[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 115 (Wednesday, July 13, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H5993-H6001]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    ACTIVE SHOOTER ALERT ACT OF 2022

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1224, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 6538) to create an Active Shooter Alert Communications 
Network, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. DeSaulnier). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 1224, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary, printed in the bill, is 
adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 6538

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Active Shooter Alert Act of 
     2022''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Active shooter.--The term ``active shooter'' means an 
     individual who is engaged in killing or attempting to kill 
     persons with a firearm in a populated area and who is 
     determined to pose an active, imminent threat to people in 
     that populated area.
       (2) Administrator of fema.--The term ``Administrator of 
     FEMA'' means the Administrator of the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency.
       (3) Chairman of the fcc.--The term ``Chairman of the FCC'' 
     means the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.
       (4) Coordinator.--The term ``Coordinator'' means the Active 
     Shooter Alert Coordinator of the Department of Justice 
     designated under section 3(a).
       (5) Network.--The term ``Network'' means the Active Shooter 
     Alert Communications Network, an interconnected system of 
     Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments that is 
     organized to provide information to the public, within 
     geographically relevant areas, on active shooter situations.
       (6) Populated area.--The term ``populated area'' means a 
     location where one or more persons other than the active 
     shooter are present.
       (7) State.--The term ``State'' means any of the 50 States, 
     the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, 
     the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands of the 
     United States, and any other territory of the United States.

     SEC. 3. NATIONAL COORDINATION OF ACTIVE SHOOTER ALERT 
                   COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK.

       (a) Coordination Within Department of Justice.--The 
     Attorney General shall assign an officer of the Department of 
     Justice to act as the national coordinator of the Active 
     Shooter Alert Communications Network regarding an emergency 
     involving an active shooter. The officer so designated shall 
     be known as the Active Shooter Alert Coordinator of the 
     Department of Justice.
       (b) Duties.--The Coordinator shall--
       (1) encourage Federal, State, Tribal, and local government 
     agencies to establish procedures to respond to an active 
     shooter, including active shooter procedures relating to 
     interstate or interjurisdictional travel (including airports 
     and border crossing areas and checkpoints), and focus on 
     governments that have not yet established such procedures; 
     and
       (2) work with State, Tribal, and local governments to 
     encourage appropriate regional and interjurisdictional 
     coordination of various elements of the Network.
       (c) Goals.--The Coordinator shall encourage the adoption of 
     best practices established under section 4(a) in State, 
     Tribal, and local governments for--
       (1) the development of policies and procedures to guide the 
     use of mass alert systems, changeable message signs, or other 
     information systems to notify local residents, motorists, 
     travelers, and individuals in the vicinity of an active 
     shooter;
       (2) the development of guidance or policies on the content 
     and format of alert messages to be conveyed on mass alert 
     systems, changeable message signs, or other information 
     systems relating to an active shooter;
       (3) the coordination of State, Tribal, and local Active 
     Shooter Alert communications plans within a region for the 
     use of mass alert systems relating to an active shooter;
       (4) the planning and designing of mass alert systems for 
     multilingual communication with local residents, motorists, 
     travelers, and individuals in the vicinity of an active 
     shooter, which system may include the capability for issuing 
     wide area alerts to local residents, motorists, travelers, 
     and individuals in the vicinity of an active shooter;
       (5) the planning of systems and protocols to facilitate the 
     efficient issuance of active shooter alerts and other key 
     information to local residents, motorists, travelers, and 
     individuals in the vicinity of an active shooter during times 
     of day outside of normal business hours;
       (6) the provision of training and guidance to 
     transportation authorities to facilitate the appropriate use 
     of mass alert systems and other information systems for the 
     notification of local residents, motorists, travelers, and 
     individuals in the vicinity of an active shooter; and
       (7) the development of appropriate mass alert systems to 
     ensure that alerts sent to individuals in the immediate 
     vicinity of an active shooter do not alert the active shooter 
     to the location of individuals sheltering in place near the 
     active shooter.
       (d) Integrated Public Alert and Warning System.--In 
     carrying out duties under subsection (b), the Coordinator 
     shall notify and coordinate with the Administrator of FEMA, 
     the Secretary of Transportation, and the Chairman of the FCC 
     on using the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System to 
     issue alerts for the Network.
       (e) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and every 2 years thereafter until 
     such time as each of the State, Tribal, and local governments 
     have adopted an active shooter alert protocol, the 
     Coordinator, in consultation with the Administrator of FEMA, 
     Secretary of Transportation, and the Chairman of the FCC, 
     shall submit to Congress a report on the activities of the 
     Coordinator and the effectiveness and status of the Active 
     Shooter Alert communications plan of each State, Tribal, and 
     local government within each region that has implemented such 
     a plan.

     SEC. 4. STANDARDS FOR ISSUANCE AND DISSEMINATION OF ALERTS 
                   THROUGH ACTIVE SHOOTER ALERT COMMUNICATIONS 
                   NETWORK.

