Lulu’s Law

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1299) providing for the concurrence by the House in the Senate amendment to H.R. 6644, with amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Congressional Budget Office estimate for this bill.

Legislation Considered Under Suspension of the Rules

The Majority Leader of the House of Representatives

announces bills that will be considered under suspension of

the rules in that chamber. Under suspension, floor debate is

limited, all floor amendments are prohibited. points of order

against the bill are waived, and anal passage requires a two-

thirds majority vote.

At the request of the Majority Leader and the House

Committee on the Budget, CBO estimates the effects of those

bills on direct spending and revenues. CBO has limited time

to review the legislation before consideration. Although it

is possible in most cases to determine whether the

legislation would affect direct spending or revenues, time

may be insufficient to estimate the magnitude of those

effects. If CBO has prepared estimates for similar or

identical legislation, a more detailed assessment of

budgetary effects, including effects on spending subject to

appropriation, may be included.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the House amendment to the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act.

I share in President Trump's commitment to delivering a housing bill that puts American families first and expands access to American homeownership.

Over the last couple of months, we have heard clear concerns from literally hundreds of bipartisan Members and stakeholders expressing concerns with some of the provisions that were contained in the Senate- passed version of the housing bill.

For Ranking Member Waters and me, Ranking Member Cleaver and Chairman Flood on the Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance, this has been years of work in the making and months of intensive work in this 119th Congress to find a path that improves accessibility to housing for the American people, and affordability for the American people, that could be a bicameral, bipartisan housing measure.

This amendment that is before us today, which amends the good work of the Senate, is exactly that: hours and hours of listening to the American people across our cities, hours of testimony in our Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance, led by the gentleman from Nebraska. We have that feedback.

That feedback, Mr. Speaker, informs this amendment. It informs this debate. Ranking Member Waters and I have collaborated together today on several revisions that ensure that these reforms are narrowly tailored and do not, in any way, in some unintentional way, reduce housing supply, disrupt housing markets, or harm those in the rental community.

The focus of the bill in the House and the Senate, and the focus of our work today in the amendment, is to continue to cut unnecessary barriers to new home construction, modernize HUD programs, and allow our community banks to more freely deploy funding into their communities that aid in the development of new housing products, whether it is single-family housing or housing for rent.

This bill has a provision in it that also meets the request of President Trump, which he outlined in this room in his State of the Union Address, that we limit institutional investors from competing with Moms and Dads and Americans out there trying to buy a house.

It removes some of the legal challenges that we felt were in the structure of the Senate's approach. Ultimately, in my view, and I believe the view of Chairman Flood, Ranking Member Cleaver, and Ranking Member Waters, this delivers on that goal of not having a young family buying their first home, being informed by their Realtor that somehow they missed that opportunity because the house was bought out from under them by some big-shot institutional investor. That is what President Trump talked about here in this House Chamber at the State of the Union Address.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the changes that we made in a collaborative, bipartisan way deliver on the President's goal and, in fact, help this bill.

Additionally, this bill modernizes outdated banking regulations so that community banks can focus on doing what they do best: lending and providing loans to families who are looking to buy a home and companies looking to finance construction.

Together, these changes strengthen our joint, bicameral focus on expanding housing access and affordability without discouraging investment in new housing development.

The amendment we are voting on advances practical, bipartisan solutions to modernizing the Federal housing programs, reducing regulatory burdens, streamlining the development process, and building more homes to meet growing demand.

Congress has a responsibility to pursue reforms that expand opportunity and keep this great American Dream within reach.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member. I thank Mr. Flood and Mr. Cleaver for their tireless effort over

the last year and a half, and I am proud to support this effort. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, when I think about the ranking member, she knows the respect I have for her, and she has, I am sure, no less than four decades as one of the Nation's most strong and effective advocates for housing and housing solutions in our country. To say she supports a bill is high praise, and we are grateful to her.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I started what is a modest career in D.C. as a youngster in my twenties, and I was a staffer on the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs during the first term of President Ronald Reagan.

