would even say t frankly, when we talk about this, we know what the agenda here is. justice thomas gave us a clear road map where this is headed. undermining confidence in the supreme court? justice thomas urged the court to reconsider all of this court's substantive due process precedents, including the right to contraception, the right to private consensual sexual acts, and the right to same-sex marriage. characterize the entire legal doctrine as particularly dangerous. undermining the confidence of the supreme court of the united states? justice kavanaugh, i will say, to his credit and his concurrence, said the couldn't won't go that far. but we have heard these same assurances from justice kavanaugh before and i think they aren't worth the words thas is printed. we should be very, very concerned. we should be concerned that the american public has lost confidence in the supreme court. but not because of the actions of anyone here or the suggestions here.

how about because of the actions of the united states senate and the actions of the supreme court itself. i reserve -- excuse me. i yield two minutes to my distinguished friend, the gentleman from texas, mr. allred. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. allred: i thank the gentleman. thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in support of one of the most fundamental rights imaginable in a free society. the right to bodily autonomy. the freedom to choose when and how to begin a family. . a wocman is required to carry t term the baby of the attacker, or go to new mexico, colorado, or anywhere they can get abortion services. and now some extremist republicans in texas want to prevent texans from leaving the state to obtain an abortion.

the same so-called conservatives that say big government, can't say -- want to say where they can go or threaten the employers that want to pay for travel. whaeks next -- what's next? will they place checkpoints, question a woman boarding the plane or train about the nature of their travel? does this sound like freedom to anyone? i will not stand for it. my colleagues and i will not stand for it. the ensuring access to abortion act ensures all american women have the right to travel within the united states, a right that we should not have to be affirming today. but one that we will. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. madam speaker, as has become all too common with the democratic majority, when the status quo doesn't lead to the outcome they

want, they simply change the rules to suit their needs. you need to only look at the last two years for evidence. fundamentally changing the way the house operates through the use of proxy voting, a complete lockdown of alternative ideas, fewer and fewer committees doing the work to make the law rather than score political points, all aimed at protecting their razor-thin majority at the expense of the institution and the nation. democrats' current obsession with the supreme court is no different. but instead of accepting the independence of the judiciary, the majority is instead intent on fixing the rules of the game to ensure their own victory. this amendment to the constitution would prevent that from happening and ensure once and for all the supreme court will be independent and free meddling based on the political ideas of the day. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the record along with extraneous material

immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. with that, i urge a no vote on the previous question and i yield three minutes to my very good friend, the distinguished member from north carolina -- excuse me -- north dakota, mr. armstrong. the speaker pro tempore: and the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. armstrong: thank you, madam speaker. the constitution grants congress the power over the size and composition of the judiciary. the judiciary act of 1789 and consequent laws established this structure. since 1869, the number of justices has been fixed at nine. congress has the authority to change that number. whether congress should exercise this authority is another question entirely, and whether congress should coexercise in a 50-50 senate and single majority in the house is another question. justice scalia wrote it should be no surprise that as the volume of law increases so do the am in of inprecise laws. fuzzy, leave the details to be sorted out by the court's

legislation is subtractive to the congressman that wants credit without dealing with the nitty gritty. the real problem is that congress doesn't want to deal with the nitty gritty. we want to fundraise off of top line messages and vague legislative text. we write ambiguous laws that leaves important details and major questions to unelected bureaucrats. the decision on those unelected bureaucrats inevitably are left to be sorted out by the courts. the court is merely doing its job when -- to say what the law is. our reaction should be to take back our article 1 authority and to clearly articulate congressional intent. if we write detailed laws, judges will properly implement congress' intent. instead, too many in this body seek to exploit congressional inaction, choosing to double down on fundraising pleas by bashing the courts and promising to pack onto the court to guarantee their preferred outcome. here's a better idea. if you can't pass the clean power plan through congress, don't ask the e.p.a. to

implement it. and then feign outrage when the court says, no, that's not how a democratic republic is supposed to work. james madison said congress would fight to the death to protect its article 1 authority. unfortunately, i think what we have seen is congress will fight to the death to maintain their membership in congress. and now, the one way in which far too many on the left want to exert our article 1 authority is to pack the courts so congress can continue to outsource legislating to the bureaucratic state and then ensure the court gives them the decision they would like. i urge everyone to defeat the previous question and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. morrelle: thank you. i don't want to -- and i appreciate the distinguished gentleman and his comments. i'd note just in passing that article 1 authority, given to us by the framers, actually gave us

the authority to identify the size of the supreme court. constitutional amendments are not article 1. they are an ex-tensive -- they are an extensive process. article 1 authority out of the one authority is congress making the decision on the size of the supreme court which has been changed many times to as few as six to as many as nine judges. having said that and making the point, let's talk about some of the real issues that need addressing and before us because the size of the supreme court is not before us, as interesting as that conversation might be. let's talk, instead, about issues that real americans face. while bravely serving our country, many veterans were exposed to hazards from burn pits, pfas and radiation, toxic exposures that caused cancers, infertility, respiratory conditions and unexplained chronic illnesses. as many as 3.5 million service members have been exposed to dangerous toxic fumes. the cost of war goes far beyond

the battlefield. we have a duty to uphold our promises to toxic exposed veterans by investing in the health care they need and so richly deserve. and their time of -- in their time of need, veterans should be receiving high-quality care. instead, they are burdened with proving the illness is connected to their service. i had the privilege of meeting with many, many veterans in my community and the families of veterans who have been lost because of exposure while they continue the work of having to prove their illness is the result of exposure to toxic chemical, to carcinogens, to burn fits. the hopping our act -- honoring our pact act is in this rule. you can bet i'm voting yes. that is one of the bills being discussed before us today. i think, you know, people watching us on television, people watching this later, seeing clips, would be curious as to why suddenly we're talking

about an issue not on the floor, not before us, but this is, honoring our pact act before us today. we can all do something to safeguard those members who have served in our armed forces and f their families by passing this rule and the underlying legis legislation. with that i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: thank you, madam speaker. i yield four minutes to my very good friend, distinguished member of the rules committee, dr. burgess from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. burgess: i thank the gentleman for yielding the time. madam speaker, before coming to congress, i practiced medicine for nearly 30 years. i had the privilege of delivering 3,000 babies. i dedicated my career as a physician to protecting the lives of children and families and running a pro-life practice in north texas. i've seen both sides of this argument, both as a doctor and a policymaker. indeed, the chairman of the

department of ob-gyn at parkland hospital, southwestern medical school, said those that are privileged to begin the practice of obstetrics were unique in medicine in that we were going to be charged with taking care of two patients with a combined life expectancy of over 100 years. and almost nowhere else in medicine do you have that ability to impact the future. back in 2002, i decided to run for congress because i saw lawmakers, particularly in congress, who've never experienced taking care of a patient discussing and setting the stage for how you're supposed to run a medical practice. today's no different. and it is deeply frustrating to see individuals discussing procedures with little understanding of how or why they are performed and how they affect the patients involved. both the mother and the baby.

throughout my time as an ob-gyn i've taken care of women with ectopic pregnancies. never hesitation. that does not change after a supreme court decision. i've taken care of women who unfortunately were suffering from miscarriages. that will not change after a supreme court decision. i have had cases where a woman had an abortion at another location and then presented to my hospital in a crisis because of complications. and without hesitation i would render care to those patients irrespective of any supreme court decision. many of those cases indeed were life threatening, but each and every time my responsibility was to step in and save a life and, again, that's done without hesitation. the supreme court decision changes none of that despite the heated rhetoric that we're hearing from the other side.

it seems like a simple answer, have an abortion, take care of a problem. back in 1973 when roe vs. wade was first decided, sew nothing raffy -- sonography was really just beginning. and in the time since then, it has really developed into a science, into an -- and onto itself. in fact, two generations of americans, since roe vs. wade was decided, have as their first picture in their baby book an ultrasound picture or maybe a videotape of themselves as unborn children. indeed, two generations of americans have no trouble assigning an agency to that pregnancy because they know from once they came. an abortion is a highly complex and deeply emotional decision. a decision affects, yes, the mother. no question it effects the baby,

effects other family members and yes, the provider as well. my belief in the right to lives that influenced my professional career for much longer than my time in congress. and i will remain committed to that. after a lifetime dedicated to pro-life work, there is no question it is just the right thing to do. you always err on the side of life. you always give life a chance. this rule also includes consideration of the national defense authorization act. yesterday in the rules committee, there were a lot of amendments submitted. there were a lot of amendmented debated on the floor. some submitted by democrats. republicans got very few of those. but i submitted an amendment to require reports to the congress -- mr. cole: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. burgess: i submitted amendments to require reports to congress on our military response in ukraine and the

chaotic withdraw from afghanistan last august, something we cannot allow to be repeated. russia invaded ukraine in february. and yet, we have not had another briefing by the generals and state department as we did prior to that invasion. the situation is vastly different on the ground. we were given the understanding that it would not take long for russia to completely overrun ukraine. didn't anticipate the response of the ukrainian people. now we see a war of attrition evolving, but congress is not read into any of the administration's plans. and then finally, we've got to ensure that the chaotic withdraw from afghanistan fully investigated and understood what advice was the president rece receiving, from who did he receive it, and how do we prevent it from ever happening again. i thank the gentleman for yielding me additional time. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. morrelle: thank you, madam speaker. i appreciate the comments from

my distinguished colleague on the rules committee, d dr. burgess. what he points out in my mind reminds me how deeply personal this decision is for women. involving their body and their health care. but i'm also -- and i would certainly never question his credentials as a doctor or as a professional. but i've heard from a number of obstetricians and gynecologists who raise i think really important questions. for instance, in some states, the health of the mother is the only consideration given when it comes to an abortion or reproductive services. and some have raised the question, how long do you wait before you can make the judgment that that's the only determination that can be made? do you wait too long? do you actually jeopardize the health of the mother by waiting so long for fear of violating a state law that restricts the right of a woman to an abortion? question of miscarriages. many, many women have

miscarriages. and concerns have been expressed by their doctors. when we provide care after the fact or during a miscarriage, will there be questions raised whether or not that was actually an abortion instead of miscarriage? will we be jeopardizing our careers? will we be putting our professional license into question? i'm certainly no expert in them. they raise to me significant questions. and as many have pointed out, there will be abortions in the united states. there will be abortions in texas. there will be abortions in mississippi. there will be abortions in every state in this country. the question is, are they going to be safe? are women going to suffer? are there going to be deaths of women because they weren't given access to safe reproductive care that's ultimately, as i said, so deeply personal, so deeply involved in their autonomy, and those are the questions before us. they're deep-seeded questions, important questions, but

ultimately we side with the right of a woman to make the decision for herself. with that i reserve. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: i yield three minutes to my very good friend, a member of the house armed services committee, the gentlelady from oklahoma, mrs. bice. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. mrs. bice: thank you, madam speaker. i thank my friend and colleague for yielding. i rise in opposition to the combined rule. although i support the underlying ndaa. this year's ndaa makes targeted investments in our defense to protect from increasingly aggressive adversaries like china and russia. i was pleased to include a wide range of priorities for my home state of oklahoma and multiple amendments focused on supporting service members, strengthening our cybersecurity posture, and deterring our enemies.

many oklahomans were concerned when president biden announced his intent to divest half of the e-3awacs fleet. i worked on this issue for months and secured an amendment to slow the divestment and retain the training pipeline that will be needed as we transition to the new e-7. i was also proud to work with my colleague and friend, tom cole, to secure $30 million for the new b-21 depot main nant campus at tinker air force base. it also includes two bills i introduced, h.r. 7738, which would facilitate greater security clearance portability for departing service members, and h.res. 1143, which honors the u.s.s. oklahoma city for three decades of service. with that said, i am concerned that the combined rule has expleuded -- excluded many important amendments that deserve to be debated. this includes an amendment i offered to stop the department

of defense from recouping bonuses to service members based on their covid-19 vaccination status. i have heard about this issue from my constituents and this practice must be stopped. lastly, this combined rule provides for two abortion measures which i strongly oppose. i am deeply concerned that these measures would remove all pro-life protections at the federal and state level. constituents in my home state of oklahoma overwhelmingly support these protections. and as a former state legislature shall shall legislator myself, find this approach to be n acceptable. i urge my colleagues to reject the combined rule. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma yields. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. morelle: thank you, madam speaker. i want to talk about another important piece of this -- embodied in the rule.

and it's related to the question of alerts and the active shooter alert act. it's no secret our country is plagued by gun violence. this year alone the gun violence archive counted at least 323 mass shootings. it's hard to even process that. 323 mass shootings in the united states. we are just halfway through the year. on may 14, 10 black americans were targeted in a racially motivated mass shooting at a local topps grocery store 60 minutes from my home in buffalo, new york. 10 days later the deadliest shooting since sandy hook took place in uvalde, texas, where 19 kids and two teachers were gunned down at robb elementary school. just a week ago, on july 4, in highland park, illinois, seven people at a fourth of july parade were killed by a gunman during a mass shooting incident. hard to imagine so many of us were at parades and activities

just like that in our hometowns. seven people dead. i have made my position, others have made their position very clear on gun reform. the meaningful commonsense reform is an absolute necessity. i'm committed to fighting for the change that will provide real change and real -- save real lives. but in the meantime i think this demonstrates our willingness to find common ground on solutions. again the active shooter alert act is bipartisan. it's something we should all be able to get behind. i'm voting yes. i now reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: thank you, madam speaker. i would advise my friend i'm prepared to close if he is. thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i want to begin by thanking my friend for the time and frankly for the thoughtful and wide ranging debate. it's not a surprise that a rule that covers five very different pieces of legislation would provoke that kind of discussion.