       (a) Establishment of Best Practices.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to subsection (c), the 
     Coordinator, using the recommendations of the Advisory Panel 
     established under subsection (b) and in coordination with the 
     Administrator of FEMA, the Secretary of Transportation, the 
     Chairman of the FCC, local broadcasters, and Federal, State, 
     Tribal, and local law enforcement agencies, shall establish 
     best practices for--
       (A) the issuance of alerts through the Network;
       (B) the extent of the dissemination of alerts issued 
     through the Network; and
       (C) the achievement of the goals described in section 3(c).
       (2) Updating best practices.--The Coordinator shall review 
     the best practices established under paragraph (1) no less 
     frequently than every 5 years to ensure the best practices 
     are consistent with updated data and recommendations on 
     active shooter situations and technological advancements in 
     the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System or other 
     technologies. The Coordinator shall convene the Advisory 
     Panel as necessary to provide updated recommendations if the 
     best practices are to be updated.
       (b) Advisory Panel.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Coordinator shall establish an 
     Advisory Panel to make recommendations with respect to the 
     establishment of best practices under subsection (a).
       (2) Membership.--The Advisory Panel shall be comprised of 
     at least 9 members, including--
       (A) at least 5 law enforcement officers, including at least 
     one nonsupervisory law enforcement officer, who have 
     responded to active shooter incidents and who represent 
     rural, suburban, and urban communities;
       (B) at least 1 public safety expert who is not a law 
     enforcement officer and who has responded to an active 
     shooter incident;
       (C) at least 1 emergency response official who is not a law 
     enforcement officer;
       (D) at least 1 city planning expert; and
       (E) at least 1 mental and behavioral health expert.
       (3) Recommendations.--Not later than 15 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Advisory Panel shall 
     submit to Coordinator recommendations with respect to the 
     establishment of best practices under subsection (a).

[[Page H5994]]

       (c) Limitations.--
       (1) In general.--The best practices established under 
     subsection (a) shall--
       (A) be adoptable on a voluntary basis only; and
       (B) to the maximum extent practicable (as determined by the 
     Coordinator, in consultation with State, Tribal, and local 
     law enforcement agencies), provide that--
       (i) appropriate information relating to an active shooter 
     response is disseminated to the appropriate law enforcement, 
     public health, communications, and other public officials; 
     and
       (ii) the dissemination of an alert through the Network be 
     limited to the geographic areas most likely to be affected 
     by, or able to respond to, an active shooter situation.
       (2) No interference.--In establishing best practices under 
     subsection (a), the Coordinator may not interfere with 
     systems of voluntary coordination between local broadcasters 
     and State, Tribal, and local law enforcement agencies for 
     improving and implementing the Network.

     SEC. 5. COMPTROLLER GENERAL STUDY ON STATE RESPONSES TO 
                   ACTIVE SHOOTER SITUATIONS REQUIRING THE 
                   ISSUANCE OF PUBLIC ALERTS AND WARNINGS.

       (a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall conduct a study on State and local responses to active 
     shooters and situations requiring the issuance of a public 
     alert or warning. Such study shall address each of the 
     following:
       (1) Differences between the definitions of the term 
     ``active shooter'' used by different States.
       (2) The amount of time it takes and the process in each 
     State to receive approval from the State alerting officials 
     after a local law enforcement agency requests the issuance of 
     a public alert or warning, such as an AMBER Alert, a Blue 
     Alert, or an Ashanti alert.
       (3) A comparison of the timing and effectiveness of the 
     issuance of public alerts and warnings by State, Tribal, and 
     local alerting officials.
       (b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall submit to Congress a report containing 
     the findings of the study conducted under subsection (a).

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Attorney General to carry out this Act $2,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2023.
       (b) Availability of Funds.--Amounts appropriated under 
     subsection (a) shall remain available until expended.

     SEC. 7. LIMITATION ON LIABILITY.

       (a) In General.--Nothing in this Act may be construed to 
     provide that a participating agency, or an officer, employee, 
     or agent thereof, shall be liable for any act or omission 
     pertaining to the Network.
       (b) State or Other Federal Law.-- Nothing in this section 
     may be construed to limit the application of any State or 
     other Federal law providing for liability for any act or 
     omission pertaining to the Network.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 
1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective 
designees.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Jordan) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).


                             General Leave

  Mr. NADLER. 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 H.R. 6538.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6538, the Active Shooter Alert Act, is bipartisan 
legislation that would improve the tools available to law enforcement 
as they respond to the disturbingly frequent threat of active shooters 
faced by our communities.
  Far too many of our cities have experienced the threat of an active 
shooter situation. Since we last voted on this very bill--only a few 
weeks ago--Highland Park became the most recent city to face the terror 
of a mass shooting, following Buffalo, Uvalde, and so many others.
  In 2021, the FBI designated 61 situations as active shooter 
incidents, a more than 50 percent increase compared to 2020, and nearly 
double the number of such incidents just 4 years ago.
  These incidents require law enforcement to make challenging decisions 
about how best to keep the public safe, including when and how to 
inform the public as a situation unfolds. FEMA, the FCC, and wireless 
providers already have a system in place to send time-sensitive, 
location-targeted alerts for weather emergencies, AMBER Alerts for 
child abduction cases, and other public safety emergencies.
  This bill simply enables law enforcement to use this system for 
active shooter alerts, giving them an additional tool to save lives. It 
is bipartisan legislation and should be completely uncontroversial.
  Indeed, our colleagues overwhelmingly supported this legislation when 
we last voted on it, but the opposition of a few Members prevented it 
from garnering the two-thirds support it needed to pass under 
suspension of the rules. Those Members in opposition have made absurd 
claims about the bill--instead of examining what it actually does--but 
we won't take the bait.
  Instead, we are listening to our law enforcement and first responders 
who have called for this legislation. Today, we are taking action to 
save lives when tragedy strikes. We will continue to do much more to 
actually prevent these tragedies, but the least we can do is to improve 
the tools we give law enforcement to respond to a crisis. That is what 
this bill does.
  H.R. 6538, the Active Shooter Alert Act, directs the attorney general 
to appoint a coordinator to work with Federal, State, local, and Tribal 
Governments to better use our existing emergency alert system for 
active shooter situations.
  It directs the coordinator to establish an advisory panel, comprised 
of law enforcement officers who have responded to active shooter 
incidents, along with other public safety and emergency response 
experts.