President Reagan was trying to restart the economy after the grim decade of the 1970s. It was bad. President Carter had struggled with it. We were in two back-to-back recessions. One of his ideas was: What could we do in housing? Interest rates were at 20 percent. It is a little hard to buy a house when interest rates are 20 percent.

But he had a commission on housing; and one of his top ideas was to change the building codes, make them more modern, make them more competitive, both in manufactured housing and in modular construction techniques for resiliency and for energy efficiency.

Guess what, Mr. Speaker. We are going to do that today, 40 years later. We wouldn't be doing it if we didn't have the hard work of Mike Flood, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance in this Congress, and his partner in this effort, Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Flood), the chair of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser), the chair of our Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding time.

I agree with her that throughout this process, we have tried to be on the same page and be focused on that. We have heard from a lot of stakeholders, a lot of different companies, and a lot of different business models that provide housing options for Americans.

Ms. Waters outlined a number in her comments. These include providers of housing for Active-Duty military families, for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities, near-campus student housing, and, of course, the senior market.

Also included are providers who are organized as nonprofits, as was noted, community land trusts, or entities engaged in Federal or State affordability programs, like the low-income housing tax credit program.

We have also heard from many about tools that we use today to provide for more affordable housing options, like First Look programs, to give current renters a leg up on becoming homeowners.

These are all valuable features of our current system that encourage, not reduce, the great availability and affordability of housing.

I agree with Ms. Waters that we need to make sure that, in the implementation of this section, these beneficial features are not inadvertently caught up when really they have done nothing to the fundamental problem that we are trying to solve today, which is this institutional investor challenge.

Leveling the playing field between individual buyers and large institutional investors is the goal. I think we have achieved it in what we have drafted.

These features did not cause the problem that we are here today to solve. I thank the ranking member for working with me to ensure that the build-to-rent industry, particularly, is appropriately exempted in the text that we negotiated and considered today, and I commit to working with the Treasury Department and the ranking member throughout the rulemaking process on these issues.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for this long process. It was a labor of love, I think. When Arkansas and L.A. get together, good things happen.

I thank Ms. Waters for her diligence. I thank her staff for their diligence in working with my team, Ed and Shannon, and Cary. They all worked very

hard and collaboratively on what we did today.

I also thank Senators Tim Scott and Elizabeth Warren in the Senate. I think too often we play back and forth work here, but you are actually seeing legislation, Mr. Speaker, going back and forth between the committees. This is regular order.

Mr. Speaker, 390 Members came to the House floor a few weeks ago and voted for a housing bill that Ms. Waters and I put forward. That is a pretty big vote in today's time.

Likewise, in the Senate, as Chairman Flood referenced, Senators Scott and Warren got 89 Senators to vote for a housing bill. What does that tell us? That tells us that on a bicameral, bipartisan basis, we ought to have a housing bill.

President Trump has attempted to spur housing and housing ownership through tax changes in the Working Families Tax Cut Act, lowering regulatory burden so we can do more housing across this country. In his own State of the Union Address, he pointed out that we ought to have moms and dads being able to buy a house without competing on cash against somebody that is some big institutional investor.

That is the executive branch and the House and Senate all on the same page.

Today, we come to the House floor eager to bring that to fruition, to have a win, as Chairman Flood referenced, for the American people on greater affordability of housing and greater accessibility of housing.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank Members from both sides of the aisle for their perseverance and efforts. Let me thank my friends in the Senate for their perseverance and support of the important policy of having more accessible and more affordable housing by cutting red tape and increasing capital availability to housing.

I want to think about my own constituency in central Arkansas. The community development officers, Mr. Howard and his team, at the city of Little Rock, have constantly approached me that if we could make reforms to the HOME Program, like Mr. Flood and Mr. Cleaver have proposed, it will lower the cost per square foot of the ability to use that program by the city of Little Rock for new housing construction.