i want to begin in the areas we agree. there are three areas in this bill that i will be voting for. most importantly, quite frankly, is the national defense authorization act. there's got to be some opposition to that. it was a give and take bill. i remind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle it actually came out of committee on a 57-1 vote. 57-1. that says a lot of wonderful things about the leadership of chairman smith and ranking member rogers on that committee. itit's ability after considering over 600, 700 amendments itself to find common ground and move forward. for my colleagues to vote no, that's fine. again there is always something in a bill this size you can find to disagree w i will remind my friends on this side of the aisle that every single republican in the committee voted for the bill. i think it's going to pass and pass quite easily. i also want to associate myself with my friend's support of the

toxic burn pit bill. it's a bill that i have some serious problems with and the manner in which it was funded and some of the procedures by which it moved. but it's a much better bill than we have seen before. it's a step in the right direction. and there is no question my friend is correct when he talks about our obligation as a congress to look after men and women who put their lives on the line for us, suffer egregious harm. i hope we can do better in foot teur. i hope we can revisit some of the financing measures here. it's important that it get done and pass. i look forward to working with my friend to do that. i agree with him on the amber alert bill as well. i'll be supporting. there are concerns on my side of the aisle about that i understand those concerns. but again i think this is a commonsense measure. on the area that i will not be able to join my friend on does deal with the fundamental

protection of human life. and the effort of this body to pass legislation that it knows will go nowhere in the senate. simply to make a point. we ought to be working to find common ground not dig down the divisions we have even more deeply. i will oppose the rule partly because i oppose some of the measures in the rule. also because i certainly would like the previous question to be considered. i thought my friend, both of my friend from north and south dakota made excellent points on the need to codify the number nine or at least have a discussion about that in this body. and obviously if we defeat the previous question we intend to do that. madam speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question. no on the rule. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma yields. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. morelle: thank you, madam speaker. i want to begin by thanking the

distinguished gentleman from oklahoma. we have the great privilege of serving together on the rules committee. we spend many hours together. and i almost always, almost always find myself in agreement with him. he is thoughtful. he is dedicated to this institution. committed to the important principles of our democracy and the constitution. and i consider it a privilege to be able to serve with him and learn from him and appreciate his thoughtfulness in this debate as well. i also want to thank my colleagues for their words of support of the rule before us today. a vote in favor of the rule today in my view says volumes about what we value. support for this rule shows we value our service members who put their lives on the line for this country each and every day. when they come home, we'll be here to take care of them. a yes vote shows we value our defense preparedness and assures our nation is ready to face the very real and serious global challenges threatening our security. it also demonstrates a willingness to do the bear minimum.

to address gun violence by ensuring our communities can effectively be able to alert people when an active shooter is in the area. last but certainly not least, a vote in favor tells women in this country that we value and respect them. we support their right to manage their own health care. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can attempt to misdirect and confuse the issues all they want, but the reality is we are presenting concrete proposals to address real issues facing our nation when it comes to national defense. i appreciate the bipartisan support for that, the n.d.a.a.a. gun reform, women's rights, support for veterans. i choose to be on the right side of history on these issues. i'm voting yes. madam speaker, i urge a yes vote on the rule and the previous question. i yield back the balance of my time. and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.

mr. cole: madam speaker, on tham oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: on that i request a recorded vote. the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-s of house resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of the resolution. there is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

s the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> thank you, madam speaker. as the member designated by ms. salazar of florida, i inform the house that ms. salazar will vote nay on the previous question.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by the following three members -- mr. brown of maryland, mr. bowman of new york, and ms. mccormack all vote yes on -- they will vote yes on 1224.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from south carolina seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. buddy carter from georgia, i inform the house that buddy carter will vote nay on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. bentz of oregon, i inform the house that mr. bentz will vote no on the previous question.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mrs. walorski of indiana, i inform the house that mrs. walorski will vote nay on the previous question.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. deutch of florida, i inform the house that mr. deutch will vote yea on ordering the previous question.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by michele stelle of california, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that congresswoman steele will vote no on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman

from louisiana seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by ms. williams and mr. richie torres, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. in a keepa williams -- ms. williams and mr. torres will vote yea on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition? >> thank you, madam speaker. as the member designated by mrs. vicky hartzler from missouri, i inform the house that mrs. hartzler will vote no on the previous question.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mrs. lawrence of michigan, mrs. trahan of massachusetts, mr. moulton of massachusetts i inform the house that these members will vote yes on ordering the previous question.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. fallon of texas, i inform the house that mr. fallon will vote nay on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by ms. porter and mre that these members will vote yea on ordering the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman

from north dakota seek recognition? mr. armstrong: madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. timmons from south carolina, i inform the house that mr. timmons will vote no on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by the following members, barragan, cardenas, spiers, kehele i inform the house that these members will vote yes on ordering the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. donald payne, mr. albio sires, mrs. ann kirkpatrick, mrn higgins i inform the house that these members will vote yes on ordering the previous question.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. wilson of south carolina i inform the house that mr. wilson will vote

nay on the previous question.

the speaker pro tempore: florida seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. soto of florida, i inform the house that he will vote yea on ordering the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new hampshire seek recognition? ms. kuster: madam speaker, as the member designated by ms. pingree, mr. pappas, ms. meng,

and ms. leger fernandez i inform the house that these members will vote yes on ordering the previous question.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. katko of new york, i inform the house that mr. katko will vote nay on the previous question.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> as the member designated by chairwoman eddie bernice johnson, i inform the house that she will vote yea on ordering the previous question.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. taylor of texas, i inform the house that mr. taylor will vote no on the previous question.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. ryan of ohio, mr. lieu of california, ms. moore of wisconsin, mr. doggett of texas,

mr. panetta of california, mr. cohen of tennessee and ms. newman of illinois, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on ordering the previous question.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition?

>> as the member designated by ms. williams and mr. torres, pursuant to house resolution 8, h. resees 6538, s.2373 sergeant first class -- promise to address -- defense authorization act, fiscal 2023, h.r. 8296, and h.r. 8297, ensuring access to abortion act of 2022 both vote yea.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 218 and the nays are 208. the previous question is ordered. the question is on the adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized.

>> request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section-s of house resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. the house will come to order. the house will come to order. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. hoyer: thank you very much. ladies and gentlemen of the house, this is going to be a very busy week. there are over 600 amendments made in order to the defense bill. clearly if we do what we just did and we do too often take three times the time allotted to vote, this took about 47 minute,

48 minutes to vote in the first vote, we will be here for a very, very long time. no one wants to shirk their duties but they do want to do their duties on time. so i want to make it clear to the house that i've asked the leadership, the speaker's office, to join with me in assuring that five-minute votes are five minute votes. my colleagues, invariably that announcement brings cheers. and invariably those cheering come after 10, 15, 20 minutes have elapsed on a five-minute vote. not all of us.

but some of us and many of us sometimes. in consideration of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, some of you are going to be angry because you're going to miss a five-minute vote. now, for those of you who are casting proxies, i ask you to cast them immediately upon the vote opening. so that we can process the proxies at the desk. ladies and gentlemen, yelling at one another doesn't help. try to bring some self-respect to this institution.

but each of us has to take the personal responsibility to do our job, which is to put our card in the voting machine, to put our proxies in, to move along. so i ask all of us to respect that because i am going to try to, to the extent humanly possible, to end votes at five minutes. and some of you are going to be upset, you're going to walk down the aisle -- i'll be glad to yield to my friend. mr. scalise: i appreciate -- mr. mccarthy: i appreciate the gentleman if we did eliminate proxies we could go to two minutes. now all due respect, the proxies were put in because of the pandemic. it was put in the pandemic. you no longer have that from any procedure here.

the proxies will take longer than five minutes. if we want to be able to -- the gentleman said yelling at one another doesn't help. mr. hoyer: ladies and gentlemen, i just admonished some people. this is a serious issue of how the house operates and how your time is respected. we have proxy, we're going to keep proxy we can debate that but the fact of the matter is, as long as we have proxies we'll have to take a consideration of proxies. but we don't have to simply waste time by people not showing up. proxy or not. that's my whole point. so we can respect one another's time, respect the work of this institution, respect the work of our committees. so i would urge, and i yield again to you, but i would urge us to respect one another, respect our time and respect the

constraints of voting within a time frame whether it's 15 minutes or five minutes. i yield again to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman, thank him for yielding and thank him for his comments. if we look in the chamber right now we have a large number of people here. not one person wearing a mask. we can get this job -- three, four. you can can be the to wear your mask and vote in person. and i don't see how you're going to do a five-minute vote with proxies. and i understand the lecturing you're giving to everybody but on this side of the aisle we'll be here, we'll vote and we'd gladly like to do it the same way every other congress has done in the history, to be here and do the job like we expect the american people to do. we would think the proxies were gone. i yield back. mr. hoyer: let me conclude, madam speaker, by urging everybody to stay on the floor, because what we see happening many times is somebody votes,

they are registered, and then when you go to the next vote they are 10 minutes, 15 minutes late. that is not what we ought to be doing. we are going to hugh to the tims as closely as humanly possible within the constraints of our clerks who are working very, very hard to accommodate us. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the vote on adoption of house resolution 1224 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 86, house resolution 1224, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 7900 to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2023 for military activities of the department of defense and for military construction to provibe military personnel strength for

such fear and for other purposes. providing for consideration of the bill senate 3373, to improve the iraq and afghanistan service grant and child of fallen heroes grant. providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 8296, to protect a person's ability to determine whether to continue or end a pregnancy. and to protect a health care provider's ability to provide abortion services. providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 8297, to prohibit the interference under color of state law with the provision of interstate abortion services, and for other purposes. providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 6538, to create an active shooter alert communications network, answer for other purposes, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the adoption of the resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. soto of florida, i inform the house that he will vote aye on h.res. 1224. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. wilson of south carolina, i inform the house that mr. wilson will vote nay on the rule. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. deutch of florida, i inform the house that mr. deutch will vote aye on house resolution 1224. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from south carolina seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. buddy carter from georgia, i inform the house that mr. buddy carter will vote nay on the rule. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. donald payne, mr. albio sires, m miss a mrs. ann kirkpai inform the house that these members will vote yes on her-r.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition. >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. taylor of texas, i inform the house that mr. taylor will vote no on the rule. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new hampshire seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by ms. pingree, mr. pappas, ms. meng, and ms. leger fernandez i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.res. 1224. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by michelle steel of california, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that congresswoman steel will vote no on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. ryan, mr. lieu, ms. moore, mr. doggett, mr. panetta, mr. cohen, and ms. newman i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.res. 1224. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. katko of new york, i inform the house that mr. katko will vote nay on the

rule. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> madam speaker, for the following members, mr. brown of maryland, mr. bowman of new york, miss mccormack of florida. they vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north dakota seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. timmons from south carolina, i inform the house that mr. timmons will vote no on the rule. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by congress member barragan, congress member cardenas, congress member speier, and congress member kehele, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.res. 1224. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> thank you, madam speaker. as the member designated by ms. salazar of florida, i inform the house that ms. salazar will vote nay on the rule. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by ms. porter and mre

that these two members will vote yes on h.res. 1224. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition? >> thank you, madam speaker. as the member designated by mrs. hartzler of missouri, i inform the house that she will vote no on the rule. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. williams and mr. torres, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that they will both vote yes on h.res. 1224. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mrs. walorski from indiana, i inform the house that mrs. walorski will vote nay on the rule. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. bentz of oregon, i inform the house that mr. bentz will vote nay on the rule.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. fallon of texas, i inform the house that mr. fallon will vote nay on the rule. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> as the member designated by chairwoman johnson, i inform the house that this member will vote yea on the rule. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by trahan of massachusetts, mrs. lawrence of michigan i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.res. 1224.

the speaker pro tempore: the nays are 204. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, seek recognition? mr. nadler: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 1224, i call up h.r. 63538, the active shooter alert act of 2022, and ask for its immediate

consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clert will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 290, h.r. 6538, a bill to create an active shooter alert communications network, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: 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 asread. the bill as amended shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary or their respective designee. the gentleman from new york, mrn from ohio, mr. jordan, each will control 30 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on h.r.