                              {time}  1245

  The coordinator is also directed to establish best practices for 
using emergency alerts for active shooter incidents, to promote the 
adoption of those best practices, and to report to Congress on the 
effectiveness of these alerts. This bipartisan legislation is endorsed 
by a broad range of Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
organizations.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Cicilline for his work in developing 
this important legislation, I hope my colleagues will join me in 
supporting it once again, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we debated this exact bill 3 weeks ago, and it failed 
with bipartisan opposition. That is right. Even Democrats voted against 
it.
  The Active Shooter Alert Act is an unnecessary gimmick to cede more 
authority to the already highly politicized Biden Department of 
Justice.
  States already utilize emergency alert systems to warn the public 
about natural and human-made disasters, extreme weather events, active 
shooter situations, and other emergencies. Federal, State, and local 
officials already use the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System, 
IPAWS, to send emergency alerts to mobile devices and to alert media 
platforms.
  According to a 2020 report from the Government Accountability Office, 
every State has at least one alerting authority, and there were more 
than 1,400 alerting authorities across the country.
  If the States are already using an alerting system to notify the 
public about threats, what is this bill really doing?
  This bill is creating a new Federal job at the Biden Justice 
Department to encourage State and local governments to issue public 
alerts any time a firearm is used anywhere. Don't take my word for it. 
During the markup, Congressman Jones said that this bill would be most 
effective at reminding us that the threat of gun violence exists all 
around us, but it does little to actually protect us from it.
  That is right. This bill is about Democrat fearmongering that guns 
are an ever-present threat and we cannot be safe until Big Government 
rounds up every last one of them.
  In fact, Congressman Jones went further, calling the committee to 
consider another bill that would ban assault weapons. Chairman Nadler 
followed by voicing his support.
  It is no wonder Democrats want to push forward a bill that would 
create a reminder about this threat of gun violence against us. They 
want to create a culture of fear so they can achieve their ultimate 
goal. If they really

[[Page H5995]]

wanted to improve emergency alerts for active shooters, we would be 
moving a bill to improve the system that is already in place that are 
sent to mobile devices.
  In a recent report, GAO stated that the local alerting officials had 
expressed concerns about the inability to target WEA alerts with 
accuracy which made local officials reluctant to use the system at all.
  For example, GAO found that one alerting authority sent an alert to a 
specific geographic area to warn the recipients about a suspicious 
package, but the alert was received by people located 4 miles outside 
of the intended target area.
  Another concern is that these alerts are one-way communication 
systems so alerting officials have no way of knowing if the messages 
are actually received by the public. GAO has also found that another 
local alerting authority sent an evacuation order through an alert but 
didn't know whether the intended recipients actually even received that 
notice.
  Utilizing these alerts for active shooter incidents could have tragic 
consequences. This is yet another reason this legislation should not 
have been rushed to the floor without going through regular committee 
order. We could have had hearings, we could have received expert 
testimony, and we could have been able to fully vet this initiative.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), who is a member of the Judiciary 
Committee and sponsor of the bill.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this bill that I 
introduced with my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the bipartisan 
Active Shooter Alert Act that we introduced along with 14 Democrats and 
14 Republicans--fully bipartisan.
  This bill is a commonsense piece of public safety legislation that 
police have asked for over and over and over again and that we are past 
due in delivering to them. It is so clear that they need it.
  Between 2000 and 2020 there were close to 400 active shooter events 
with 40 active shooter incidents in 2020 alone. Last year we saw 61 
active shooter events.
  We see what this looks like in our communities. This past April a 
shooter gunned down 10 people in a New York City subway and then was on 
the run for 29 hours. On July 4 another shooter gunned down parade 
goers in Highland Park, Illinois, and evaded arrest for 8 hours. Those 
are just two examples of the most recent ones.
  This doesn't even include the shooters who were at large for hours 
and hours in Midland and Odessa in 2019 and the Atlanta, Georgia, area 
in 2021; Kalamazoo, Michigan, in 2016; and in too many other life-and-
death situations for our communities.
  Active shooter emergencies have become so common that we barely even 
register them anymore. We have become numb to them and starting to view 
them as statistics. We cannot let this become normal. And law 
enforcement can't and won't get used to these horrific incidents 
because police are the ones who have to respond to every single 
shooting. We left them to turn to platforms like Twitter and Facebook 
to let the public know there is a shooter out there.
  That is why law enforcement organizations from all across the country 
are asking for this bill.