They have approached me about CDBG money being more flexible in how it can be used for infrastructure and how that could produce more housing availability in Little Rock.

In this bill, we reform the incentives to investment by bank holding companies to directly invest in housing. That is a major, new source of capital that will come to the housing market.

Then just think about the reforms we talked about in building codes, Mr. Speaker, that have a nationwide benefit. Some 3,000 zoning agencies will be benefited from those changes. Then, also in Little Rock, there is the importance of HUD oversight.

I thank Mr. Torres of New York and Mr. Lawler of New York and their provisions in this bill that talk about HUD's oversight.

How do we hold HUD accountable for doing a better job?

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I will close by saying that the ranking member and I have included some commonsense, bipartisan reforms to our community banks to make it easier for them to be engaged in their community and delivering for those homebuilders who are building for our families across our communities.

It is important because, Mr. Speaker, six out of ten home construction loans in this country--six out of ten of those loans--are made by community banks under $10 billion. That is the heart of America. It is the heart of Main Street, and that is why the ranking member and I have put a modest number of consensus elements to signal to Americans living on Main Street and living in our neighborhoods we want to have a supply side approach: more capital available for the banks, more funding for our homebuilders, and more investment in one- to-four family properties through the provisions of cutting red tape in this bill led by Mr. Flood and Mr. Cleaver.

I just insist that that, I believe, is so important, and I believe that has been recognized by policymakers on both sides of the aisle.

The White House recently reinforced this principle in an executive order promoting access to mortgage credit which recognized that regulatory changes over the past two decades have made it increase the cost to originate a mortgage and service a mortgage and have distorted the structure of the mortgage market.

This executive order specifically emphasized the importance of ensuring that community banks and smaller lenders can continue participating in mortgage lending markets, reducing unnecessary regulatory burden.

The executive branch is on the same page with the legislative branch. I think this poses an opportunity for a bicameral success that we can send to President Trump's desk that increases accessibility to housing, increases affordability to housing, and is a real success in economic policy for this country.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all Members on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1299, amending H.R. 6644, the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, sponsored by Chairman Hill and me.

Tomorrow, the House has a historic opportunity to pass an improved bipartisan housing package, negotiated in partnership with Chairman Hill and me, and with the input of many House Democrats.

Mr. Speaker, our housing bill is the most comprehensive housing reform bill in a generation and is a huge step toward finally addressing the affordable housing and homelessness crises in our country.

Let me make it clear, and let me take a moment to remind everyone what is at stake or who we are trying to help. The age of a median first-time homebuyer is now 40 years old. That is largely because the average cost of a single-family home has skyrocketed, and wages have not kept pace. In fact, 22 million households spend over 30 percent of their paycheck on rent, and 12 million spend over 50 percent on housing. What is most shameful is that nearly 800,000 people experience homelessness on any given night. This is unacceptable, and we must act now.

The House first passed H.R. 6644 back in February. A month later, the Senate amended our bill, stripping out numerous House provisions that would address real problems in the housing market. However, the Senate also added a poorly drafted ban on large institutional investors buying new single-family homes.

I say this not as someone who is a fan of private equity ownership of these homes, but as someone who was concerned that the Senate's drafting was unconstitutional and could lead to thousands of families and persons living with disabilities being evicted, students and servicemembers without housing options, and private equity being incentivized to use certain types of contracts with tenants that have been rife with abuses.

For this reason, I called on the Senate to join us in a conference to resolve our differences. While I am disappointed that our Senate colleagues chose not to conference with us, Chairman Hill and I just kept on going. We pressed on, making those critical improvements to restore the legislation to its intent to address the housing crisis.

To be clear, the consequences of simply passing the Senate's bill were stark. The Urban Institute concluded that 72,000 housing units would not be built as a result of the Senate's bill.

Even more alarming, the Senate's language also threatened tens of thousands of families with eviction.

Mr. Speaker, before I go on, I must say that the process to get here today has been less than ideal. That is an understatement. Chairman Hill, the Speaker, the White House, and I were making changes to this text right up until the last minute.