6538. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: 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 shooter 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 a terror of a mass shooting. following buffalo and uvalde and so many others. in 2021 the f.b.i. designated 61 situations as active shooter incidents. more than 50% increase compared to 2020. nearly double the number such incidents just four 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 the 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. indised deed our colleagues overwhelmingly supported this legislation when we last voted on it. but the opposition after few members prevented it from garnering the 2/3 support it needed to pass under suspend 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 government to bert use our existing emergency alert system for active shooter situations. . coordinators also directed to establish best practices for using emergency alerts for act i have shooter incident, to promote adoption of those best practice and report to congress on the effectiveness of these

alerts. this bipartisan legislation endorsed by a broad range of federal, state and local law enforcement organizations. 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. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. jordan: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, we debated this exact bill three weeks ago and it failed with bipartisan opposition. that's 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, weather events and active shooter events. federal, state and local officials already use the

integrated public alert warning system to alert media platforms and sented alerts to devices. 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 the threat what is is this bill 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 joants said this -- 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's right, this bill is about democrat fear mongering 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 on the committee to consider another

bill to ban assault weapon, chairman nadler voiced his support. no wonder democrats want to create a culture of fear so they can achieve their ultimate goal. if they really wanted improve more than alerts for active shooters we'd be moving a bill to improf the system already in place that are sent to mobile device. in a recent report, g.a.o. said local alerting officials expressed concerns about the inability to target alerts with accuracy which made local officials reluctant to use the systems at all. one alerting authority sent the alert but the alert was received by people four miles outside of the intended area. another problem with the alerts is they are one-way, the alerting authority has no way of knowing if they've been received.

another authority sent an ehavinguation alert but tnt know if intended recipients reseed the notice. utilizing these alerts for active shooter incidences could have tragic consequences. this is another reason the legislation should not have been rushed to the floor. we could have had hear, received expert testimony, been able to fully vet this initiative. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i now yield five minutes to the gentleman from rhode island, a member of the judiciary committee, the sponsor of the bill, mr. cicilline. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentleman for yielding. 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. we introduced it 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 easer over and over again. we are past due in delivering to them. it's 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. you see what this -- we see what this looks like in our communities. this past april a shooter gunned down 10 people in the new york city subway and was on the run for 29 hours. on july 4, another shooter gunned down parade goers in illinois and evaded arrest for eight hours. those are just two examples of the most recent ones. this doesn't include shooters at large for hours and hours in midland and odessa in 2019, in 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've become numb to them and starting to view them as statistics. we cannot let this become normal. 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 people know there's a shooter out there. that's why law enforcement organizations from across the country are asking for this bill. enough is enough. we want to talk about supporting law enforcement? give them what they ask for. stop acting like your 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 smart phones, to let communities know if there's an active shooter in a certain area. in addition to the system, the

bill calls for 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 communities safe. this kind of technology and infrastructure and identifying best practice would be a massive undertaking for most departments and some communities and they 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 agecis to adopt. if they determine this isn't a good fit for their community, they don't have to use it. but for officers out there who do want it let's deliver it to them. we to give law enforcement every tool they need to neutralize threats and keep communities safe. this bill helps do that in a simple, effective way. it's not complicated. it adds a tool to the tool belt of law enforcement across the country, regardless of their

size or location, to be used voluntarily. there's an active shooter situation, law enforcement does all they can to keep people in the surrounding area safe, organize a search for shooters, closing the threat, shut down streets and buildings and provide first response to victims. they go door-to-door toe vac wait or tell people to shelter in place. that takes time. time that could cost lives. these stressful, life or death situation, law enforcement are too often relying on social media to warn people so no one accidently walk into the line of fire or a crime scene. law enforcement deserves better than twitter to community kay -- communicate with the community they serve. i'm proud this bill earned the endorsement of law enforcement agencies across the country, fraternal order of police, national sheriff's association, chiefs' association, national association of police officers and national association of district attorney, just to name a few. it's been resounding bipartisan support. i want to thank all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have supported this commonsense measure. i want to thank again my friend

and colleague, mr. upton, for working on this bill and encourage all of you to give law enforcement the tools they need to keep themselves and communities safe. do not listen to the nonsense about trying to take people's guns or give the biden justice department more power. it's about alerting people when there's a dangerous situation in their community to save people's lives. plain and simple. i thank think chairman for his leadership and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman is recognized. mr. jordan: i would add it has nothing to do with the biden justice department. it does,ive gives -- it gives $2 million to the biden justice department to do something the states could already do, the most political justice department we have ever seen. i yield three minutes to my friend and colleague from florida, mr. gaetz. mr. gaetz: maybe someone should have sent an active shooter alert to the police in uvalde. oh, wait, they had the alert.

they were in the this school 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. imagine you're 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 an accident. maybe 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. will you be note foifd active shootings within a mile? what is an active shoot her a drive by in an inner city?

a spousal murder in the suburbs? 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 roll. the bill states an active shooter is defined as an individual, quote, determined to pose an active, immeant threat to the people in a populated area. that sounds like a sizable am 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 alert goes out it may be far too late to do any good. this bill is useless and foolish. working on police response times is 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 cell phone with active shooter alerts 24 hours a day, seven days a week? it's because they want you to be afraid of the second amendment. it's because they want you to be afraid of responsible gun ownership. and they hope that if they program you and bombard you long enough, that you'll hate your own second amendment rights, or that you may tattle on your neighbor who is lawfully and rightfully exercising theirs. the american people should not fall for this. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the chair will now receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the nat to inform the house that the senate has agreed to s.con.res. 42, a concurrent resolution authorizing the use of the rotunda of the capitol for thursday, july 14, 2022, for the

lying in honor of the remains of hershel woodrow "woody" williams, the last surviving medal of honor recipient for acts performed in world war ii, in which concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, first of all let me say the fact that if to a theater across the street were on fire i'd like to know about it, fires spread. i yield three minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from texas, a member of the judiciary committee, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the chair very much and 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 that run into burning buildings, law enforcement, that

save persons who are under attack. the jut standing 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 d.o.j. will in fact be able in this active shooter legislation pinpoint where the active shooter may be. i have here a list of shooting that -- shootings that have gone on in uvalde and buffalo and boulder, colorado, and atlanta, and dayton and el paso, virginia

beach, the oaks, pittsburgh, parkland, sutherlin, las vegas, orlando, oregon, rosenberg, oak creek. i can assure you that the active shooter legislation would have been effective. individuals 45d gotten guns legally a-- had gotten guns legally alemmedly but no one told those people that a shooting was going on. in recent months and weeks and years we money the loss of life in active shooter situations. eight people were killed roughly 30 miles apart in three spas, no active shooter alert. if that had been so, someone could have been prepared that an active shooter that had a propensity to go into spas was killing people. and he ran around creating havoc. we know what happened in uvalde, texas.

we know what happened in uvalde, texas. not known what was happening at robb elementary. there might have been relief. so please, realize that we're here trying to save lives. and in saving lives, yes, we want a ban on the assault weapons. but we hope you would join us on a bipartisan bill that would notify people what is happening. t this is an important bill that would authorize the department of justice to coordinate an active shooter alert network. we are listening to those to ensure that the system works. amber alerts for those of us in disaster territory and storm territory works. so mr. speaker -- mr. nadler: i yield the gentlelady another 30 seconds. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much. i will not leave the floor for giving the names of uvalde. jose, xavier, tess, alejana,

annabel, jace, jay la, irma, alexander, and aletha and those of this great community of buffalo, robota, aaron shall -- row bertha, aaron, kathryn, pearl, ruth. and support the amber alert that makes the difference in an active shooter so that even though there are good guys out there you can tell the people to save their liefts for the -- lives for the little 2-year-old we'll hear about soon. i yield back. support the legislation. mr. nadler: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. jordan: mr. speaker, i yield four minutes to the gentleman and friend from texas, mr. roy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. reschenthaler: -- mr. roy: i thank the gentleman, the gentleman from ohio. i want to associate myself to

mr. gaetz's position about what this bill will do in terms of fear and its purpose of creating fear among the people. that's the reality. texas has an alert system. states have an alert system. that's where this properly resides. that's where the police power resides is in the states. in fact, the chairman of the judiciary committee acknowledged this reality. here is a federal program we're going to create with $2 million. you can use it if you want. this is another example of washington creating another government, another position, spending more money 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 phone to create fear in the minds of the american people? allow the states to make a decision something that's meritorious, whether it's a tornado alert, amber alert, but allow the local jurisdictions make the decisions, not bureaucrats in washington. that's the reality. i think it would probably be

more advantageous use of our time to have a congressional stupidity alert system or congressional harm alert system. we do it every single day. that's what this body is actually engaged in on a daily basis, harming the american people through either nonaction or action. matter we should have an alert about the rampant inflation because of of the rampant spending, 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 fentanyl pouring across in our communities, endangering the american people, empowering cartels at our peril. maybe we need an alert system for more covid mandates, mask mandates, shutdowns in our schools where the children get harmed and have mental health issues because of what this body does. maybe we need an alert system for the wokism and vaccine mandates at the department of

defense that's hurting our ability to recruit. we will be taking up the mr. nadler:. -- up the national defense authorization act. we can't recruit because of wokism 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's 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 where some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. we can have so many alert systems. we too actually be educating the american people what they're getting in this august body, the people's house. that would be more valuable alert system than carrying uout the function of the state and local police power that's inherent in our constitution which this body tramples upon on a regular and daily basis. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: madam speaker, i now yield three minutes to the

sponsor of the bill, one of the sponsors of the bill, the distinguished gentleman from michigan, mr. upton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. upton: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i saw the news that the north carolina little league state championship was canceled. that's right. why? an active shooter. saw the frantic video of a mom holding her hand-held video 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. walking distance from my home and 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 armor 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 alert -- 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, my district. next to the campus of western michigan university, a campus of some 20,000 students about midnight. no alert system was sent, and i believe that this legislation, had it been in place then, may have saved some of those folks that were killed that night. in the 1990's, 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 us, members of congress, we

had no such alert system. today we do. in fact, just this morning, we each received two notices of police activity on capitol hill just as we did a couple 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. 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 and maybe some of those folks that were killed or wounded wouldn't have happened? 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's way past time to do something. sadly, i know that the gun owners of america oppose this, but -- mr. nadler: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. mr. upton: sadly, i know 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. and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. jordan: reserves. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. jordan: thank you, madam speaker. i yield five minutes to the gentleman from kentucky and the co-chair of the second amendment caucus, thomas massie. mr. massie: i thank the gentleman from ohio. before i talk about the substance of this bill or the lack thereof, i'd 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? they passed a law to ban m magazines with the capacity of more than 15 rounds. the chairman of the rules committee claimed 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's an example of an unserious solution that's come from this body. what else have they done? they've changed the definition of a gun dealer. so that any law-abiding individual who sells a firearm to anybody and makes a profit of it now might be a gun dealer. and, therefore, prosecutable. and a federal crime. what else have they done that's unserious or unconstitutional? well, they passed a law to ban gun trafficking. the problem is that's already

illegal. but 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 who gives -- not the good samaritan, not just the good samaritan but also the domestic violence victim can be prosecuted as a gun trafficker under a bill 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'm going to call unconstitutional on arrival. it's already been ruled unconstitutional, if you d.c. vs. heller decision. the supreme court justices said, 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's exactly what one of their laws that came through this chamber in the past couple months does. it's the so-called safe storage act. it's already unconstitutional. but 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's got a firearm now has to have it locked up and unattainable, unaccessible in the amount of time 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. police officers who are going to be required to respond in predawn raids of people that haven't had due process, never had their day in court, haven't even reached a level of evidence that's sufficient. the red flag bill is bad. what else have they done? they passed a bill to deprive 18, 19, and 20-year-olds from

purchasing semi automatic rifles and semiautomatic shotguns. they're prohibited from buying a handgun. now we'll sweep in all those things. are they going to raise the draft age until 21? sam will -- uncle sam can send you overseas to fight for a constitution that doesn't even protect you or your wife who's at home taking care of the kids? if you're 18, 19, or 20 years old. they don't care. they don't care. this one is also unconstitutional on arrival, the ninth circumstances, one of the most liberal circuits in the country has already ruled that. and 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 will be shocked to find out 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, but it's an alarm to every american that's 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 aren we here debating this bill? this is the second time we voted on, debated it? they tried to suspend the rules of this body and get it through without following the rules of this house and they failed. so that's why we're here again, to give it the debate it deserves. so 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 on your own act of 2022. yeah, that's right. we're telling you -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. jordan: i yield the

gentleman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. massie: they're going to tell you you 're on your own. can you turn this thing off in chicago? how can 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 be called the active violence alert act. 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, is to scare people on their phones. they can't get away from their phones. it's going to be popping up saying be afraid, somebody's got a gun, and they are going to try to condition the american public to ask to repeal the second amendment either explicitly or implicitly here in this chamber. and i urge opposition to this bill and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. jordan: the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves, the gentleman from new york is recognized.

mr. nadler: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. schneider. mr. schneider: madam speaker, we're 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, 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's -- i saw america at its best. and 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 knowing where to go, not knowing what to do. they heard there was a shooter. was it one, was it two? could have been many? should they go home or should they go somewhere else? nobody knew. imagine if on their phones, they'd been told an active shooter at the corner of second and central. imagine if on their phones, they'd been told, go and seek safety in your home. for eight hours, people watched, people talked, rumors swirled. the entire community of 30,000 people was left to grieve, and to fear. that's what this bill is about.

that's why we're here. we're 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 f.b.i. last year, there were 61 active shooting incidents in the country. that was last year alone. and doubled -- 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 argue against this bill are not willing to stand up and defend our communities and keep our children safe from this kind of violence. they're not even willing to give our communities the information they need to seek safety on their own. we have to do -- to take action to stop these kill nlings our

communities but that's not what this bill is about. this bill is about getting people to to -- getting people the critical, potentially life-saving information in a quick and efficient way. in the event of a shooter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. schneider: that's what this bill is about, that's why i'm asking people to to vote for it. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. jordan: i yield three minutes to my friend, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. bishop. mr. bishop: this is the language that struck me when this 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, quote, imminent threat alerts include natural or human-made disasters, extreme weather, active shooters and other

threats 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. so that incident had nothing to do with what we're 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. illinois had 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've 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've said that all along. i'm going to continue to say it. it is not the prevalence of guns. because here, but for causation, ladies and gentlemen. we've always had guns. in ample supply across this country. always. but until the 1960's you never heard of a mass shooting and they've increased at a rapid rate in recent years. it's not the guns that have

changed. let's look at what may have changed. we've 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 gunplay, 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 created. the speaker pro tempore: the time has expired. mr. jordan: yield an additional minute. mr. bishop: we see it over and over and over again. accountability would require you to point to the success of your actions. you've engaged in mr. massie detailed this, bill after bill after bill after bill, slowly

eroding people's gun rights away. and 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 fear mongering that you believe to substitute for policy. it does not. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: i yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from texas, mr. green. the speaker pro tempore: mr. green is recognized. mr. green: thank you, 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 with not enough. and 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 people who lost lives. the loved ones of those who lost lives. in atlanta, georgia. 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. and you can't give too much notice. too much notice? well this shoot for the atlanta went to three different spas over a three-hour period. three different spas. i do believe this is an active shooter. killed eight people. eight people. three different spas. over a three-hour period. this is an active shooter.

