is time for Congress to fully support toxic-exposed veterans as they fight the rare cancers and illnesses after returning home.

Now, I must express dismay also about the procedural steps we must now undertake because a single Senator is preventing the Senate from quickly fixing the technical issue in this bill. This Senator, already having watched the bill pass the Senate the first time with strong support, knowing the veteran sacrifice behind it, and the blood, sweat, and tears shed by the veteran community to finally get this done, chose instead to object because he doesn't like the funding mechanism in this bill.

His position is the losing one, it was the losing one, and he has held up this bill for no other reason other than sour grapes; and to what end is unclear when veterans suffer in the meantime. Therefore, we Members of the House must take this route to push forward and do what we know is right.

The Honoring our PACT Act would not have been possible were it not for the veterans who selflessly shared their stories, their pain, and their trauma, opening the eyes of their fellow Americans to the realities of being exposed to toxic substances.

Throughout this process, I have met many toxic-exposed veterans whose sacrifice and courage continued long after they hung up their uniform. I am forever humbled by the courage of Dr. Kate Hendricks Thomas, a Marine veteran who served near a burn pit in Fallujah who later fought the VA for 3 years to get the care she needed.

I am sorry to say she passed away this spring, but not before selflessly fighting for a comprehensive bill that would aid over 3.5 million veterans like her living with the effects of toxic exposure, a bill that she herself would not benefit from. We also honor the valor of Wesley Black, Heath Robinson, Jennifer Kepner, and so many others who are no longer with us.

This bill would also not have been possible without the support of over 40 veteran service organizations. Each of these organizations understand that toxic-exposed veterans are still in the heat of battle. I thank them for their impact and advocacy for the Honoring our PACT Act.

I also thank my staff, who worked tirelessly to listen and engage with advocates and stakeholders and spent countless hours drafting and redrafting this bill to get it right.

I also thank Speaker Pelosi for always being a tireless advocate for veterans, along with Majority Leader Hoyer.

I also thank Senate Majority Leader Schumer for his work with Senators Tester and Moran and the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee to pass this bill.

I also point out that Jon Stewart and John Feal kept us accountable.

Most importantly, to the families of veterans who tragically lost their lives as a result of being exposed to toxic substances during their time in service, I thank you for your sacrifices.

This legislative effort will help our veterans heal, and it offers hope that our country can do the same. It sends a message to all Americans that their Government will not allow their grievances to go unaddressed. It acknowledges the suffering endured by our Vietnam war veterans and demonstrates to them that we have learned from our mistakes and that their struggle and their suffering was not in vain.

We are setting a new standard with the PACT Act. We are telling our veterans: The burden of proof is not on you. Because of your sacrifice to our country, this Congress and the American people are giving you the benefit of the doubt that you have earned.

Let's pass this bill and ease the anxiety in the minds of our veterans who are living with cancer or other illnesses and terminal diseases and let them know that their families are going to be taken care of. I believe this is what the American people want and what everyone in this Chamber should want. It is what our veterans deserve, and it is the right thing to do.

Madam Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to honor their pact with the veterans by voting ``yes'' on this bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I certainly welcome the support of the ranking member on this bill.

May I inquire as to the time remaining in debate.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Luria), my good friend who is the chairwoman of the Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Mrvan), my good friend who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Technology Modernization and on the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Madam Speaker, nothing could be more important or a higher priority in defense of our Republic than to address the unaddressed grievances of our veterans. We are keeping our promise to our veterans. We are saying today that doing so is a cost of war.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Trone), a member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee and active member of the Economic Opportunity Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin), my good friend who serves on the Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs Subcommittee of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I welcome the support of the gentleman from Montana.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz), my good friend and member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, where he is an active member of the Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), who is my good friend. He is an active member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee and serves on the Economic Opportunity Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) who has been a tremendous supporter of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I so welcome the support of the gentleman from Florida. He got it right the first time. He voted ``yes'' the first time. I know he is going to vote ``yes'' the second time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar), my good friend who serves on the Education and Labor Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the even begrudging ``yes'' vote from the gentleman from Georgia. I will just say there is no budget gimmick here. This vote is going to unite America. It is going to heal America.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell), my good friend who serves on the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I am delighted that the ranking member is offering his support for this bill. I accept that support, but I do not accept his objections.