  Enough is enough.
  We want to talk about supporting our law enforcement?
  Give them what they ask for.
  Stop acting like you are experts about responding to active shooting. 
They are. They risk their lives every day doing it.
  This bill creates and makes available to local law enforcement an 
AMBER Alert-like program for active shooter events. It will provide 
departments with cutting-edge technology to send notifications to our 
smartphones and let communities know if there is an active shooter in a 
certain area.
  In addition to this system, the bill calls for the development of 
best practices so that departments know how to send alerts in the most 
effective and safest way possible.
  We already have this type of alert infrastructure available at the 
Federal level. Let's maximize its potential to save lives and give 
officers the tools they need to keep their communities safe.
  Developing this kind of technology and infrastructure and identifying 
best practices would be a massive undertaking for many local 
departments and for some communities. They simply don't have the 
resources to do it on their own.
  And nothing--let me repeat--nothing in this bill is mandatory for law 
enforcement agencies to adopt. So if a local department determines that 
this program isn't a good fit for their community, they simply don't 
have to use it. But for the officers out there who do want it, let's 
deliver to them.
  We have to give law enforcement every tool they need to neutralize 
these threats and keep our communities safe. This bill helps do that in 
a simple and effective way. It is not complicated. It simply adds a 
tool to the tool belt of law enforcement all across the country 
regardless of their size or location to be used voluntarily.
  When there is an active shooter situation, law enforcement does all 
they can to keep people in the surrounding area safe. They organize to 
search for shooters posing the threat, they shut down streets and 
buildings and provide first response to victims, and they go door to 
door to either evacuate or tell people to shelter in place. But that 
takes time--time that could cost lives.
  In these stressful life-or-death situations, law enforcement are too 
often relying on social media to warn people so that no one 
accidentally walks into the line of fire or a crime scene. Law 
enforcement deserves better than Twitter to communicate with the 
community they serve.
  I am proud this bill has the endorsement of law enforcement agencies 
all across the country, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the 
National Police Foundation, the National Sheriffs' Association, the 
Major Cities Chiefs Association, the National Association of Police 
Officers, and the National Association of District Attorneys, just to 
name a few.
  There has been resounding bipartisan support. I thank all of my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have supported this 
commonsense measure. I thank, again, my friend and colleague, Mr. 
Upton, for working on this bill. I encourage all of you to give law 
enforcement the tools they need to keep themselves and communities 
safe.
  Do not listen to this nonsense about trying to take peoples' guns or 
give the Biden Justice Department money. It has nothing to do with 
that. It is about alerting people when there is a dangerous active 
shooting happening in their community so we can save peoples' lives. It 
is plain and simple.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I would just add that the gentleman said it 
has nothing to do with the Biden Justice Department. Well, it certainly 
does. It gives $2 million to the Biden Justice Department to create a 
program the States can already do. This is the same Biden Justice 
Department that is the most political Justice Department we have ever 
seen.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the great State 
of Florida (Mr. Gaetz).
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, maybe someone should have sent an active 
shooter alert to police in Uvalde. Wait. They had the alert. They were 
in a school building with an active shooter and didn't take action.
  America is at her best when she encourages her citizens to have safe, 
responsible gun ownership. But under Democrats, instead, we have a 
government that instead wants to stigmatize and scare people about 
guns.
  Mr. Speaker, imagine you are at a concert with 5,000 people and 
everyone gets an alert on their phone ``active shooter'' because six 
blocks away there was a gunfire that went off. Maybe it was an 
accident. Maybe it was a tragedy.
  Would that make the circumstance safer?
  Of course not. It would lead to stampede, tragedy, hysteria, mistake, 
perhaps even more death. This bill is like yelling ``fire'' in a movie 
theater, except the fire is in another movie theater across the street. 
The bill makes no mention of distance requirements.

[[Page H5996]]

  Will we be notified of any active shootings within 1 mile, 5 miles, 
10 miles?
  What is an active shooter?
  A drive-by in an inner city?
  A spousal murder in a suburb?
  If you live in or near Democrat-run cities, it sounds like your phone 
will be buzzing off the hook. Some of our cities have shootings every 
day where multiple people are injured, and often this happens in the 
jurisdictions with the most intense and liberty-depriving gun control.
  The bill states that an active shooter is defined as an individual 
``determined to pose an active, imminent threat to people in a 
populated area.'' That sounds like a sizable amount of the people 
walking around the south side of Chicago every day.
  Who is making this determination?
  Is it in a millisecond?
  By the time the alerts go out, it may be far too late to do any good. 
This bill is useless and foolish. Working on police response times is, 
of course, a worthy goal, a worthy goal for the States where the 
Constitution resides the police power. But alerting thousands of people 
to what may or may not have happened 30 minutes ago or 30 blocks away 
is, in fact, dangerous.
  So one has to ask: What is the true purpose of this bill?
  Why do the Democrats want to use the power of government to bombard 
your cellphone with active shooter alerts 24 hours a day, 7 days a 
week?
  It is because they want you to be afraid of the Second Amendment. It 
is because they want you to be afraid of responsible gun ownership. 
They hope that if they program you and bombard you long enough, that 
you will hate your own Second Amendment rights, or you may tattle on 
your neighbor who is lawfully and rightfully exercising theirs. The 
American people should not fall for this.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say that if the theater 
across street were on fire, I would like to know about it. Fires 
spread.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. 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.

                              {time}  1300

  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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. 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.

[[Page H5997]]