While I support our final agreement, we must inform our colleagues about how this bill has changed since it was posted on Friday, as they will be voting on it tomorrow, so I am going to describe those changes here.

First, the bill removes section 204, which was the Build Now Act.

Second, we added a new section 107, called Housing Supply Frameworks.

Third, section 208, the Housing Innovation Fund, now sunsets after 7 years instead of 5 years.

Fourth, we added language ensuring prevailing wage requirements under the Davis-Bacon Act apply to sections 102 and 106 of this bill.

Fifth, we are revising section 1001 of the bill, which relates to private equity ownership of single-family homes, by replacing our text with the Senate-based language while removing the divestment requirement, changing the definition of build-to-rent, and inserting a renter hotline that requires HUD to respond to renter complaints.

Mr. Speaker, this revised House package of needed housing reforms preserves more than 90 percent of the Senate's bill, while strengthening it by adding numerous, critical House-passed, Democratic- led housing and community banking provisions. As a result, we will be providing more relief and support to millions of families and communities all across the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, there is broad recognition in this Chamber of the problems in our housing markets. We need comprehensive reforms at the Federal, State, and local levels, along with a commitment by everyone to get America building housing again.

How do we do this? We do this by: creating a pilot to increase access to small-dollar mortgages, especially in rural areas; allowing housing cooperatives, a type of affordable housing option, to participate in Federal programs; creating local databases about unused, government- owned land--very important; increasing access to more family-sized affordable housing units; and adding in community bank and credit union reforms so that these small institutions can help.

These and so many other reforms in this bill are a huge first step toward finally addressing the housing crisis in this country.

Finally, the Senate had a temporary ban on central bank digital currencies, that is the CBDC. This is the status quo we have in effect today as Trump's new Fed Chair has stated that he will not issue a CBDC during his tenure. More importantly, this temporary ban is only partial and will still allow the Fed to study other forms of CBDC, like the ones that more closely parallel how currency is used in our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to join me in passing this bill. I will just say that we have learned an awful lot over a number of years about what we could do to create some real opportunities. We are now using our experiences working on housing bills to interject into how we are going to be able to get more housing for all of those who are in desperate need and to get the homeless off of our streets.

We have learned a lot. You are going to hear in this bill about how we are learning about land that is owned by cities and counties for years that they could get rid of and don't have to do it for market value, on and on and on.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud, even though this has been a real, real labor--I want to say of love, but it has been a real labor, maybe not of love but something that really had to be done.

I think we have finally made these meaningful steps to our Nation's housing crisis and strengthened our community banks.

Mr. Speaker, I ask everyone to please support this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver), the ranking member of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee and coauthor of this bill. He is someone who worked very hard to make some changes in the HOME program and that when some questions were raised about Davis-Bacon, he was right there to ensure that they were protected. I thank him so very much.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Small Business Committee and an author of several provisions of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York.

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

Mr. Speaker, I say to Chairman Hill that in light of changes we agreed to today, I want to take a moment to make clarifications about the authority the Treasury has and should use related to the provisions banning large institutional investors from purchasing single-family homes.

Under our bill, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the heads of HUD, FHFA, and SEC, may issue regulations to minimize market disruptions and negative impacts on consumers and communities.

He and I both firmly agree that the bill allows Treasury to do this and that Treasury must use this authority to issue regulations and clarify the following things.

First, the bill was not intended to impact military housing, student housing, disability housing, or LIHTC-supported housing, as defined in our earlier May 15, 2026, posted draft of this bill.

This bill was also not intended to include or impact nonprofits or community land trusts that purchase single-family homes. These entities are not for-profit, large institutional investors.

In addition, large institutional investors are still prohibited from buying properties with land contracts, again, as defined in our earlier May 15 posted draft. These are not subject to landlord-tenant laws and are harmful to renters. Large institutional investors should only be allowed to purchase foreclosed, federally backed properties after individuals and approved nonprofits have been given the first chance to buy them through a 30-day first look period, as described in our earlier May 15 posted draft.