didn't have too much notice. i believe that we have a duty, responsibility, an obligation to do all 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. and for edification purposes, since 1968, 1968, more individuals in the united states have died from gun violence than in battle during all the wars the country has since its inception. since 1968, more individuals in the united states have died from gun violence than in battle during all the wars since the country's inception. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. mr. green: too much is not enough. too much notice is not enough,

we don't have enough. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. jordan: i yield three minutes to himy friend, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gohmert: thank you. back in high school, i was a senior, pregame warmup, carthage, i had my hands under the center about to take a snap for a pass. the manager had my helmet. i'm 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's what this warning would be. it's in the going to stop violence. it's just going to say look we've got more violence. and let's talk about what it really is the truth is, these cities with the most violence in america, where there's -- and there's 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're not going to lower the crime rate. i've spent much of my adult life in courtrooms dealing with crime. i'm familiar with what causes it. what happens. my heart has gone out repeatedly to victims. but you've got to reduce crime. how can we do that? we have brought up repeatedly, in committee, over the years, 17 1/2 years i've been here, look, let's go to the heart of what's causing the crime. and i saw a recent report, fatherlessness definitely is affecting the crime. it definitely is affecting the violence. it's increasing the violence. we've 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're not doing enough damage because of that -- because as adam said this constitution was meant for a moral and religious people. it's 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, they like to go where there's nobody law-abiding that has a gun. and then 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's passed and the democrats have the majority, they've got

the white house, they've got the senate. if it passes, it's going to be in the big cities. they're not going to reduce their crime. so i would suggest, they're going to be going 24-7. at least get some nice music on there. so that maybe that will be soothing. maybe some good paul williams songs. because it's not going to stop crime. maybe some good music. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from ohio. reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: i mr. nadler: i yield three minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from south carolina, ms. mace. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mace: thank you, 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 emmanuel who were murdered in cold blood by a single killer.

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. and the video, the harrowing video of seeing young kids literally crawling off the baseball field in tears, parents frightened, scared to death about their children where this shooting had taken place next door. on memorial day in charleston, there were 13 shot, including three law enforcement officers. and 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 oou valida -- uvalde, and more recently in highland park. my father's last station was in fort sheraton. i went to school in highland

park. every weekend in chicago there's mass shootings every single weekend. and the beauty of h.r. 6538 is that i agree with both side of the aisle in what they're saying today. as someone who owns seven firearms, a rifle, shotguns and pistols, and this bill, the beauty of this bill, it's not requiring or demanding or mandating anything. it's 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. when i realize and understand there is a patchwork technology that some are aware of, some are not. what this bill does -- so, for example, one county in my state we have code red where residents can opt in. another has nothing. another can do a reverse 911.

there's nothing consistent. the beauty of this bill, 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 the section 4 when we have the advisory panel that's 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 putting together best practices so that the coordinator, as defined in section 3, can provide this information, encourage states and localities and municipalities what the best practices are and help provide that information to them and the tools they need so the next time -- it's not a matter of if but when the next mass shooting is they can if they want, if they choose to voluntarily alert those in their communities. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from new york

reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. jordan: madam speaker, we reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: madam speaker, we are prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. jordan: madam speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. biggs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. biggs: thank you. i appreciate that, madam speaker. i appreciate the gentleman yielding time to me. i oppose h.r. 6538. this bill is unnecessary. nothing prevents the state today from creating an active -- an alert system for an act of course shooter incident. every state has the capacity to implement a warning system if they choose to. in fact, in 2020, the g.a.o. said there are more than 1,400 systems already in place throughout the country to make this available. we passed here just four, five years ago the amber alert in indian country bill. that cleared up a lot of holes throughout the country on these

emergency alert systems. and so this really is duplicitous and 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 matter that's 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's my prognostication here because that's what always happens. d.o.j. can have best guidance. what is this? this is a bill designed to feel good. this is a visceral bill,

emotional bill. this is not a bill that's designed to make us safer, make americans safer. we already have those mechanisms and means in place. we've 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 have anything, provide any kind of help and assistance. there are bills that we introdeuced that will not get a -- introduced that will not get a hearing that i believe will provide help and safety for the americans -- for the american people. this bill, however, by creating this federal alert system -- and it's not a federal alert system, but it will evolve into that -- is to remind us always that gun violence exists all around us. it's to basically to prejudice people against lawful gun owners. one of the best things you can have, regardless what my colleagues across the aisle say, is a trained good guy with a

gun. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. jordan: we reserve. the speaker pro tempore: he's prepared to close. mr. jordan: we're waiting on one more. let me say this, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume while we're waiting. we have one more speaker who would like to weigh in. as been said, this bill's 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 attack law-abinding 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, they go to law enforcement or they go to a judge. there's a hearing. you're not allowed to be at the hearing. you're not allowed to have your lawyer at the hearing. you can get your property,

second amendment away. you have to at the tilgs -- petition the court to get it back. this bill gives money to the department of justice. giving more money to that, to the justice department, the most politicized justice department i've ever seen, over a dozen whistleblowers came to our office talking about concerns they have with the investigations that the f.b.i. and justice department is doing. the same department treating parents as domestic terrorists for voicing concerns about the curriculum that's being taught to their children. 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're giving money to that justice department? and 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 follow the -- to deal with the statute that's exactly on point. we're giving money to that justice department. for all those reasons, we have real concerns with this legislation and i would urge opposition to the bill. and with that we would yield back the balance of our time, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: madam speaker, there's 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 police foundation, the national this was association -- 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. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to house resolution 1224, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the clerk: a bill to create an active shooter acommunications network and -- shooter communications network and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. jordan: madam speaker, we would ask for a roll call. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. jordan: we'd ask for a roll call vote. the speaker pro tempore: does

the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays? pursuant to section 3-s of hugs 8, the -- house resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on the question are postponed. for what purpose does the

gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. takano: madam speaker, i -- pursuant to house resolution 1224, i call up the bill s. 3373, as amended, and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 3373, an act to improve the iraq and afghanistan service grant and the children of fallen heroes grant. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1224, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 117-56 is considered as adopted, and the bill, as amended, is considered as read. the bill, as amended, shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the veterans' affairs or their respective designees. the gentleman from california, mr. takano, and the gentleman from illinois, mr. bost, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. takano: madam speaker, i ask

unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on s. 3373, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. takano: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. takano: thank you, madam speaker. and i stand before this chamber in support of s. 3373, as amended, which is now the sergeant first class heath robinson honoring our promise to address comprehensive toxics act of 2022. this measure addresses a technical drafting error in the senate amendment to my pact act. as you know, the pact act passed the house with strong bipartisan support in march of this year. today, despite the current rankerous political debates taking across america, this

chamber has the chance to help the country heal after 20 years of war. we have an opportunity to make good on the promise we made to our service members when our country sent them into harm's way. that we would take care of them and pay for that care when they come home. for too long, veterans have faced an uphill battle to prove that the rare illnesses and cancers they were experiencing stemmed from their time in the military. for too long, congress and the department of veterans affairs have been slow to accept responsibility and cost of that care. and far too long, the united states has not made good on our promise to our veterans. but today, i make a plea for unity, that we may right this wrong and make good on our commitment to honor our pact with america's veterans. today, we can finally recognize toxic exposure as a cost of war.

in the past, we saw vietnam war veterans living with the effects of agent orange, fighting v.a. for the care and benefits that they were due. the blue water navy vietnam veterans act was signed into law in 2019, but it came nearly four decades too late. this bill could have been passed two years earlier when my friend, the then republican chairman, dr. phil roe, was leading this committee. but two senators, two senators held up that bill. . during that needless delay, many veterans succumbed to their illnesses and their families were not compensated. now is our chance to make amends for that. there's absolutely no reason for veterans and their survivors to fight v.a. for the care and benefits they earned through their service. never again should veterans be made to suffer the indignity of

fighting their own government. after blue water, i vowed that we would never again fail to live up to our promises to our veterans. that is why, at the beginning of the 117th congress, i made addressing the effects of toxic exposure my top priority as chairman. throughout our history, america has cast aside party affiliation on behalf of veterans, coming together to pass landmark legislation to properly recognize those who have served, such as in 1944 when congress passed the g.i. bill. the g.i. bill was transformational for a generation of veterans. by 1956, nearly eight million veterans had used the g.i. bill's education benefits and millions more still benefit from it today. we have an opportunity to make a generational impact today. the pact act will directly affect one out of every five veterans, or 3.5 million people.

it will also send a strong message to future generations of veterans that america will take care of them when their service ends. the way this country has dealt with toxic exposure has been piecemeal and inadequate. president biden recognizes this too. shortly after he was sworn in, i met with the president about our shared priorities for veterans. upon learning of my goal to pass comprehensive legislation to help toxic exposed veteran, the president leaned over to me and talked about his son beau, who served near burn pits in iraq and kosovo. it might be hard for most americans to imagine what a burn pit looks like because they are illegal in the united states. picture walking next to, and breathing fumes from a burning pit the size of a football

field. this pit contained everything from household trash, plastics, and human waste, to jet fuel and discarded equipment, burning day and night. beau biden lived near these burn pits and breathed the fumes that emanated from them. president biden believes that constant exposure to these burn pits and the toxic fumes they emitted led to beau's cancer and early death. it was during that meeting when i knew i had a partner in president biden. at the state of the union, president biden called on congress to pass bipartisan legislation to comprehensively address the effects of toxic exposure and improve the delivery of benefits for toxic exposed veterans. i cannot thank him enough for throwing his support behind this effort and placing those who served our country at the center of his unity agenda. to my colleagues who previously

voted no on the pact act in march, i want to ask you the same question i asked you then. are you willing to support our troops and honor our nation's promise to them? or are you -- will you allow naked partisanship to once again deny our veterans the care they deserve? just this congress alone, every single democrat in this body voted to make sure each day in uniform counts toward g.i. bill benefits. every single democrat voted to ensure a smooth transition from active duty to civilian life. and every single democrat voted to honor our pact with toxic exposed veterans. there is no question on where democrats stand on prioritizing america's veterans. we are backing up our thank yous with concrete action. frankly, all the bills that i mentioned should have passed with unanimous support.

if the american people knew the context of these bills and knew the content of them, they would demand unanimous support from this chamber. but i want to take this moment now to recognize my republican colleagues in this chamber who put keeping our promise to veterans above partisanship. i want to thank the republican co-sponsors of this bill, representatives fitzpatrick and klein. further, i want to recognize the 34 republicans who in march showed their support for veterans by voting yes on final passage, including veterans affairs committee members general bergman and representative mace. i also recognize the commitment of representatives bilirakis and kinzinger who do not serve on the committee but demonstrated early leadership by supporting this legislation. and i'm also glad to see my colleague, ranking member bost, finally, finally stand in support of this bill today.

moreover in june, an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 84 senators voted in favor of the pact act in the senate. this proved the value of the cause and showed that it has momentum. so the trajectory of this effort is clear. here's also a very rare situation where there was a chance for redemption. for those of my republican colleagues who previously hesitated, sat on the sidelines or chose politics over veterans, you get a second chance to do the right thing there is no reason why this time this measure should not garner at least 400 votes in this chamber. and why is it that a republican leader and republican whip who aspire to be in the majority but do not show the fortitude to govern are continuing to oppose this bill and are asking you to do the same?

do not let them. do not let them stand in the way with unconventional argumented about budgetary constraints when the true cost of war, the human cost of war is abundantly clear. for example, as the house considers the defense authorization bill this week, a bill that authorizes 838.8 -- that authorizes $388.8 billion, spending which i believe could be justifiable, but i'm reminded of the stark reality of how this congress approaches federal spending. it has become a battle of the -- of defense spending versus everything else. that everything else includes veterans. schoolchildren. the elderly and our constituents. and i vigorously object to veterans being pitted against their fellow americans to fight for funding. do we really want to support veterans by limiting school lunches for children? do we support veterans by limiting health for seniors?