This bill, I mean, yes, I do say that we are creating entitlements. But the entitlements we are creating are 3.5 million veterans eligible for healthcare, veterans that were exposed to toxic substances. We are conceding exposure to them. We are making it possible for them to not have to fight their government.

Yes, we are creating entitlements with our 23 presumptive illnesses. It is going to mean that those veterans are entitled to benefits, and their families will be entitled to benefits, so those veterans that are suffering from terminal illnesses are not going to have to worry about their families being without resources after they pass.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all of my colleagues join me in finally doing what is right and passing this very important piece of legislation, S. 3373, as amended. I hope we get 400 votes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iran continues its long march toward becoming a nuclear state.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 3373, as amended, the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act.

When we were debating the House version of the PACT Act 4 months ago, I couldn't have said that. I am glad that I can today.

The bill is not perfect, but expanding healthcare and benefits for veterans who were exposed to burn pits or other dangerous toxins while serving our country is the right thing to do.

I come from a long line of veterans. My grandfather, Marines; my father, Army; my uncle, Marines; I was in the Marines; my son, Marines; my grandson, Marines; and my granddaughter enlisted this year in the United States Navy.

I know exactly how high the stakes are when this country sends young men and young women to serve. I know exactly how high the stakes are when they come home. I know exactly how often we have failed to meet them and give them what they need. That is why I helped lead the charge to provide disability benefits to blue water Navy Vietnam veterans a few years ago.

We were decades late in giving those veterans the help they need. My vow then and now was to make sure that other generations of veterans don't have to wait for benefits they earned while they were serving or the healthcare they require.

DOD estimates that 3.5 million veterans have been exposed to dangerous toxins in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past 20 years. Some of them are already sick and suffering from the health effects of that exposure. They need help, and this bill will give it to them.

This bill will also make sure that the VA can actually give that help to them, unlike the earlier PACT Act that could not.

I am grateful for the hard work of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs Chairman Jon Tester and Ranking Member Jerry Moran. They took a flawed House bill and made it better.

There are several aspects of their work that make today's vote on the PACT Act very different than the prior one. This is a better bill than the one the House passed in March.

It reflects bipartisan negotiations and input from VA, which is ultimately responsible for putting this into practice.

It incorporates the good work the VA is already doing to address toxic exposure--namely, the scientific framework that the VA has been using since last year to expand benefits to toxic-exposed veterans.

It removes certain provisions from the House bill that VA told us could not and would not get done. It adds other provisions that would make VA work more transparently to veterans and taxpayers, more flexible, and more scientifically sound.

All of those things were missing from the prior House version. Most importantly, the earlier version of the bill ignored the massive operational impacts this effort will have on VA's

healthcare and benefit systems. In contrast, this bill addresses this head-on.

To ensure that the VA has the staff capacity it needs to better serve toxic-exposed veterans, this bill would: authorize 31 VA medical facility leases; make it easier for Congress to authorize additional VA medical facility leases going forward, something the committee has been trying to do for decades; make it easier for VA to recruit and retain the staff it needs to implement the bill; and give VA resources to process claims faster using modern technology.

These changes and additions are critical to the bill's success, and they give me confidence to vote for this bill without fearing that it would be impossible to implement or risk breaking the VA for veterans everywhere, those who are already receiving benefits.

Many of us are concerned about the CBO score for this bill and the funding mechanism it contains. The total score went from $325 billion over 10 years in the prior version to $681 billion in this version. I don't criticize my colleagues for being concerned about that. That is an increase of $356 billion.

That number gives me a lot of pause when I consider the strain that rising inflation is already putting on American families. Anyone who is trying to serve these veterans, it should give them pause, too, because not only is it the veterans that will be paying, but it is their children and grandchildren, as well.

However, only about $285 billion of the score is truly new spending. The costs of expanding care and benefits for toxic exposure actually decreased by about $40 billion from the prior version of this bill to this one. The rest of the score is a result of the cost of war toxic exposure fund.

The fund pays for expanding healthcare for veterans who experience toxic exposure. That is reasonable. However, the fund is also a budgetary ploy by the Democrats to take existing healthcare costs that have nothing to do with toxic exposure and transfer them from discretionary to mandatory spending. That is causing CBO's score to be artificially high because almost $400 billion in costs that are already funded by current law are being scored against the bill.

Even worse, this ploy would put even more government spending on autopilot and limit our ability to control and oversee it, which is our right under the Constitution. That is wrong.