Given our congressional intent, Treasury should use its authority to address these concerns and to minimize market disruption and mitigate negative impacts on consumers and communities.

Mr. Speaker, I know Mr. Hill agrees with me on all of this, as we have discussed, and I would love for him to share his thoughts with our colleagues on this also.

I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).

Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time.

I approve of everything Chairman Hill said, and I thank him.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I appreciate Mr. Hill's support of some of the efforts that we made. Because of his background in banking and his experience, he understood exactly what we were talking about when we talked about the banks being able to do smaller loans and to provide mortgages for homes that cost a lot less than the millions of dollars.

It was because of his background and his experience that he understood right away that we want this pilot program so that we can show everybody that it is impossible to be able to have a mortgage if, in fact, you are buying a home that costs less than millions of dollars. I thank him very much.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Liccardo), a member of the Financial Services Committee and an author of several provisions in this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Hill and Ranking Member Waters for supporting this bill.

When I got the privilege of leading this subcommittee given to me by our chairman, the first order of business, after I found out where my office was, was to go meet Emanuel Cleaver for dinner. We shared a prime rib, and I knew that night that we had something special.

Housing is personal. Housing is not a building or a garage. It is where you bring home your first baby, and the first bath is under the sink faucet. It is where you tuck your little 7-year-old into bed, and you say: I am doing my part as a parent to protect her from being homeless or living a better life.

When I met Emanuel Cleaver, I could see in his eyes that this was personal to him. I thought, I am a Republican. He is a Democrat. God has placed us in these spots to try and fix something for the American people, to make it easier to get that first house, to buy a manufactured home that doesn't have a chassis and save $25,000, and to do it for all the right reasons.

Last Sunday, as I was coming back to Omaha, we were flying. Because of storms, I was flying over Kansas City and I looked at the lights of Kansas City, and I thought to myself: I want this as much for him as I want it for Lincoln or Waverly or Papillion.

Mr. Speaker, because of our chairman, our ranking member, our Speaker, our leader, and the leadership in both parties, we have a product that the American people can look at tonight on this floor and say: Congress did its job. They worked together. They compromised.

Did we get everything we wanted? No. Have you ever met the ranking member? She drives a hard bargain. Yet, did we move the ball forward for the American people? The answer is yes.

People send us to this town because they want solutions. They don't want what they get too often at 9 o'clock eastern. They want to wake up and know that their kids have a chance to get into a home, to park their car in a garage, go to work at the factory the next day, and build a better life for the next generation.

What do we have in this bill? We have a bicameral, bipartisan solution.

The institutional investor ban language by the Senate created massive unintended consequences for the market. We know that. However, the Senate impressed us with sending a truly bipartisan bill over here.

What the American people need to know is this is what the Founders envisioned, House versus Senate, Republicans and Democrats united in the House, Republicans and Democrats united in the Senate behind an issue, not a personality. I credit the leadership for working the way they did that allowed Mr. Cleaver and I to set a table and listen to the Habitat for Humanity folks from Huntsville, Alabama, to welcome in the mayor of San Diego, to talk to the mayor of Lincoln, who is high up on the United States Conference of Mayors, and find out what her priorities are.

People are going to get into homes, and they are going to get into homes easier because of this. I, for one, want the people I signed up to represent to know this is exactly why I want to be in Congress.

I would like to take a moment to highlight a few provisions that I feel will make a difference. Sections 205 and 206 of the bill work to rightsize environmental reviews on both HUD and USDA housing projects. Mr. Nunn of Iowa is a big fan of that.

This legislation ensures these environmental reviews are properly tailored to the real impact of the project going forward, not just a box that needs to be checked. I worked with Mr. Cleaver on this section of the bill for a long time as it relates to the reform of the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, the largest block grant program at HUD dedicated to building affordable housing.