you can be damn sure our veterans didn't sign up to serve our country, watch their families make sacrifice or go to war far from home so members of the body could perpetuate a false choice that pits americans against one another. the right choice, the choice we're going to make today, is simple. recognize toxic exposure as a cost of war. period. using hypocritical arguments about fiscal responsibility as a reason to oppose this bill when the truth of the moral responsibility of caring for our veterans is made chris call clear is not consistent with american values. make no mistake. when our country goes to war, we don't nickel and dime the kocht -- the department of defense. we shouldn't try to pinch pennys when it comes to covering care for toxic-exposed veterans. we don't hear arguments about needing offsets when we are

asked, rightly, to have more body armor or protection from i.e.d.'s. we step up to the plate to provide our service members with w what they need to fight our wars. so why are members of the body arguing that we need to scrounge around to find money for veterans? it is time for congress to fully support toxic-exposed veterans as they fight rare cancers and illnesses as they return home. i must express dismay about the steps we must take because a single senator is preventing the senator from fixing the technical issue in this bill. this senator, having watched the bill pass the senate the first time with strong support, knowing the veterans' sacrifice behind it and the blood, sweat and tears shed by the veteran community to finally get this done, chose instead to object because he doesn't like the

funding mechanism in this bill. his position is the losing one. it was the losing one. and he has held up this bill for no other reason than sour grapes. and to what end is unclear when veterans suffer in the meantime. therefore, we members of the house must take this fruit to push forward and do what we know is right. the honoring our pact act would not have been possible if it were not for the veterans who selflessly shared their stories, pain and trauma, opening their fellow american's eyes to the reality of being exposed to toxic substances. through the this process i have met many toxic-exposed veterans whose courage continued long after they hung up their young form. i am forever humbled by the courage of dr. hendriks thomas, a marine who served near a burn pit in fallujah who fought the v.a. for three year three years,

to get the care she needed. sorry to say she passed away this spring but not before selflessly fighting for a comprehensive bill that would aid over 3.5 million veterans like her living with the effects of toxic exposure, a bill she herself would not benefit from. we also honor the valor of wesley black, heath robinson, jennifer kepner, and so many others who are no longer with us. this bill also would not have been possible without the support of over 40 veterans service organizations. each of these organizations understand that toxic exposed veterans are still in the heat of battle. i thank them for their impact and advocacy for honoring our pact act. for the honoring our pact act. i also want to thank my staff, who worked tirelessly to listen and engage with advocates and stake hold and who spent countless hours drafting and

redraffing this bill to get it right. i want to thank speaker pelosi for always being a tireless advocate for veterans along with majority leader hoyer. senator majority leader schumer also for his work with senators tester and moran and the senate veterans affairs committee to pass this bill. i want to also point out that jon stewart and john feel kept us accountable and most importantly to the families of veterans who lost their lives as a result of being exposed to toxic substances during their time in service, i want to thank you for your sacrifices. this legislative effort will help our veterans heal and offers hope the country can do the same. it sends a message to all americans that their government will not allow their grievances to go unaddressed. it act njs the -- acknowledges the suffering endured by vietnam war veterans and demonstrates to them that we have learned from our mistakes and that their struggle and their suffering was

not in vain. we are setting a new standard with the pact act. we are telling our veterans the burden of proof is not on you. because your sacrifice to our country this congress, and the american people, are give you the benefit of the doubt you have earned. let's pass this bill and ease the anxiety in the minds of veterans living with cancer or other illnesses or terminal diseases and let them know our families -- their families will be taken care of. i believe this is what the american people want and it's what everyone in 24 chamber should want. it's what our veterans deserve and it's the right thing to do. madam speaker, i encourage all my colleagues to honor their pact with veterans by voting yes on this bill. thank you, madam speaker, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. bost: i yield myself such time as i may consume.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bost: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in support of s. 3373 as amended, the sergeant first class heath robinson honoring our promise to address comprehensive toxics, or pact, act. when we were debating the house version of the pact act four months ago, i couldn't have said that. i'm glad that we can today. the bill is not perfect but expanding health care and benefits for veterans who are exposed to burn pits or other dangerous toxins while serving our country is the right thing to co. -- to do. i come from a long line of veterans. my grandfather, a marine. my father, army. my uncle, marine. i, marine. my son, marine. my grandson, marine. my granddaughter is enlisted this year in the united states

navy. i know exactly how high the stakes are. and what this country -- when we send this country's young men and women when they serve. i know exactly how high the stakes are when they come home. and i know exactly how often we have failed to meet them. with what they need. that's why i helped lead the charge to provide disability benefits to blue water vietnam veterans a few years ago. we were decades late giving those veterans we were decades late giving them the needs they need. d.o.d. estimates 3.5 million veterans have been exposed to dangerous toxins in iraq and afghanistan over the past 20 years. some of them are already sick

and suffering from health effects of that exposure. they need help and this bill will give it to them. this bill will also make sure that the v.a. can actually give it to them, unlike the earlier pact act that could not. i am grateful for the hard work of the senate committee and the veterans' affairs committee and john tester and ranking member jerry moran. they took a flawed house bill and made it better. there were several aspects of their work that make it today's vote on the pact act very different than the one prior. this is a better bill than the one the house passed in maefrp. -- march. it reflects bipartisan negotiations and input from v.a. who is ultimately responsible for putting this into practice. it incorporates the good work of

the v.a. is already doing to address toxic exposure, namely, the scientific framework that the v.a. has been using since last year to expand benefits to toxic exposed veterans. it removes certain provisions from the house bill that v.a. told us they could not and would not -- could not get done. it adds other provisions that would make v.a. work more transparently to veterans and taxpayers, more flexible and more scientifically sound. all of those things were missing from the prior house version. most importantly, the earlier version of the bill ignored the massive operation impacts this effort will have on v.a.'s health care and benefit systems. in contrast, this bill addresses this head-on. to ensure that the v.a. has a staff capacity it needs to

better serve toxic exposed veterans, this bill would authorize 31 v.a. medical facility leases, make it easier for congress to authorize additional v.a. medical facility leases going forward, something the committee has been trying to do for decades, make it easier for v.a. to recruit and retain the staff it needs to implement the bill and give v.a. resources to process claims faster using modern technology. these changes and additions are critical to the bill's success and they give me confidence to vote for this bill. now, without fearing that it would be impossible to implement or risk breaking the v.a. for veterans everywhere, those who are already receiving benefits. many of us are concerned about the c.b.o. score for this bill and the funding mechanism it contains. the total score from -- went

from $325 billion over 10 years in the prior version to $681 billion in this version. and i don't criticize my colleagues for being concerned about that. that is an increase of $356 billion. that number gives me a lot of pause. and anyone who's trying to serve these veterans should give them pause, too. because not only is it the veterans that will be paying, it's their children and grandchildren as well. but when i consider the strain on the rise of inflation that's already put in place in american families everywhere -- however, only about $285 billion of the score is truly new spending. the cost of expanding care and benefits for toxic exposed actually diseases about $40 billion -- decreases the amount by about $40 billion from the prior version of this bill to this one.

the rest of the score is a result of cost of war toxic exposure fund. the fund pays for expanding health care for veterans who experienced toxic exposure. that's reasonable. however, the fund is also budgetary -- is a budgetary plot by democrats to take existing health care cost that have nothing to do with toxic exposure and transfer them from discretionary to mandatory spending. that is causing c.b.o. to score by artificially high because almost $400 billion in cost that are already funded by current law are being scored against the bill. even worse, this plot would put even more government spending on autopilot and limit our ability to control and oversee it which is our right under the constitution. now, that's wrong.

now, some of my colleagues will vote against the bill because of that. and like i said before, i don't blame them. i'm not. i'm voting for it because as a republican leader of the v.a. committee and as a veteran, i know on balance that this is a good bill that will help millions of americans, service members, survivors, and military families. that is why i will be supporting it today. i've already thanked our senate colleagues for the work on it. i want to thank many members on both sides of the aisle who have introduced versions, various stand-alone bills, that make up the pact act, including chairman takano for his hard work and commitment to this issue. i want to thank our staff because they've worked to make sure this bill would come about but not only come about but it will be implemented. i want to recognize that many veteran service organizations who have held our feet to the fire every step of the way to get it done.

i know they will stay by our sides every day ahead to make sure v.a. does it right. i look forward to doing the work with them and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. takano: well, madam speaker, i certainly welcome the support of the ranking member on this bill. may i inquire to the time remaining for debate? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 14 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from illinois has 22 minutes. mr. takano: at this time, i'd like to yield two minutes to my good friend who is the chairwoman of the disability assistance and memorial affairs subcommittee, mrs. luria from virginia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. luria: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in strong support of the honoring our pact act. as we near final passage of this

historic and comprehensive legislation to address toxic exposure afflicting veterans across several generations, it's been a privilege to lay a ground work for this endeavor as chair of the disability assistance and memorial affairs subcommittee. many pieces of legislation that passed through our jurisdiction are on the way to being included in this package and becoming law. in particular, i'm honored to have introduced the act, a cornerstone of the pact bill that's best known for providing access to care for those veterans exposed to burn fits and many others who have struggled too long to receive care for health conditions caused by burn pits and other -- toxic exposure. this bill will see that 3.5 million veterans are eligible for priority 6 v.a. health care. it recognizes 23 new airborne hazard-related conditions as presumptively service-connected. when signed into law, i don't

think i would be wrong in saying this is possibly the largest increase in access to veterans' health care that any of us have seen in our lifetime. this legislation will assist many of our fellow service members and veterans who've suffered for too long. the pact act has been a long time in coming, but today, the house is prepared to send this essential veterans' assistance package back to the senate and ultimately to the president's desk. we are finally recognizing the true cost of war for all who deployed in defense of our nation. i thank chairman takano for his unwavering leadership through this process, as well as my fellow members on and off the committee for their important contributions to this historic legislation. lastly, i thank the veterans, the survivors, and the veteran service organizations, v.s.o.'s, who've made their voices heard. this is for you. i wholeheartedly urge my colleagues to vote yes on the honoring our pact act. thank you, madam speaker. and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. takano: i reserve, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from illinois. mr. bost: thank you, madam speaker. at this time i'd like to recognize the highest ranking officer that serves in congress today who has served with many of the men and women who will benefit from this bill today, general jack bergman from michigan, i'd like to yield him two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. bergman: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in strong support today of s. 3373, the sergeant first class heath robinson honoring our promise to address comprehensive toxics act of 2022. i'd also like to associate myself with the comments of our republican leader on veterans' affairs, mr. bost, who also happens to be a fellow marine, and he articulated very well the elements of where we were and where we are and where we're going. this is the latest version of what many of my colleagues know as the pact act, and it has only

improved since it passed last march. as a vietnam veteran myself and as the ranking member of the house veterans' subcommittee on health, i'm more familiar of the struggles faced by veterans, young and old, across our nation who have been exposed to toxic substances during their time in service. this legislation will finally establish a comprehensive framework for the v.a. to provide veterans and their survivors for generations to come with the toxic exposure-related care and benefits that they deserve. for example, this bill will instantly provide presefrptive benefits for veterans and survivors who are terminally ill, homeless, over the age of 85, experiencing extreme financial hardship, or able to show another urgent need. it would supercharge toxic exposure research, improve the way in which the v.a. interacts

with toxic exposed veterans and authorize 31 major medical facility leases. whether it's from burn pits or agent orange, toxic exposure is perhaps the most widespread and ur urgent issue facing our military community. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bipartisan solution based on what the veterans themselves have been telling us for a long time. it is time to act. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from illinois reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. takano: madam speaker, at this time i'd like to yield one minute to my good friend, who's the chair of the committee on -- subcommittee on technology modernization and on the veterans' affairs committee, the gentleman from indiana, mr. mrvan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mrvan: i rise in support of the final version of the honoring our pact act which will

uphold our obligation to ensure that veterans receive the world-class health care they deserve. as a member of congress and a member of the veterans' affairs committee, we have a responsibility to support all veterans when they return home from protecting our freedoms and defending our democracy. as i walk the parade routes of the fourth of july and visited the veteran service organization, it's not enough to say thank you for our service to our veterans. it's through our actions that provide proof we have our veterans' back and value their service. and ultimately, veterans living with toxic exposures must be the -- the veterans living with toxic exposures must not be denied the care and benefits they have earned. i encourage all my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure and, again, i thank chairman takano, all the members and all my colleagues on the house veterans' affairs committee for their leadership to finalize this critical legislation to have our veterans

back -- veterans' back. thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. thgentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. bost: thank you, madam speaker. at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to a gentleman who has served from the time of being in congress on the v.a. committee, representative roy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. roy: i thank the speaker. i thank the ranking member. as a member of the veterans' affairs committee and as someone who represents san antonio, a number of veterans, joint base san antonio, army futures command, i regret to rise in opposition to the legislation before us. i respect the enormous amount of work that's gone into it by the committee staff, by the ranking member, by the chairman, by the senate. obviously, it is an important issue and it's critical. i have many friends here, particularly veterans, who support the measure and i understand why. every single one of us wants to make sure we take care of this issue, and frankly, it's been way too long getting to it.

i agree with that completely. but unfortunately, i cannot support it because the bill spends about $285 billion that we don't have. we have to address the issue in this body of spending money we don't have. and the chairman said that, well, why don't you raise it on other issues? i did it. i raised it on a $2 million a few minutes ago -- million bill a few minutes ago. we need to make sure -- we are destroying the republic that these men and women sacrifice for. and we're destroying it in this chamber by our incompetence and by our irresponsible refusal to actually manage the affairs of this republic appropriately. . putting this bill own auto pilot of mandatory spending with $280

billion unpaid for, which we could pay for right now with existing covid funds, we could pay for right now with the elimb nailings of the salt deduction. we could pay for right now when any number of spending cuts and/or tax increases if we wanted to have that debate on the floor of the house. we are not doing that. we do a disservice to the veterans who are sick because of the burn pits. we do a disservice to the veterans who laid their lives object the line and died for this country. we do a disservice to the military that we say we support when we are not spending money that we actually have as opposed to printing money and borrowing money. putting it on auto pilot when 6 0e% is already on -- 60% is already on auto pilot? and then to have, we put in -- instead of the established scientific framework, we put 20 conditions in without scientific evidence which will cause a backlog. which the v.a. acknowledges

would cause a backlog. these are real concerns we ought to address. fundamentally you have to pay for that which we are spending. we are undermining the sacrifice of the very veterans that we say we are helping with this measure by not doing it fiscally responsible. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from illinois reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized mr. takano: madam speaker,--investigated. mr. takano: madam speaker, nothing could be more important or higher priority than to address the unaddressed grievances of our veterans. we are keeping our promise to our veterans and saying today that doing so as a cost of war. i now yield one minute to my good friend and member of the house veterans' affairs committee and an active member of the economic opportunity and subcommittee in oversight and investigation, the gentleman from maryland, mr. -- representative trone. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. trone: thank you. today i rise to urge my colleagues to pass the honoring our pact act to give our veterans the health care they earned. over 3.5 million veterans have exposed toxin, burn pits during deployment causing horrific health impacts. add insult to injury the disability benefit claims places the burden on our vets themselves. the jump through hoops, shameful problem, a shameful problem. one we are determined to fix. this legislation which includes my fast presumptions act will help cut the red tape, streamline procedures for veterans who earned it to access the health care benefits faster. our veterans served our country with honor. we have to honor their service. i urge my colleagues to honor our pact to this bill. i thank chairman takano for his leadership. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the gentleman from california. mr. takano: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. bost: at this time i would like to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from iowa who has actually served in the health situations in our military, a veteran herself. and very aware of the things that we are dealing with here. with that i yield three minutes to representative miller-meeks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from iowa is recognized. mrs. miller-meeks: thank you, madam speaker. thank you, ranking member bost. i rise in support of the sergeant first class heath robinson honoring our pact act. when the house first passed the pact act in march i spoke on the floor and urged my colleagues to find a bipartisan solution to give toxic exposed veterans the care and support that we as a country owe them. this bill is that bipartisan solution. and i'm proud to support it. as a 24-year military veteran i have seen firsthand the effects that toxic exposure has had on