Now, some of my colleagues will vote against the bill because of that, and like I said before, I don't blame them. I am not. I am voting for it because, as the Republican leader of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and as a veteran, I know that, on balance, this is a good bill that will help millions of veterans, servicemembers, survivors, and military families. That is why I will be supporting this bill today.

I have already thanked our Senate colleagues for their work on this bill, but I also thank many Members on both sides of the aisle who have introduced the various standalone bills that make up the PACT Act, including Chairman Takano for his hard work and commitment to this issue. I thank our staff because they also have worked to make sure that this bill would come about, not only that it would come about, but it would be able to be implemented.

I recognize the many veterans service organizations who have held our feet to the fire every step of the way to get it done. I know they will stay by our side every day ahead to make sure VA does it right. I look forward to doing the work with them.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bergman), the highest ranking officer that serves in Congress today. He has served with many of the men and women who will benefit from this bill today.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), who has served from the time of being in Congress on the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks), who has actually served in health situations in our military, a veteran herself, and is very aware of the things that we are dealing with here.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rosendale), the ranking member of the Technology Modernization Subcommittee of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ellzey), a Navy veteran and F-18 pilot.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the State of Michigan (Mr. Meijer).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), a gentleman who has served on this committee and has understood these issues for all of his time in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), a gentleman who is very much in support of our veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).

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

While I wholeheartedly support the intent of the PACT Act and intend to vote for it, I am opposed to the precedent that the funding mechanism in this bill sets.

Later, I will be offering a motion to commit that would prohibit creation of the cost of war toxic exposure fund. Democrats are using the fund to move almost $400 billion of existing VA healthcare spending from the discretionary to the mandatory side of the ledger for purposes completely unrelated to veterans.

We should not use this bill to create more entitlement spending. That is dangerous, and it is a very dangerous budget ploy. It will put more spending on autopilot. It will limit our ability to do our job, constitutionally, of oversight of the second-largest bureaucracy in the world that serves millions of veterans and survivors. It will hurt taxpayers who are already suffering everywhere, from the gas pump to the grocery store.

My motion to commit is simple, and I hope my colleagues will support it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include the text of the amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to commit.

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

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

Nineteen months ago, when I took over as the lead Republican on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I told my colleagues that helping toxic- exposed veterans was my top priority. Today, I am proud to say that we are delivering on that promise.

It was not an easy road to get here, but the PACT Act will make a difference for veterans, their families, and their survivors.

Today, I am thinking of veterans like Lauren Price, Heath Robinson, Kate Hendricks Thomas, veterans who raised their right hands like I did. They did their duty, and they did it well. But unlike me, their lives were cut short.

They were young, seemingly healthy adults who had endured a different battle on the stateside. Their lives were changed in an instant when they developed rare cancers in the blink of an eye, possibly due to their repeated exposure to burning chemicals while they served overseas.

Lauren left behind her husband, Jim, and five children. Heath left behind his wife and a young daughter. Kate left behind her husband and a young son.

The bill we will vote on today is in honor of them and the hundreds of thousands of veterans just like them. Lauren, Heath, and Kate left us too soon and would want us to do everything in our power to try to prevent what happened to them from happening to their fellow brothers and sisters in arms.

The PACT Act will grant their wish for generations. It will help over 3 million veterans get the care and benefits they are due before it is too late.

We have made this mistake in the past. We don't need to make it again. We need to move forward with this bill, and we will work in a bipartisan way to make sure that is exactly what happens once it is signed into law and implemented by the VA.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to commit at the desk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uvalde Shooting Victims

Makenna Lee Elrod, 10

Layla Salazar, 11

Maranda Mathis, 11

Nevaeh Bravo, 10

Jose Manuel Flores Jr., 10

Xavier Lopez, 10

Tess Marie Mata, 10

Rojelio Torres, 10

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

Eliahna A. Torres, 10

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

Uziyah Garcia

Jayce Carmelo Luevanos, 10

Maite Yuleana Rodriguez, 10

Jailah Nicole Silguero, 10

Irma Garcia, 48; a teacher of over two decades

Eva Mireles, 44

Amerie Jo Garza, 10

Alexandria ``Lexi'' Aniyah Rubio, 10

Alithia Ramirez, 10

Buffalo Shooting Victims

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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