What does it do? It slashes the environmental review requirements and eases labor cost burdens like the ones created by Section 3.

Mr. Speaker, in addition, it provides greater flexibility for cities and towns across the country to utilize HOME dollars to promote homeownership. Sometimes it is as easy as extending the wastewater and the water system another 15 blocks. Think how far that goes in California or a small town in Nebraska where they only have two blocks, and another block means you get 10 more houses there. That is 10 more families. That is 50 more kids for a school that is on life support. Now they have housing.

I am very proud of the committee I serve on. I am proud of the way we work in a bipartisan manner. I want my career in Congress to be experiences like this, and I thank Mr. Cleaver for everything that he has accomplished in Congress and look forward to a continued great relationship.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about something that I have spoken about on this floor before.

Last September, an incredible young woman named Lulu Gribbin really came on to the scene with regard to a piece of legislation that we put forth before this body. You see, her life changed forever in July of last year. She is an incredible young woman from Mountain Brook, AL. She brought her entire community, her State, and now our Nation together.

On June 7 of last year, out of the blue, she was attacked by a shark. She and a friend were looking for sand dollars, and obviously all of this came unexpectedly. What happened next was nothing short of a miracle. The doctors, nurses, EMTs, and everyday people on the beach that day saved Lulu's life.

But the real miracle was just beginning. When Lulu woke up from surgery that day and got taken off of her ventilator, her very first words were ``I made it.'' That has become a mantra not just in how she reemerged but in the way that she has pushed forward.

After a long rehabilitation, she came back to Alabama 3 months after the accident. She was determined. When you talk with her parents, they tell you about her aggressiveness. When other amputees would come and visit her and tell her how long it took them to walk or to do other things, she would say: I am going to do it faster. I am going to do it better.

She was back outclassing golfers there at a driving range, not too long after. She refused letting losing an arm or a leg stop her.

Just last week, Lulu spoke publicly for the very first time since the shark attack. Her grace, her faith, her strength, her perseverance--it was an inspiration to all of us. Lulu told a crowd that morning that she wakes up ready to conquer the day every day, and that she is motivated to keep getting better.

She launched a foundation called Lulu Strong to help others in need get the prosthetic technologies that will make their lives easier. After visiting Walter Reed just a few weeks ago, you can tell how this advocacy can actually change lives.

When the unimaginable changed her world, what Lulu decided to do was change our world for the better. Lulu is a modern-day American hero. The courage she has shown, the fight, the resolve that she has demonstrated are truly remarkable, and not just for a 16-year-old but for anyone.

But it shouldn't have to be this way. Lulu is, indeed, an inspiration, but this tremendous battle that she has fought and won could have been prevented in the first place. You see, when I heard Lulu's story, I learned that there was another shark attack that happened just right down the shore, 90 minutes earlier. Elisabeth Foley, a mother of three, from Virginia, tragically lost her hand to a shark bite and suffered other terrible injuries resulting in 26 surgeries.

After talking with Lulu and her family, we said: It doesn't have to be this way. They knew there was something that could have been done. And after talking, we knew that there had to be a better way to get information out there to warn beachgoers about shark attacks in the area. That is when we introduced Lulu's Law, and it is why I am reintroducing this bill in this Congress today.

This bill, which I am proud to share, has bipartisan support. It would empower local authorities to issue wireless emergency alerts warning beachgoers of potential shark attacks through the already existing wireless emergency system. This has the potential to make a real difference in Americans' lives. When we are given the opportunity to do something simple that can make such a big difference, I believe we have to take it.

So, Lulu, I want you to know how much you inspire all of us. Your bravery in the face of the unimaginable is just amazing, and your taking what happened to you and saying: How can I make others' lives better? How can we make sure that this doesn't happen to someone else?

We want to honor the strength that you have shown over the past 9 months.

To Lulu's parents Ann Blair and Joe Gribbin, the way you have all rallied our State and our country to support Lulu on her road to recovery is truly unbelievable.