3450eu fellow -- my fellow service members. in fact, my knowledge is so intimate that my husband, who is also a 30-year veteran, and i have a close friend, jay, who after his deployment to desert storm that very brief conflict in coming back to the united states came off of the plane and collapsed. developing a heart condition called cardiomy yop pa think which led this 30-year-old to have a heart transplant, nerocies of his hip, with a replacement of his hip, and soon untimely and young death. exposure to the substances can lead to severe life altering diseases. under the current system at the v.a. it can be costly, time conseuming, and some cases impossible for a disabled veteran to prove their condition is related to the toxins to which they were exposed during their service. the bill we are voting on today ensures this will no longer be

the case. under this framework toxic ex-posed veterans will receive the care and benefits they deserve and earned. this bill will assure v.a. will administer those benefits in a fair way. this new version of the pact act includes person reforms to build on the framework for toxic exposed veterans. it ensures the v.a. has the flexibility to respond and adapt to new scientific evidence on toxic substances. importantly, it also ensures that veterans who are most in need, those who are terminally ill, homeless, elderly, our experiencing financial hardship receive their benefits immediately so they do not have to wait any longer for our government to act. i urge all my colleagues to support the pact act. this bill is not perfect by any means. but we should not allow perfect to be the enemy of the good. make no mistake, this is a good bill for our nation's veterans. i am proud to support this bill and i am proud to stand with the men and women of our armed

forces. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from illinois. mr. bost: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. takano: madam speaker, at this time i would like to yield one minute to my good friend who serves on the disability assistance and memorial affairs subcommittee of the veterans' affairs committee the gentlewoman from michigan, ms. slotkin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. slotkin: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in support of the pact act and my bill contained within on burn pits. most of us here all know about agent orange anti-horrible effects it had on our veterans in vietnam. we also remember how long it took for congress and the v.a. to respond and make sure our veterans had the care and benefits they needed. the bill we will vote on today is landmark piece of legislation that will address the agent orange of the post 9/11 generation. burn pits. for anyone who doesn't already know, burn pits are used to dispose of waste on a military base, usually abroad, in a combat zone, with jet fuel used

to light the fuse. for years we have used these burn pits in places like iraq and afghanistan. i lived near one in iraq on three tours. but just as with agent orange we learned over the years the toxins our service members been exposed to have horrible consequences, strange cancer diagnoses, respiratory issues. they have a-- affected millions of veterans. as someone who lived near the burn pits with the c.i.a. for years veterans have walked into the local v.a. -- the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlewoman has required. mr. takano: i see another -- yield another 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman may continue. miss slot chloroquine forn for years our 9/11 veterans have walked into v.a. and been turned away. one of the most important things i worked on in my short 3 1/2 years is this bill. it is the biggest veterans health care bill we passed in decades. last week i visited our local

v.a. in lansing and they know it's coming. another 3.5 million veterans will have access to health care because of this bill. we do important things in this body. all the time. but i think fewer are more important than this one we are going to vote on today. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. i'm glad many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have switched their positions to now vote on this bill. thanks very much. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentlewoman from michigan yields back. the gentleman from california. reserves. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. bost: thank you, madam speaker. at this time i would like to yield three minutes to the ranking member of the tech modernization committee in the v.a., representative from montana, representative rosendale. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from montana is recognized. mr. rosendale: thank you, madam speaker. thank you, ranking member bost, for including me. the senate version of the pact act helps connect veterans exposed to burn pits or dangerous toxins in service to our country with the health care and benefits they have earned and were promised.

this legislation also codifies scientific framework that the v.a. is already using to provide benefits to toxic exposed veterans that reflects current practice and improves transparency. the previous house-based version, which i voted against, ignored the work the v.a. is already doing to improve services to toxic e exposed veterans. this bill improves and qualify -- codifies the program the v.a. established last year to extend compensation benefits to toxic exposed veterans. this bill also includes provisions to increase transparency, provide flexibility, and keep pace with scientific advancements for toxic expose sure. in addition, this slayings includes work force enhancements and other changes to ensure the v.a. can improve services to toxic exposed veterans without compromising care and benefits. the prior house version of the pact act failed to address the

operational impact on the v.a. of servicing the benefits of toxic exposed veterans which would have left veterans waiting in a backlog of 1.5 million claims. this new version includes provisions that address the operational impacts head-on. madam speaker, this legislation is not perfect. i do not support everything that's in this piece of legislation. but as the saying goes, we did-k not let the search for perfect be the enemy of the good. or in this case, what is right and necessary. our veterans have waited far too long to receive the help that they were promised. and it's far past time for congress to stop screwing around, breaking our own rules while americans' veterans suffer and literally die. since my time in congress began, i have been a strong advocate for montana veterans. and i have worked tirelessly in the house veterans' affairs committee to ensure that all

america's veterans are able to southeast quality care that they were promised -- to receive the quality care that they were promised and earned. we are willing to spend far too much money to engage in conflict and far too little to care for our warriors once they come home. i intend to vote for this legislation and i encourage my colleagues to do the same. madam speaker, thank you very much. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentleman from reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. takano: madam speaker, i welcome the support of the gentleman from montana. i'd like to yield one minute to my good friend and member of the house veterans' affairs committee where he is an active member of the disability assistance subcommittee, the gentleman from california, dr. ruiz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. ruiz: once again we stand at the precipice of making a monumental change in the lives of our service men and women and veterans. yet here we are voting on the

honoring our pact act for the third time because of a senate technical issue. enough is enough. our veterans do not have the time for tents -- technicalities. their lives are literally on the line. as the co-o founder of the -- co-founder of the bipartisan, bicameral burn pits caucus, i spent years fighting to make sure our veterans exposed get the care and benefits they need and deserve. my bill is the foundation that the honoring our pact act is built on. it removes the burden from the veterans to prove the 23 illnesses or conditions, including various cancers, that they are suffering from are due to their service near burn pits. i implore the house to pass this fix to the senate's blue slip error. i urge the senate to pass the honoring our pact act immediately. our veterans' lives are on the line.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. takano: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. bost: thank you, madam speaker. i would like at this time to recognize the gentleman from texas, a veteran himself, f-18 pilot, representative ellzey -fr two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ellzey: i come before the house of representatives to discuss the newest and best version of the pact act before us today. putting the needs of our veterans first is something we can agree on. on march third the house passed a version of the pact act that was unworkable and unafford afnlt at that time i joined my colleagues in calling for negotiations and refinements that would help the veterans and gain bipartisan support and i voted no on that original bill. but the bill that we have before us today is a result of those long and difficult negotiations. this version of the bill re-enforces why i posed it during the initial -- why i opposed it during the initial

passage. when we work together and put the needs of veterans above politics we get an effective bill that will save the lives of those who have given so much to us. it is not a perfect bill. there remains language including the costs and mandatory spending that are somewhat troubling. i am confident we will be vigilant about carrying out our oversight of the implementation of those provisions and spending associated with them. i also call on the moneys to be moved to mandatory spending be moved back to discretionary when we take back the majority. americans' veterans exposed to toxins during their voluntary military service in combat to preserve america's liberty and freedoms will finally receive the health care and benefits they need. . i support this legislation because it requires the v.a. to con contact every single veteran that filed a claim for benefits for toxic exposure that was denied allowing them to refile. this screens every veteran

receiving care. the words of babraham lincoln, o care for those who have borne the battle and his widow and his orphan. i urge my colleagues to support the amendments in this bill and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. takano: thank you, madam speaker. may i inquire as to the time remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has eight minutes. the gentleman from illinois has 10 minutes remaining. mr. takano: thank you, madam speaker. at this moment i'd yield one minute to my good friend and active member of the house veterans' affairs committee who serves on the economic subcommittee, congressman ruben gallego from arizona. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. gallego: madam speaker, i rise in support of honoring our pact act, overdue, desperately needed legislation providing care who was exposed to toxic

substances while serving this country. when i was in iraq, exposure to burn fits was an -- pits was an everyday constant in our life. too many veterans, my friends from company 325 and other marines are sick from that exposure with respiratory diseases, cancer and other chronic diseases that other young men should not be having right now. too many veterans live in fear that the next doctor's appointment will reveal an illness in addition to harming their health could drive them into bankruptcy because the v.a. refuses to care for them. i am one of those people that does have that fear. every day, we go without fighting for these veterans, a choice to let them down for those who have sacrificed most for our nation. we will not let them down today. i'm proud to vote for this bill on behalf of my fellow veterans and join my colleagues in doing so. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california

reserves. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. bost: thank you. at this time i yield one minute to my good friend from the state of michigan, representative meijer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. meier we are -- mr. meijer: we have to support those. i've seen the exposure to burn pits, both as a u.s. army soldier in iraq and those who served along others in the veterans' communities and have constituents today suffering from those ailments. in comprehensive, bipartisan package will expand v.a. coverage and to those 3.5 million toxic exposed veterans, provide v.a. additional resources to have better care for our veterans and establish a framework to have presumptions of connection so we don't go through this process time and again.

this bill i introduced with my colleague from michigan, congresswoman slotkin, the veteran burn pit recognition act was included in this final package. i encourage my colleagues to ensure swift passage. we can make good on the promises made to our nation's service members and veterans. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan yields back. mr. bost: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. takano: madam speaker, it's a great honor and privilege to yield one minute to the distinguished speaker of the house, nancy pelosi. as you know, she's been a tremendous supporter of veterans. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. the speaker: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i thank him for his leadership as chair of the veterans' affairs committee. and thank the bipartisan support that the bill is receiving here. madam speaker, i rise today in

strong support in the landmark honoring our pact act. pact stands for promise to address comprehensive toxics act. now named after sergeant first class heath robinson. and i'll talk about him in a moment. this bipartisan legislation honors our duty to deliver health care that millions of veterans need and that they have certainly earned. this is the second time the house has voted on this important bill and we are proud that after the senate passes this version we will finally send it to the president to be signed into law. for their relentless leadership on this legislation, let me salute chairman mark takano for his -- takano, for his ranking member as well, for making toxic exposure a top priority in this congress. thank you, congressman takano. congressman raul ruiz, whose experience as a physician and

formed presumption of exposure. and congresswoman elaine luria who authored a provision expanding health benefits to veterans exposed to burn pits. also included in this legislation, and i am so pleased by it, legislation by congressman matt cartwright, author of the camp lejeune justice act to have families or loved ones to seek damages or injuries from camp lejeune. we had the legislators from north carolina -- david price and others had been relentless in their pursuit of this legislation. families would come here and tell their stories of -- their loved one's service at camp lejeune where the water supply was causing health problems, serious health problems, not only for the service member, which would be horrible enough, but for their family members as

well. this is corrected in this legislation. very important improvement. from the deserts of iraq to the mountains of afghanistan, on the bases and military theaters around the world, a generation of courageous americans have donned the stars and stripes to protect our freedom. those heroes have put their lives on the line to fight the enemy. yet, tragically, many have confronted another deadly threat -- exposure to burn pits and toxics, which have taken a severe toll on their health. make no mistake, burn pit exposures are pervasive. 86% of iraq and afghanistan veterans report exposed to these toxic fumes. i won't go into what's in these pits. it's disgusting. they are deadly. the v.a. has seen a 60% increase

in cancer tied to toxic exposure in the last 20 years. when these veterans come home, they're forced into convoluted claims process, which saddles them with the burden of proof. and nearly 3/4 burn pit related claims are denied. think of the injustice of that. tr tragically, this problem is not new to this nation. many veterans of the vietnam war were forced to way for four long decades before their exposure to agent orange was recognized and they could claim benefits. and this was, of course, addressed with the blue water navy vietnam act that was passed in congress in 2019. some agent orange provisions are in the -- had been in subsequent ndaa legislation. i know this issue well. before i was in congress, i was

participating in sit-ins with hunger strikes for vietnam vets in the early 1980's. one time we were joined by dick gregory -- more than one time dick gregory who had experience in hunger strikes for civil rights reasons and he was instructing the veterans on how to hydrate, etc., so they could survive the hunger strikes, hopefully in time to make a difference. but it took decades. we cannot and will not let that happen to another generation. there are potentially up to 3.5 million veterans deployed after the attacks of september 11. 3.5 million deployed since september 11 who may have been exposed to toxic fumes and substances, and we must act now to save lives. the pact act is a comprehensive bill. others have discussed what it does that meets the challenge of