  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
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Roy), my friend.
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I associate myself with the remarks of my 
friend from Florida (Mr. Gaetz) a few minutes ago with respect to his 
position about what this bill will do in terms of fear and its purpose 
of creating fear among the people. That is the reality. That is what we 
are dealing with here.
  Texas has an alert system. States have alert systems. That is where 
this properly resides. That is where the police power resides, in the 
States.
  In fact, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee even acknowledged 
this reality that, well, okay, States have this, but here is a Federal 
program we are going to create with $2 million. You can use it if you 
want.
  This is another example of Washington creating another department, 
another position, spending more money that we don't have in order to 
have a policy objective of continuing to advance fear among the 
American people.
  Remember the COVID alerts? How many alerts do we need on our phones 
to create fear in the minds of the American people?
  Allow the States to make a decision about when there is something 
that is meritorious, whether it is a tornado alert, whether it is an 
AMBER Alert. Allow the local jurisdictions to make that decision, not 
bureaucrats in Washington. That is the reality.
  I think it would probably be a more advantageous use of our time to 
develop a congressional stupidity alert system or a congressional harm 
alert system. I mean, we do it every single day. That is what this body 
is actually engaged in on a regular basis, harming the American people 
through either nonaction or action.
  As we speak, maybe we should have an alert about the inflation 
running rampant around this country because of the rampant spending, as 
evidenced by this very bill with another $2 million for a position in 
the Department of Justice.
  Maybe we need an alert system for the literal stream of people coming 
across the border in Eagle Pass right now and the fentanyl pouring 
across into our communities, endangering the American people, 
empowering cartels at our peril.
  Maybe, perhaps, we need an alert system for more COVID mandates, more 
mask mandates, and more shutdowns in our schools where our children get 
harmed and where they have mental health issues because of what this 
body does.
  Maybe we need an alert system for the wokeism and the vax mandates at 
the Department of Defense that are damaging our ability to recruit. 
Just now, on the floor this week, we are going to be taking up the 
National Defense Authorization Act. We can't even attain 40 percent 
recruiting standards right now in our United States Army because of 
wokeism and because of vaccine mandates driving our personnel away from 
the Department of Defense. Maybe we need an alert system for the 
American people to know what is happening at the Department of Defense.
  Maybe we need an alert on our failures to vote, our proxy voting in 
this very body, and our virtual voting from boats by some of our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
  We could have so many alert systems that we could be actually 
educating the American people on what they are getting here in this 
august body, the people's House. That would be a more valuable alert 
system than carrying out the function of the State and local police 
power that is inherent in our Constitution, which this body tramples 
upon on a regular and daily basis.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), one of the sponsors of the bill.
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  This morning, I saw the news that the North Carolina Little League 
State championship was canceled. That is right. Why? An active shooter.
  I saw the frantic video of a mom holding her handheld video of what 
was going on. Frankly, it reminded me of the congressional baseball 
practice in Alexandria a few years ago when our Republican whip,   
Steve Scalise, was seriously injured and, frankly, lucky to still be 
alive.
  My son played on that field, which is walking distance from my home. 
Some of my staff actually walked by that morning, not having a clue 
what was going on.
  This bill would change that. It would provide some resources--not an 
arm or a leg, but maybe what it takes for a traffic safety study--to 
provide an alert system across the country on your cell phone when an 
active shooter might be close by.
  It would work like an AMBER Alert system, just like I received when I 
landed at O'Hare yesterday, coming back to Washington. My phone went 
off, as others' did on my flight when it landed, looking for what may 
have been a child predator.
  A few years ago, six folks were shot and killed in Kalamazoo, in my 
district, next to the campus of Western Michigan University, a campus 
of some 20,000 students, at about midnight. No alert system was sent. I 
believe that this legislation, had it been in place then, may have 
saved some of those folks who were killed that night.
  In the 1990s, two brave Capitol Hill police officers were shot and 
killed just down the stairs from this Chamber as they tried to kill our 
Republican whip, Tom DeLay. Then, as Members of Congress, we had no 
such alert system. Today, we do.

[[Page H5998]]

  In fact, just this morning, we each received two notices of police 
activity on Capitol Hill, just as we did a couple of weeks ago on the 
day that we had this legislation up when Independence Avenue was closed 
because of a suspicious package outside the door of the Cannon 
Building.
  A week ago, on the Fourth of July, the Nation watched in horror the 
mass shooting in Highland Park. The media reports the initial sounds 
were thought to be fireworks. Wouldn't it have been nice to have had a 
system that would have alerted the entire parade route to take cover? 
Maybe some of those folks that were killed or wounded wouldn't have 
been. It breaks our hearts.

  Tragically, there are going to be more days like that, probably 
today. Can't we take a small, bipartisan, commonsense measure to save a 
life or two?
  Yes, I believe in thoughts and prayers. I do. I also believe in 
taking constructive steps to protect our communities.
  Every single law enforcement agency supports this. It is way past 
time to do something.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Sanchez). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. UPTON. Sadly, I know that the Gun Owners of America opposes this 
bill, but it does nothing to threaten the legal use of any gun. It only 
protects humans that, in fact, may be the target.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Massie), the co-chair of the Second Amendment Caucus.
  Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, before I talk about the substance of this 
bill, or the lack thereof, I would like to put it in the context of the 
other dozen or so unserious, unconstitutional, unnecessary, and unsafe 
responses to gun shootings in this country that the Democrats have 
offered and passed in this Chamber.
  What have they done? Well, they passed a law to ban magazines with a 
capacity of more than 15 rounds. The chairman of the Rules Committee 
claimed that this would stop shootings like the one at Virginia Tech. 
What he failed to mention is the shooter at Virginia Tech never used a 
magazine that had more than 15 rounds. That is an example of an 
unserious solution that has come from this body.
  What else have they done? They have changed the definition of a gun 
dealer so that any law-abiding individual who sells a firearm to 
anybody and makes a profit off it now might be a gun dealer and, 
therefore, prosecutable in a Federal crime.
  What else have they done that is unserious or unconstitutional? Well, 
they have passed a law to ban gun trafficking. The problem is that is 
already illegal.
  Who did they sweep up in this dragnet in this new law? Well, they 
swept up domestic violence victims who might ask a neighbor for a 
firearm. Now, they can be prosecuted. Not the neighbor, not just the 
Good Samaritan, but also the domestic violence victim can be prosecuted 
as a gun trafficker under a bill that they passed here.
  Recognizing this flaw, I offered an amendment to fix it in the 
Judiciary Committee. Every Democrat but one--one of them had a little 
bit of common sense--voted against that amendment to fix their own 
bill.
  What else have they done? Well, they passed a bill that I am going to 
call unconstitutional on arrival. It has already been ruled 
unconstitutional if you read the D.C. v. Heller decision. The Supreme 
Court Justices said that you can't force Mr. Dick Heller to keep his 
gun unloaded and disassembled in his house because that violates the 
Second Amendment. But that is exactly what one of their laws that came 
through this Chamber in just the past couple of months does. It is 
called the so-called safe storage act. It is already unconstitutional.
  Who likes this bill more than anybody? Home invaders. Oh, my gosh, 
wouldn't it be great to know that, by Federal law, everybody who has a 
firearm now has to have it locked up and unattainable, inaccessible in 
the amount of time that it would take to respond to a home invader?
  What else have they done? A red flag bill that deprives citizens of 
their due process and endangers police officers, who are going to be 
required to respond in predawn raids of people who haven't had due 
process, have never had their day in court, haven't even reached a 
level of evidence that is sufficient. The red flag bill is bad.
  What else have they done? They passed a bill to deprive 18-, 19-, and 
20-year-olds of purchasing semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic 
shotguns. They are already deprived of their constitutional right to 
buy a handgun, but now we are just going to sweep in all of these 
things.
  Are they going to then raise the draft age to 21 now that we are 
saying Uncle Sam will give you a gun? Uncle Sam can conscript you to 
the military, send you overseas to fight for a Constitution that 
doesn't even protect you or your wife, who is at home taking care of 
the kids, if you are 18-, 19-, or 20-year-olds.
  They don't care. This one is also unconstitutional on arrival. The 
Ninth Circuit, one of the most liberal circuits in the country, has 
already ruled that.
  Why is this so disturbing? We heard earlier today from one of my 
colleagues in this debate that she wants to ban assault weapons. Well, 
the House Democrat Twitter account tweeted that all semiautomatic 
rifles are weapons of war. Really? There are a lot of people in 
Kentucky who own Remington 750 deer rifles who are going to be shocked 
to find out that they purchased a weapon of war. If you saw one of 
these, I think you would all agree this is not a weapon of war.
  It is an alarm to every American who is out there watching this 
debate that they are coming after your guns.
  Now, let's get to the substance of this bill, or the lack thereof. 
Why are we here debating this bill? This is the second time we have 
voted on it, the second time we debated it. Why are we here again? 
Because they tried to suspend the rules of this body and get it through 
without following the rules of this House, and they failed. That is why 
we are here again, to give it the debate it deserves.
  The bill is called the Active Shooter Alert Act of 2022. In the 
Democrat cities where they defunded the police, I think you should call 
it the you are on your own act of 2022. Yes, that is right.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. MASSIE. They are going to tell you that you are on your own.
  But can you turn this thing off in Chicago? How will you get any 
sleep because you have a shooting literally every night in Chicago? If 
they were serious about stopping crime or helping individuals, this 
would have been called the active violence alert act.
  Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, what about violence committed with a car, 
violence committed with a knife? No concern for that because the true 
purpose of this bill passing here today is to scare people. It is to 
scare people on their phones. They can't get away from their phones.
  It is going to be popping up saying, be afraid, somebody's got a gun, 
and they are going to try and condition the American public to ask to 
repeal the Second Amendment, either explicitly or implicitly, here in 
this Chamber.
  Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to this bill.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Schneider).
  Mr. SCHNEIDER. Madam Speaker, we are hearing a lot of arguments 
today. My colleague on the other side talked about America at its best. 
Let me tell you about America at its best.
  Last Monday on July 4 in Highland Park, Illinois, thousands of people 
gathered together. Families, parents, grandparents, and children lined 
the road for a parade. Many of them came there year after year, 
generation after generation, to celebrate the birth of our country, the 
values of our Founders, and the belief that this is a Nation for us 
all. I saw America at its best.
  At 10:14 on July 4 last week, a shooter who had climbed a roof with 
an AR-15 fired 83 bullets in less than a minute, killing seven people 
and wounding dozens of others.
  Thousands of people fled that parade, the best America has to offer, 
not