To my colleagues in the Senate on both sides of the aisle, whether you represent a State on the coast or you represent citizens of the interior, there is no doubt we want to keep our citizens safe, whether they live there or they are visiting. Making sure that we put safeguards in place that can prevent another tragedy from occurring is imperative.

Let's pass this law. Let's celebrate this amazing young woman, and let's prevent this from happening again.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about something that I have spoken about on this floor before.

Last September, an incredible young woman named Lulu Gribbin really came on to the scene with regard to a piece of legislation that we put forth before this body. You see, her life changed forever in July of last year. She is an incredible young woman from Mountain Brook, AL. She brought her entire community, her State, and now our Nation together.

On June 7 of last year, out of the blue, she was attacked by a shark. She and a friend were looking for sand dollars, and obviously all of this came unexpectedly. What happened next was nothing short of a miracle. The doctors, nurses, EMTs, and everyday people on the beach that day saved Lulu's life.

But the real miracle was just beginning. When Lulu woke up from surgery that day and got taken off of her ventilator, her very first words were ``I made it.'' That has become a mantra not just in how she reemerged but in the way that she has pushed forward.

After a long rehabilitation, she came back to Alabama 3 months after the accident. She was determined. When you talk with her parents, they tell you about her aggressiveness. When other amputees would come and visit her and tell her how long it took them to walk or to do other things, she would say: I am going to do it faster. I am going to do it better.

She was back outclassing golfers there at a driving range, not too long after. She refused letting losing an arm or a leg stop her.

Just last week, Lulu spoke publicly for the very first time since the shark attack. Her grace, her faith, her strength, her perseverance--it was an inspiration to all of us. Lulu told a crowd that morning that she wakes up ready to conquer the day every day, and that she is motivated to keep getting better.

She launched a foundation called Lulu Strong to help others in need get the prosthetic technologies that will make their lives easier. After visiting Walter Reed just a few weeks ago, you can tell how this advocacy can actually change lives.

When the unimaginable changed her world, what Lulu decided to do was change our world for the better. Lulu is a modern-day American hero. The courage she has shown, the fight, the resolve that she has demonstrated are truly remarkable, and not just for a 16-year-old but for anyone.

But it shouldn't have to be this way. Lulu is, indeed, an inspiration, but this tremendous battle that she has fought and won could have been prevented in the first place. You see, when I heard Lulu's story, I learned that there was another shark attack that happened just right down the shore, 90 minutes earlier. Elisabeth Foley, a mother of three, from Virginia, tragically lost her hand to a shark bite and suffered other terrible injuries resulting in 26 surgeries.

After talking with Lulu and her family, we said: It doesn't have to be this way. They knew there was something that could have been done. And after talking, we knew that there had to be a better way to get information out there to warn beachgoers about shark attacks in the area. That is when we introduced Lulu's Law, and it is why I am reintroducing this bill in this Congress today.

This bill, which I am proud to share, has bipartisan support. It would empower local authorities to issue wireless emergency alerts warning beachgoers of potential shark attacks through the already existing wireless emergency system. This has the potential to make a real difference in Americans' lives. When we are given the opportunity to do something simple that can make such a big difference, I believe we have to take it.

So, Lulu, I want you to know how much you inspire all of us. Your bravery in the face of the unimaginable is just amazing, and your taking what happened to you and saying: How can I make others' lives better? How can we make sure that this doesn't happen to someone else?

We want to honor the strength that you have shown over the past 9 months.

To Lulu's parents Ann Blair and Joe Gribbin, the way you have all rallied our State and our country to support Lulu on her road to recovery is truly unbelievable.

To my colleagues in the Senate on both sides of the aisle, whether you represent a State on the coast or you represent citizens of the interior, there is no doubt we want to keep our citizens safe, whether they live there or they are visiting. Making sure that we put safeguards in place that can prevent another tragedy from occurring is imperative.

Let's pass this law. Let's celebrate this amazing young woman, and let's prevent this from happening again.