toxic exposures for our veterans in three ways. first, it expands access to v.a. health care to post-9/11 combat veterans exposed to toxics. second, it grants presumption of exposure for veterans with rare cancers and copd and other debilitating diseases. third, it creates a permanent streamline process to ensure future secretaries will review and approve new exposures swiftly. why do we have these burn pits? we keep saying here on the battlefield we leave no soldier behind. when we come home, we leave no veteran behind. yet, they come home with hidden injuries, whether they are psychological or exposures to a burn pit that the consequences of it do not show up for a

while. we have spent more than $6 trillion deploying -- recruiting, training, and deploying our service members overseas during the last 20 years. but let it be clear, it's only part of the price tag. when we send our troops into conflict, we have to understand that we're responsible for the consequences burn pits exposure -- consequences. burn pits exposure is one of them. toxic exposure is a cost of war and we must treat it as such. it's not a question of dollars. it's a matter of values. in all of congress' work for veterans, it impressive that veterans' groups, our veterans, their families, the v.s.o.'s are not only at the table, they are leading the way. and mr. takano has been a leader at that table for years. for years. and the overwhelming support of the v.s.o.'s, especially a group

now called burn pits 360 was absolutely crucial to crafting this bill, steering it through the legislative process, and securing its passage in the house today. and they also -- i quoted lincoln over and over again. lincoln said public sentiment is everything. with it you can accomplish almost anything. without it, practically nothing. well, our veterans calls public sentiment to be such a point to getting it done and they enlisted jon stewart and john, two people that have been with us on the 9/11 health benefits for people exposed at the time of 9/11 and they have been real champions in the public visibility of this issue. yes, to help mobilize support for us to pass it, but to give hope to people who had been affected to know that there's a

chance that this can be accomplished. so thank you, jon stewart. thank you, john feel. at the same time, it's great pride and patriotism that the pact act has strong bipartisan support, backing worthy of our heroic veterans. the congress is also grateful to secretary mcdonagh of the v.a. and the entire administration for their support. i thank president biden for making this a priority in the state of the union address, especially when he talked about his beloved sun, beau. when we passed the pact act, this has been named in honor -- it has a new name for surge first class heath raurn who was -- robinson who was exposed to burn pits in kosovo and iraq and got a lung cancer. he died in 2020 at age 39

leaving behind his wife and daughter. today, in his memory re, we redouble our -- memory, we redouble our efforts to ensure that it will not happen again. his is representatives to other stories and the toll it is taken. we say the troops go on the battlefield, we leave no soldier behind. when they come home, we leave no veteran behind. the pact act is a historic pledge now and in the future. with that i urge a bipartisan vote on the honoring our pact act. i hope it will be almost unanimous. and we look forward to seeing it swiftly passed by the senate and signed into law by the president. again, with gratitude to mr. takano, i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. takano: madam speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california

reserves. the gentleman from illinois. mr. bost: thank you, madam speaker. at this time i would like to yield one minute to a gentleman who has served on this committee and has understood these issues for all of this time in congress, the gentleman from florida, the gentleman, representative bilirakis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. bilirakis: thank you very much, madam speaker. inspired by the story of my intent, lauren price, i first filed comprehensive burn pit legislation with my colleague, congressman ruiz, in 2018. lauren developed a terminal illness due to her exposure to burn pit toxins in iraq. despite her illness, she was passionate about making her brothers and sisters in arms, they would finally be able to access the medical care and benefits they have earned. . she worked tirelessly to help craft legislation and testified at multiple congressional hearings. since 2018 i have continued to work with my colleagues in the house and the senate to push

this critical issue forward. while lauren tragically passed before she was able to get help, today, finally, we will pass the pact act to make sure no other veterans have to go through what lauren went through. i yield back, mr. speaker. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back. the gentleman from illinois reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. takano: mr. speaker, i so welcome the support of the gentleman from florida. he got it right the first time. he voted yes the first time. i know he'll vote yes the second time. i'd like at this time to yield one minute to my good friend who serves on the education and labor committee and foreign affairs committee, the gentlewoman from minnesota, ms. omar. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. omar: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the honoring our pact act. i thank chairman takano for yielding and for his incredible

leadership on this bill. we ask young men and women to serve our country in uniform. we should not also ask -- be asking them to be exposing their bodies to toxins and live with the consequences of those toxins for the rest of their lives. whether it is agent orange in vietnam or burn pits or other toxin exposures in iraq, afghanistan this has been part of our military's history. this bill helps us correct historic injustices for veterans and communities like the ones in camp lejeune, north carolina. i am proud today we will pass the most comprehensive legislation in decades to address the severe health problems that so many of our veterans are facing and to make it easier for them to get the relief and the care they need. mr. speaker, thousands of my constituents will benefit from

what we are doing here today and it is my great honor to support this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from minnesota yields back. mr. takano: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. bost: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield a minute and a half to a gentleman who is very much in support of our veterans, the gentleman from georgia, mr. buddy carter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. carter: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, today i rise in support, in support of h.r. 3967, the honoring our pact act. however, i want to make sure that my colleagues across the aisle, mr. speaker, know how disappointed i am in these budget gimmicks that have become part of this final legislation. as many of you are aware, i have the honor and privilege of representing the first congressional district of georgia. we have every branch of the military in our district.

with every branch represented in my district i take pride in my ability to serve and aid our men and women in uniform. i promised them i would vote for this bill. i'm going to vote for this bill. i do so begrudgingly. the reason why is because i think it's despicable, mr. speaker, that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are using our veterans in order to gain the ability to use billions of dollars, almost $700 billion, on pet projects that he want to spend on. i think that's a slap in the face of our veterans. our veterans did not sacrifice, did not serve in order to corrupt our -- bankrupt our country. that's what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to do. they deserve this. they need it. no question about that. anyone who votes for it or against it agrees they need this. we'll make sure they get it. i want to make sure that the point is made that this is despicable to use a budget gimmick like this against our

veterans in order to be able to fund pet projects that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to fund. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from illinois. mr. bost: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: reserves. and the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. takano: mr. speaker, i welcome the even begrudging yes vote from the gentleman from georgia. i'll just say, there is no budget gimmick here. this vote is going to unite america and heal america. with that i want to yield one minute to my good friend who serves on the energy and commerce committee anti-natural resources committee, the gentlewoman from michigan, mrs. dingell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from michigan is recognized. mrs. dingell: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of the honoring our pact act. toxic exposure has devastating health consequences for our veterans, including many in my district. i talk to them every week when i

am home. one is michigan president of the v.f.w., kevin, who is a veteran of the u.s. air force who was stationed near open burn pits. and has been diagnosed with several severe illnesses after inhailing that toxic smoke. despite his sacrifices and dedication yet today, he faces challenges every day receiving care through the v.a. and that is simply unacceptable. with the passage and enactment of this legislation, we can lift the barriers that have been blocking veterans from accessing the life changing care they need. this bipartisan package will expand health care access to veterans across the country and it will finally ensure that veterans receive the support they deserve. i thank the chairman of the veterans' affairs committee for his leadership in advancing the pact act, the ranking member, and all the members of the veterans committee.

thank you. i yield back. mr. takano: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. bost: i yield one minute to the gentleman from ohio, representative davidson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. davidson: thank you. during deployments and war the military incinerated waste in large burn pits. many contained hazardous a materials that emitted toxic fumes. our veterans have long suffered there the practice, but the v.a. has not been able to adequately recognize the effects and provide care from those who suffer from such exposures. to be clear, this is not a benefit, it is a moral obligation to care for these veterans. it's not a great bill. congress has already squandered two decades trying to do the right thing here. when b.p. spilled oil and contaminated the gulf, their responsibility for cleanup was

not optional. why should america's government have less responsibility for the harm caused to our veterans? it's free to join our military, but some, for some service costs everything. others return with wounds that are seen and unseen. we must recognize the cost of war and the bill for our veterans harmed by toxic burn pits is long overdue. please, pass this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from illinois -- mr. bost: reserve. soipt the gentleman from california is recognized mr. at mr. takano: mr. speaker, i have no further speakers. i'm pleepped -- prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois. mr. bost: while i wholeheartedly support the intent of the pact act and intend to vote for it, i am opposed to the present--shall precedent the funding mechanism sets. later i will be offering a motion to commit that would prohibit creation of the cost of

war toxic exposure fund. democrats are using the fund to move almost $400 billion of existing v.a. health care spending from the discretionary to the mandatory side of the ledger for purposes completely unrelated to veterans. we should not use this bill to create more entitlement spending that's dangerous and a very dangerous budget ploy. it will put more spending on autopilot. it will limit our ability to do our job of oversight of the second largest bureaucracy in the world that serves millions of veterans and survivors. and it will hurt taxpayers who are already suffering everywhere from the gas pump to the grocery store. my motion to commit is simple and i hope my colleagues will support it. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the text -- to include the text of the amendment in the record immediately prior to the vote on

the motion to commit. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. bost: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. takano: mr. speaker, i'm delighted that the ranking member is offering his support for this bill. i accept that support, but i do not accept his objections. this bill -- yes, i do say that we are creating entitlements, but the entitlements we are creating are 3.5 million veterans eligible for health care. veterans that were exposed to toxic substances. we are conceding exposures with them. we are making it possible for them to not have to fight their government. yes, we are creating entitlements with our 23 presumptive illnesses. it's going to mean those veterans are entitled to benefits. their families will be entitled

to benefits. those veterans suffering from terminal illnesses are not going to have to worry about their families being without resources after they pass. mr. chairman, mr. speaker, i ask that all my colleagues join me in finally doing what is right in passing this very important piece of legislation s.3373 as amended. and i hope we get 400 votes. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. bost: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, 19 months ago when i took over as lead republican on the v.a. committee, i told my colleagues that helping toxic exposed veterans was my top priority. today i am proud to say that we are delivering on that promise. i was not -- it was not an easy road to get here.

but the pact act will make a difference for veterans, their families, and survivors. today i'm thinking of veterans like lauren price, heath robinson, kate hendricks thompson, veterans who raised their right-hand like i did. they did their duty. and they did it well. but unlike me, their lives were cut short. they were young, seemingly healthy adults, who had endured a different pattle -- battle on the state side. their lives were changed in an instant when they developed rare cancers in the blink of an eye. possibly due to their repeated exposure to burning chemicals while they served overseas. lauren left behind her husband, jim, and five children. heath left behind his wife and a young daughter. kate, left behind her husband and a young son. the bill we will vote on today

is in honor of them and the hundreds of thousands of veterans just like them. lauren, heath, and kate left us too soon. and would want us to do everything in our power to try to prevent what happened to them from happening to their fellow brothers and sisters in arms. the pact act will grant this -- their wish for generations. i will help over the -- i will help over three million veteranr three million veterans get the care and benefits they are due before it's too late. we have made this mistake in the past. we don't need to make it again. we need to move forward with this bill. and we will work in a bipartisan way to make sure that is exactly what happens once it's signed into law and implemented by the v.a. i encourage my colleagues to support the bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois yield back. all time for debate has expired.

pursuant to house resolution 1224, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended. the question is on third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: an act to improve the iraq and afghanistan service grant and the children of fallen heroes grant. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. bost: mr. speaker, i have a motion to commit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. bost of illinois moves to commit the bill, senate 3373, to the committee on veterans' affairs. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it and the motion is not agreed to. mr. bost: i request the yeas and

nays. pursuant to section 3-1-6r7b. further proceedings on this question are postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. takano: i send to the desk a concurrent resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the concurrent resolution. the clerk: concurrent resolution directing the secretary of the senate to make a correction in the bill. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to consideration of the concurrent resolution? without objection. concurrent resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition?

mr. takano: i ask unanimous consent to take from the speaker's table senate concurrent resolution 42 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the senate concurrent resolution. the speaker pro tempore: this is objection to the concurrent resolution? without objection, the concurrent resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. >> union calendar, h.r. 7900 a tbil to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2023 and for department of defense to prescribe personnel military strength pursuant to house resolution 1224 in lieu of a an amendment printed in the bill, the amendment consisting of the text of rules committee print is considered adopted and the bill as amended is considered read. the bill as amended shall be equally divided and by the committee of armed services. the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, the gentleman from alabama, mr. rogers, each will

control 30 minutes. mr.smith: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to stepped and revise their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection mr.smith: i yield myself four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr.smith: we have before us today the national defense authorizing act for fiscal year 2023. this has been passed for 6262 straight years. and i thank ranking member rogers and worked together in a bipartisan fashion to craft this bill in committee during a roughly 16 1/2 hour markup in which we entertained 1,000 amendments and a whole bunch of ideas and proposals to create this product and that legislative process is

enormously important and we continuity with 1200 amendments, 650 ruled in order. i'm told that is a new record for a piece of legislation, a record we weren't looking to set but it does reflect the parpg in this process of this entire body of an incredibly important piece of legislation and can't lose track of that fact. this is the bill that enables the congress to exercise oversight of the pentagon. we authorize $850 billion and usually somewhere rubbed a 3,000-page bill and important piece of legislation that gives us the power and ability to exercise that important oversight ability. we have done a lot of good work in this year's bill. the focus is obviously the men and women who serve and make sure they have the tools they need to do the jobs we asked them to do do.