[[Page H5999]]

knowing where to go, not knowing what to do. They heard there was a 
shooter. Was it one? Was it two? It could have been many. Should they 
go home, or should they go somewhere else? Nobody knew.
  Imagine if on their phones they had been told of an active shooter at 
the corner of Second and Central. Imagine if on their phones, they had 
been told, go and seek safety in your home. For 8 hours, people 
watched, people talked, rumors swirled. An entire community of 30,000 
people was left to grieve and to fear.
  That is what this bill is about. That is why we are here. We are here 
to give the people of Highland Park or of the many communities around 
our country that have experienced an active shooter, or will experience 
an active shooter, a little bit of security.
  According to the FBI, last year, there were 61 active shooting 
incidents in the country. That was last year alone and double the year 
before. We are seeing more violence in our country. We have to do 
something about this violence.
  I know the people who are arguing against this bill aren't willing to 
do that. They are not willing to stand up and defend our communities, 
to keep our children safe from this kind of violence. They are not even 
willing to give our communities the information they need to seek 
safety on their own.
  We have to take action to stop these killings in our communities, but 
that is not what this bill is about. This bill is about getting people 
the critical, potentially lifesaving information in a quick and 
efficient way in the event of a shooter. That is what this bill is 
about. That is why I am asking people to vote for it.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. So as others have said--and this is the 
language that struck me--when this matter was in committee, before it 
failed under suspension of the rules here, for good reason, this 
paragraph struck me.
  According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, ``imminent 
threat alerts include natural or human-made disasters, extreme weather, 
active shooters, and other threatening emergencies that are current or 
emerging.'' So the existing IPAWS system explicitly covers this issue, 
which again, takes you back to, then, what this debate has materialized 
as.
  The soon-to-retire gentleman from Michigan on the Republican side 
recited an event in North Carolina where Little League teams withdrew 
from a tournament because they heard shots. The police in Wilson say 
that they had no evidence that there was an active shooter involved.
  That incident had nothing to do with what we are talking about today, 
and yet, the gentleman from Michigan offered it in support of this 
bill.
  The gentleman from Illinois or the gentleman who just spoke about the 
Highland Park shooting in Illinois--by the way, according to the wisdom 
of the majority and some Republican Senators, we passed support for red 
flag laws--well, Illinois has a red flag law. That person had been 
implicated in all circumstances that a red flag law ought to respond 
to. It didn't work.
  We have been doing gun control since 1968. Are you satisfied with the 
trajectory? Does it salve your conscience to speak in a loud voice 
about how outraged you are and do something else that has no capacity 
to solve the problem?
  Because you refuse to grapple with the problem. I have said that all 
along. I am going to continue to say it. It is not the prevalence of 
guns. It is but for causation, ladies and gentlemen.
  We have always had guns in ample supply across this country. Always. 
But until the 1960s, you never heard of a mass shooting, and they have 
increased at a rapid rate in recent years. So it is not the guns that 
have changed.
  Let's look at what may have changed. We have changed the culture. 
Could that be it? Could that be the reason that some reckless idiot in 
an automobile leaving the area of that Little League tournament was 
engaged in gun play, firing off a weapon? That never would have 
happened at an earlier time in this country.
  The same political forces that tried to change the culture and 
succeeded is the side that wants to eliminate gun rights as the answer 
to a problem they have created.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. So we see it over and over and over 
again. Accountability would require you to point to the success of your 
actions. You have engaged in--Mr. Massie detailed them--bill after bill 
after bill after bill, slowly eroding people's gun rights away.
  Yet, the problems that you have caused get worse every year. They get 
worse every year in the cities that you control.
  Let's grapple with the problem, and let's stop the alarmism and the 
stigmatizing and the fearmongering that you believe to substitute for 
policy. It does not.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Nadler and all of the 
hands that have made this moment possible.
  Madam Speaker, I have been here in this House when we have given our 
thoughts and prayers to many persons who have died, many as a result of 
an active shooter circumstance.
  Thoughts and prayers are important. My grandfather was a preacher. He 
talked about thoughts and prayers, but he also talked about doing God's 
work. Thoughts and prayers are important, but thoughts and prayers are 
not enough. Thoughts and prayers, unfortunately, are not saving lives 
when we can make the difference.
  `` . . . here on earth, God's work must truly be our own.'' These are 
the words of John F. Kennedy. Thoughts and prayers are not enough.
  There seems to be an argument today that we can give too much notice. 
Too much notice. We already have a system that can do this. Too much 
notice. Ask the loved ones of those who lost lives in the Atlanta, 
Georgia, area. Ask those loved ones if there was too much notice.
  I went there. I saw them. I saw the hurt and the pain. I saw them 
pleading for additional help. Thoughts and prayers are not enough.
  You can't give too much notice. Too much notice? Well, this shooter 
in Atlanta went to three different spas over a 3-hour period. Three 
different spas. I do believe this is an active shooter. Killed eight 
people--eight people--three different spas over a 3-hour period. This 
is an active shooter. Didn't have too much notice.
  I believe that we have a duty, responsibility, and obligation to do 
all that we can. When you can't do enough, you still have a 
responsibility to do all that we can. This is an opportunity for us to 
do more to save lives.
  For edification purposes, since 1968--1968--more individuals in the 
United States have died from gun violence than in battles during all 
the wars the country has fought since its inception.
  Since 1968, more individuals in the United States have died from gun 
violence than in battle during all the wars since this country's 
inception.
  Too much is not enough. Too much notice is not enough, and we don't 
have enough.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, back in high school when I was a senior 
at a pregame warm-up at Carthage, I had my hands under the center about 
to take a snap, throw a pass--the manager had my helmet--I am looking 
at the split end, and the manager yelled, Louie, and I looked up in 
time to have my nose splattered all over my face.
  That is what this warning will be. It is not going to stop violence. 
It is just going to say, look, we have got more violence.
  Let's talk about what it really is. The truth is, these cities with 
the most violence in America--and there are already 1,400 warning 
systems that will already take care of this, but, apparently, we need 
more help in the big cities controlled by Democrats.
  We are not going to lower the crime rate. I have spent much of my 
adult life in courtrooms dealing with crime. I am familiar with what 
causes it, what happens. My heart has gone out repeatedly to victims, 
but you have got to reduce crime.

[[Page H6000]]