we can have debate about what those jobs are be, the men and women who serve must have the tools and the support they need to do that job. this year, it has been particularly changing. given the rate of inflation and additional support to our servicemembers and families to deal with housing costs and bonus pay to deal with that inflation. we support the servicemen and women through our financial support and making sure their needs are met. and making sure the pentagon is sending the money wisely. i have argued freddie mac the amount of money is not as important but. we have put procurement reform to put the pentagon in a better

position to take advantage of innovative new technologies and competition to make sure we get a better product and we are beginning to see the fruits of that success and programs the b-21. they are on time and on budget and meeting their requirements which is and to a lot of the and i want in particular thank my staff and thank the rules committee staff. the rules committee staff had to sift through those 12000 amendments and give them the attention that are due. they did an amazing job working with our staff and thank my staff on the republican staff and bipartisan staff doing an outstanding. one of our staff members is not with us to be here and charma gave birth to her second child. she wishes she was here.

i congratulate her and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise in strong support of h.r. 7900fy2023 national defense authorization act. this ace truly bipartisan bill. i thank chairman smith and his cooperation in helping to fashion it. we have seen the best of our soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen and guardians and performed in the toughest environments. these men and women are the greatest force for good the world has ever seen providing the authorities and resources our war fighters need is the greatest responsibility we have in congress. we fulfill that responsibility with this ndaa and provide 4.6%

pay increase and expanding benefits for military spouses and families. to counter effects of inflation, our bill provides $2.4% to enlisted personnel and $500 million for housing allowancees to offset the skyrocketing represents and $650 million to reduce the food prices at our commissaries. this is ensuring our war fighters are the best equipped and trained in the world. reverse cuts in military construction and housing projects and expanding training vaicts and increasing facilities for our war fighters serve. to ensure our war fighters prevail we focus on modernization and legacy systems and investing in emerging

technologies that will help us stay ahead of our adversaries. this carves $6 billion by capable ships and other legacy systems. we use those savings to invest in emerging and a.i. and awe ton must systems. these investments are critical because china and russia are modernizing their militaries. china is outpacing with advancements in emerging technologies and weapons systems and we know china isn't building them purely for defense. we have seen china use its military to push out its borders and threaten our allies and gain footholds on new in the events. this is preparing our military to prevail. it makes critical investments capable of surviving in

contested environments and harden our supply chain and industrial base and reaffirms our support tore allies in the region, especially taiwan. and strengthens our european alliance. as these democracies face grave threats from the unhinged crackpot leading russia. threats from china and russia are not the only ones we face. we must continue to take the fight to terrorists anywhere any time they threaten us with. with strong investments, this bill enables our war fighters to do just that. this bill passed out of our committee 57-1 with all republicans voting for it. it is the definition of a bipartisan bill and enhance the congressional oversight of d.o.d. and ensure the military is resourced and equipped to

defend our nation and allies. i urge my colleagues to vote for this bill and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr.smith: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cooper and chairman of the subcommittee strategic forces. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. cooper: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in strong support of h.r. 7900 national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2023. chairman smith and ranking member rogers have put together an outstanding piece of legislation and thank mr. lamborn for his tremendous cooperation and all the members of the strategic forces subcommittee for their valuable contributions to the bill. this bill strengthens our national security at a time when our country is facing new and

evolving threats. this bill takes care of our soldiers, airmen, marines and guardians and the tools to protect our allies and partners as well as to deter our strategic competitors. strategic forces subcommittee has jurisdiction complex issues involved in our national security. at the top of our list is nuclear weapons. it is essential that american nuclear forces and command and control infrastructure remains safe, secure and reliable. this bill makes certain that the department of defense and energy are well positioned for the immense task of sustaining our legacy forces and capitalizing our nuclear enterprise for the next 70 years. this bill ensures that both departments are pursuing exercising deterrents and arms proliferation and arms control. we must remain focused on the

highest priority efforts and plans for future programs, plume pit production us a prime example for greater realism. the subcommittee focused on the ability of china and russia to degree grade our national satellites. this bill presses the department to release a strategy to defend our assets and requires the new space force to continue responsive space efforts and authorizes funds to do so and increases production. please support h.r. 790 0e. thank the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: i'd like to yield two minutes to the ranking member of the military personnel subcommittee, mr. gallagher of wisconsin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. gallagher: thank you. i thank the gentleman and i'm proud to join my colleagues in support of this defense bill.

the chairman and the ranking member mentioned some of the most important provisions in the bill, not only the overall top line number, which represents a $37 billion increase over president biden's request, but also a $4 -- 4.6% pay raise, a bonus for enlisted personnel to counteract the effects of inflation on low-income military families, the $500 million additional housing allowance to counteract the skyrocketing cost of rent on military families, as well as an additional $750 million to reduce the cost of food and other necessities for our service members. i think it's worth understanding why this is important. not only just in light of our overall duty to take care of our men and women in uniform at a critical time, but we also have a looming recruiting crisis on our hands. very concerned about the inability of any of the services to meet the recruiting goals and we are going to have to spend a lot of time thinking about that

problem and how we fix it before we proactively lower standards. because at the end of the day, notwithstanding any advance in technology, it all comes down to the men and women that volunteer and risk their lives to defend this country. it's about the war fighter. that is where we need to stay focused. it's also why i am proud that this bill includes many reforms to the professional military education process, with the intent of regaining our focus on war fighting so. that our war colleges -- fighting. so that our war colleges teach how to fight and win our nation's wars. this is a critical time for u.s. national security. our enemies are on the march and we are being asked to hold the line. and it's absolutely critical that congress stays focused on the defense of this country and does not allow the defense of

this country to be politicized in the way our issues have. which is why i so very much appreciate the work of the ranking member, of the chairman in setting that bipartisan tone and i'm very proud to support this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney, the chairman of the sea power and projection forces subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise in support of the 2023 national defense authorization act. this measure fulfills our duty to strengthen our national security and to serve those who serve us. that is particularly true of the efforts of the sea power and projection forces subcommittee which, pursuant to article 1, section 8 of the constitution, has responsibility to provide and maintain a navy. our subcommittee has a record $32.6 billion for ship building, authorizes procurement of 13 battle force ships and fully

funds the navy's number one priority, the columbia submarine program. it funds high-end war fighting capabilities, including three destroyers, two virginia class subs and two fast frying ats that will fill a critical need to conduct anti-submarine warfare. this bill also blocks the early termination of the l -- l.p.d. production lines and sets a statutory floor on amphibious war ships. the bill invests in our submarine industrial base to grow its work force in manufacturing supply chains across the country, which is critical to maintain production cadence. it fully funds the maritime and tanker security program and designates the maritime administration as the lead agency to design and construct up to 10 sea lift vessels built by american workers for use in the national defense reserve fleet. it also takes an important step to furthering the australia, u.k. and u.s. agreement. it authorizes entry of australian submariners into our naval nuclear programs to provide them with the experience

necessary to command their own nuclear power undersea fleet of the future. for aviation protection forces, it authorizes procurement of five additional tactical airlifters, two osprey tilt roders and two early warning air aircraft. it also -- aircraft. it also authorizes full funding for the b-21 rader and sets statutory floors for tanker fleets. mr. speaker, this bill, which passed out of our committee with strong bipartisan support, i want to particularly salute my ranking member, rob wittman, provides our nation with the capability to assure allies deter conflict and protect our homeland. i urge support for this bill. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield two minutes to the ranking member of the cyber subcommittee, mr. banks of indiana. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. banks: i thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership and thank the chairman for his commitment to bipartisan as well. i believe this ndaa is a true

testament of that. i rise today in support of h.r. 7900, the fiscal year 2023 ndaa. because our investments in modernization and innovation are more important than ever. our adversaries are focused on our defeat. on and off the battlefield. china is pouring money into research and development of emerging technologies, recruiting top scientists and stealing intellectual property to gain a tactical edge. this ndaa pushes the department to accelerate innovation and strengthen its cyber posture. both are critical to maintaining superiority in this era of great power competition. i'm proud of the work that my subcommittee along with the chairman of the subcommittee, chairman langevin, has accomplished throughout this bill. the cyber innovative technologies information systems subcommittee, our commitment to work together i believe is shown in the input that we have both worked across the aisle to include in this year's ndaa.

we included provisions to improve opportunities for early career scientists to work with darpa. this ndaa authorizes great work that the defense innovation unit is doing to field commercial technology, by doubling its funding. and it expands the critical work being done in biotechnology and batteries. we bolstered and strengthened the department's information security systems and gave cyber command the tools it needs to succeed. as the ranking member of the subcommittee, i support this bill fully and encourage my colleagues to do the same. with that, thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, the chairman of the readiness subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. speaker. and mr. chairman. this bill provides the necessary support and direction for our national security.

it also provides the necessary support for our service members, families and -- members' families and i'm particularly pleased with the subcommittee on readiness. a big thank you to ranking member waltz and lamborn for their partnership in this subcommittee and also to the staff and all the members of the subcommittee and particularly to janine who was the staff director on this effort. the readiness subcommittee's broad scope means that we cover everything from sustainment of weapon systems and facilities, including the safety of the men and women, military construction, climate change, energy and environmental policy. while the readiness-related provisions are ex tensive, i'd like to take a few minutes to highlight just a few. in line with the work over the last two years, we continue to address vulnerabilities in installations and energy resiliency. both in response to extreme weather events and to ensure the department can continue to accomplish its missions in the

event of power disruptions. this bill works also to mitigate the military's affect of climate change and supports clean energy innovation. some of which you heard about just a moment ago. we also continue to focus on sustaining and modernizing the organic industrial base. we cannot continue the readiness risks that the neglect of our ports, depots, shipyards and arsenal create. this is essential to ensuring that our state-of-the-art weapons systems can meet the challenges of competitors, not only the first day they arrive in the hands of the military, but in the days and years thereafter. the health and safety of our military and civilian personnel will continue to be a top priority. this means that we will continue to address the military housing, the pfas a.m.t. and mitigation -- contamination and mitigation aforethoughts, and safety --

efforts, and safety. i'm proud to represent two military bases and the men and women that work there. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i yield one minute to dr. jackson of texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. jackson: thank you to the gentleman for the time. mr. speaker, i rise in support of one of the most important bills that comes before congress, the ndaa. the ndaa includes important wins for all americans and for my district included. it provides support for service members and families at shepherd air force base while continuing to modernize the fleet of fighter trainer aircraft. it supports work done in amarillo, including accelerated funding to improve critical infrastructure at the plant. this legislation also includes resources needed to compete and win in any potential conflict. support for our allies like taiwan and israel. investments in future of vertical lift. increased funding to improve our fleet of v-22's. critical oversight of the

military health system. the reinstatement of the medical officer of the marine corps which reinforces our commitment to the absolute best medical care for our marines on the battlefield and it also provides protections for any service member who has reservations about taking the covid-19 vaccine. as we consider amendments, i hope this bill remains focused on national security and can be passed in good faith as we did almost unanimously in committee. thank you to ranking member rogers for his leadership on this year's ndaa and with that, mr. speaker, i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. norcross, the subcommittee chair for the tactical air and land subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. norcross: thank you for yielding, mr. chairman. this bill once again demonstrates the long and proud tradition of a bipartisan work by the tactical air and land force's subcommittee. our members have shared the great responsibility to keep america's land and air force the

best in the world. especially i want to recognize ranking member mrs. hartzler for her contributions to this bipartisan bill. many of us know that this will be her final defense authorization bill in this chamber. i want to thank her for her hard work, her efforts have made america stronger. mr. speaker, this bill supports the investment of resources necessary to equip and modernize our military, while continuing that necessary oversight to ensure responsible execution and accountability for the department of defense programs. the bill includes aggressive oversight of strike fighter aircraft programs, including the most expensive, the f-35. particular attention to and management of risk associated with the department's manned and unmanned i.s.r. system, continued oversight of the army and marine corps modernization strategies, and of particular important to me and mrs. hartzler is the bales support for resources required -- is the bill's support for resources

required to reduce risk to our defense industrial base. i'd like to express my strong support for the pro-worker provisions includedded in this bill that i champion -- included in this bill that i championed that would produce domestic manufacturing and guaranteed federal contractors $15 an hour minimum wage. and finally to the staff who have done a great job, both minority and majority. liz, kelly and certainly our clerk. and certainly my personal staff who have done a great job, katie, lucy and kevin. and i do want to take a moment to thank the ranking member and chairman for setting the tone for this great bill and i urge everybody to support this and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from alabama. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield one minute to another of our outstanding freshmen members, mr. carl of alabama. mr. carl: thank you, ranking member rogers.

i rise today in support of h.r. 7900. we've worked across the aisle on this bill and i take great pride in it. we have successfully fought back against the president's cut in our defense budget, obviously due to inflation. for example, it gets navy back on track to building a large enough fleet to counter threats like china, with 355 ships. this includes much-needed ships that will be built in mobile, alabama, and we're very proud of that. it also takes care of our service men and their families by giving a 4.6% pay raise to counter the biden inflation. i encourage my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to support the bill because it's critical for the defense of this country. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman reserves the balance of his time.

the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm now pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin, who chairs the cyber innovative technologies and information systems subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the subcommittee chairman is recognized for two minutes. mr. langevin: thank you for yielding. mr. speaker, i'm very proud of the work the cyber innovative technologies and information systems subcommittee has done on this legislation. it is our subcommittee's job to get cutting edge technologies into the hands of our war fighters as quickly as possible so that they never enter a fair fight. and i am certain now more than ever that we are putting the department on the right track when it comes to confronting emerging challenges with innovative solutions. this bill strengthens the ecosystem and more closely alliance the pentagon with the successes happening throughout the private industry. the bill also the bill prioritizes research efforts in hyper sonics, software, electronic warfare.

and makes robust investments in quantum applications and makes investments in our laboratories and testing