  How can we do that? We have brought up repeatedly in committee over 
the years, 17 and a half years I have been here, look, let's go to the 
heart of what is causing the crime.
  I saw a recent report that said fatherlessness definitely is 
affecting the crime. It definitely is affecting the violence. It is 
increasing the violence.
  We have always had guns, but we haven't had mass shootings like this, 
mass killings. The culture has changed. Then we see this administration 
is going to help deal with problems around the world by giving grants 
to groups that will promote atheism and humanism. As if we are not 
doing enough damage. Because as Adam said, this Constitution was meant 
for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the 
governing of any other.
  If we want to deal with shooters, don't take away guns from law-
abiding people. Look where the mass shootings are. They like to go 
where there is nobody law-abiding that has a gun.
  And what about the border? The border has drugs pouring across, drugs 
that have added tens of billions a year to the drug cartels that engage 
in violence and are now located in cities all over America.
  So I would just submit, you know, this is going to be, if it is 
passed--and the Democrats have the majority. They have the White House. 
They have the Senate. If it passes, you know, it is going to be in the 
big cities.
  They are not going to reduce their crime. So I would suggest if they 
are going to be going 24/7, at least get some nice music on there so 
maybe that will be soothing. Maybe some good Paul Williams songs, 
because it is not going to stop crime. Maybe some good music will make 
people feel better.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from South Carolina (Ms. Mace).
  Ms. MACE. Madam Speaker, in South Carolina, unfortunately, we are no 
stranger to mass shootings.
  Seven years ago in June, we had nine Black church members at Mother 
Emanuel who were murdered in cold blood by a single killer.
  On April 26 of this year, right adjacent to a little league baseball 
game in the evening, in a parking lot, over 30 shots were fired. The 
harrowing video of seeing young kids literally crawling off the 
baseball field in tears, parents frightened, scared to death about 
their children and this shooting had taken place just next door.
  On Memorial Day of this year in Charleston, there were 13 people shot 
that evening, including three law enforcement officers, to say nothing 
of the hundreds of mass shootings that we have seen so far this year, 
including over two dozen in our schools and Uvalde.
  More recently Highland Park--and I will mention that my father's last 
duty station in the military as a U.S. Army General was at Fort 
Sheridan, Illinois. I spent a year of my life in Highland Park going to 
Highland Park Middle School. I am very familiar with that community and 
have been heartbroken by what they have been through over the last few 
weeks.
  And in Chicago, there are mass shootings every single weekend.
  The beauty of H.R. 6538 is that I agree with both sides of the aisle 
and what they are saying today. As someone who owns seven firearms, a 
rifle, two shotguns, and four pistols, I support law-abiding citizens' 
right to own firearms included in the Second Amendment. The beauty of 
this bill is it is not requiring or demanding or mandating anything. It 
is not taking away anyone's Second Amendment rights.
  When I have spoken to law enforcement across not just the First 
Congressional District, but across the entire State of South Carolina, 
when I speak to sheriffs, when I speak to police chiefs, I realize and 
understand that there is a patchwork of technology out there that some 
are aware of, some are not.
  So, for example, in one county in my State, we have something called 
code red where residents can opt in. Another county has nothing, 
another municipality or locality can do a reverse 911, but there is 
nothing consistent. The beauty of this bill is it doesn't infringe on 
anyone's Second Amendment rights.
  It does do a study by the Comptroller General under section 5 to 
understand what States are and aren't doing and what some of the best 
practices are.
  In section 4, we have an advisory panel that is created, their job--
and these are law enforcement officers, these are everyday first 
responders, people who are in the thick of it every single day facing 
these mass shootings--is putting together best practices so that the 
coordinator, as defined in section 3, can provide this information. 
This encourages States and localities and municipalities what the best 
practices are, and helps provide that information to them and the tools 
that they need so the next time--it is not a matter of ``if'' but a 
matter of ``when''--the next mass shooting is, they can, if they want, 
if they choose to voluntarily alert those in the community.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Biggs).
  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I oppose H.R. 6538. Frankly, this bill is 
unnecessary. Nothing prevents the States today from creating an alert 
system for active shooter incidents. Every State has the capacity to 
implement a warning system if they choose to.
  In fact, in 2020, the GAO said there are more than 1,400 systems 
already in place throughout the country that make this available. We 
passed here, just 4 or 5 years ago, the Ashlynne Mike AMBER Alert in 
Indian Country Act. That cleared up a lot of holes throughout the 
country on these emergency alert systems. This really is duplicative, 
and is, quite frankly, not necessary.
  Contrary to the belief of many Members of this body, the solution to 
every issue is not a Federal program. We should allow States, who have 
the ability, to create systems for providing emergency notifications 
for their citizens in a manner that is best for them.
  What this does is by putting a Federal coordinator over there, it 
actually lays in place the infrastructure for a soon-to-be-mandated 
system that the States will have to fund, but it will be mandated by 
the Federal Government. That is my prognostication here because that is 
what always happens.
  DOJ can already issue best practices and guidance related to public 
safety alerts. So what is this? This is a bill designed to feel good. 
This is a visceral bill, an emotional bill. This is not a bill designed 
to make us safer, make Americans safer. We already have those 
mechanisms and means in place.
  We have spent a lot of time going over bills introduced by my 
colleagues across the aisle regarding gun violence. Very few of them 
are going to provide any kind of help and assistance. There are bills 
that we have introduced that will not get a hearing that I believe will 
actually provide help and safety for the American people.
  This bill, however, by creating this Federal alert system--and it is 
not a Federal alert system, but it will evolve into that--is to remind 
us always that gun violence exists all around us, and it is to 
basically prejudice people against lawful gun owners.
  One of the best things you can have, regardless of what my colleagues 
across the aisle say, is a trained good guy with a gun.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
while I am waiting because I have one more speaker who would like to 
weigh in.

  As has been said, this bill is redundant. States can already do it if 
they so choose. This bill is part of a series of legislation that the 
Democrats have passed that attacks law-abiding citizens' Second 
Amendment liberties.
  We know what happened a few weeks ago with the red flag law that was 
passed by this body. Someone doesn't like you, and they go to law 
enforcement or they go to a judge. There is a hearing. You are not 
allowed to be at the hearing. You are not allowed to have your lawyer 
at the hearing. You are not allowed to confront your accuser. You 
haven't been charged with a crime, but they can take your gun, take 
your property, take away your Second Amendment right, and then

[[Page H6001]]

you have to go petition the court to get it back.
  This bill gives $2 million to the Department of Justice. I mean, 
giving more money to the Justice Department, the most politicized 
Justice Department I have ever seen, the same Justice Department where 
over a dozen whistleblowers have come to our office talking about 
concerns they have with investigations that the FBI and the Justice 
Department are doing, the same Justice Department that treated parents 
as domestic terrorists for simply showing up at school board meetings 
and voicing concerns about the curriculum being taught to their 
children, that Justice Department, we are giving more money to do this 
program?
  The same Justice Department that, sad to say, has joined the effort 
by the left to intimidate the Court, our highest Court in the land, we 
are giving money to that Justice Department?
  Make no mistake, this Justice Department has done that by their 
failure to enforce the statute to protect our Supreme Court Justices. 
When people are protesting at their home, trying to impact and 
intimidate the Court, this Justice Department refused to deal with the 
statute that is exactly on point. We are giving money to that Justice 
Department.
  So for all those reasons, we have real concerns with this 
legislation, and I would urge opposition to the bill.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  There is a reason that this bipartisan legislation is endorsed by the 
Major Cities Chiefs Association, the National Association of Police 
Organizations, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Policing 
Institute, the National Sheriffs' Association, the National District 
Attorneys Association, and several State and local law enforcement 
organizations.
  When tragedy strikes--and unfortunately we know that it will strike 
again--we want our law enforcement and first responders to have all the 
tools they need to keep our communities safe. We want our people to 
have the warnings that they need, just as with the AMBER Alert system.
  I urge my colleagues to stand with law enforcement and to support 
this important legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1224, the 
previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
are postponed.

                          ____________________