David Cicilline

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 1808, to include corrections in section numbers, punctuation, spelling, and cross-references, and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1808, the Assault Weapons Ban, legislation that will help reduce the gun massacres being committed in our communities by weapons of war. These military-style weapons were designed for the battlefield for maximum efficiency when a soldier is engaged in combat. And the military features banned by this bill are added to make these guns more accurate, more controllable, more concealable, and more deadly, enabling killers to murder as many people as possible as quickly as possible. These weapons have no place in our communities. They turn our streets, our schools, our grocery stores, our movie theaters, and hospitals into bloody battlefield scenes, and they kill our children, our friends, our neighbors, and the police officers trying to protect them. In 2016 and 2017 alone, more than two dozen officers were slain in the line of duty by an assault weapon. One in five officers is killed in the line of duty by these weapons, which is why the Major City Police Chiefs Association endorses this legislation. Yet for nearly 18 years, we failed to take action to stop them from flooding into our communities and being used time and time and time again in mass shootings. It is unconscionable that anyone can walk into a store and legally purchase a weapon capable of inflicting the carnage we have seen in Highland Park, in Buffalo, in Uvalde, in Atlanta, in Sutherland Springs, in Las Vegas, in Orlando, in Parkland, and the list goes on and on. Today, the House is finally taking a long overdue and necessary step to reinstitute a ban on these exceptionally dangerous weapons. We didn't just come up with this proposal out of thin air and propose it, the original assault weapons ban was in place from 1994 to 2004, and we have clear evidence that it was effective in reducing these killings. Compared with the decade before its adoption, the 1994 assault weapons ban was associated with a 25 percent drop in gun massacres and a 40 percent drop in fatalities. As soon as the ban expired, fatalities and shootings skyrocketed again. When an assault weapon is used during a mass shooting, six times as many people are shot. Today, I am imploring my colleagues to take action to get these weapons of war designed for maximum destruction of human life off our streets. Let me be clear: I respect the Second Amendment, but it is not without limits. Imagine if we clung to the desire to protect our children and our communities as tightly as some of my colleagues cling to their rifles. There are more guns than people in this country, more mass shootings than days in the year. This is a uniquely American problem. This bill won't stop all gun violence, but it will effectively decrease it. Because they were designed for military combat, these weapons don't just kill, they decimate. The shots fired can tear a softball-sized wound into a victim. We know how we can reduce the suffering. Researchers estimate if we still had a Federal assault weapons ban, we would see a 70 percent decline in mass shooting deaths. Let that sink in. If the ban had remained in effect, 70 percent of the families torn apart by these massacres would still have their loved ones. We can't bring back 70 percent of these victims to their families and friends, but we can work to prevent more carnage moving forward. Let me end by saying this: In my faith tradition, we were taught that whoever destroys a soul it is considered as if they destroyed an entire world; and whoever saves a life, it is considered as if they saved an entire world. Let's come together to save lives. Pass this bill.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, the outsourcing of American manufacturing jobs has not only resulted in job losses and lower wages at home, it is threatening America's standing as an economic superpower on the global stage. The CHIPS and Science Act is the bold action we need to maintain our global standing and provide a strong economic future for American families, small businesses, and workers. Critically, this legislation includes an estimated $1.8 billion for the National Science Foundation's Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, also known as EPSCoR, a critical program that funds cutting-edge scientific research in smaller States like Rhode Island with historically underfunded academic communities. Drawing on the talent, knowledge, and perspectives of academic institutions from every State, no matter how small, helps maintain our competitive edge in scientific advancement. With this and the other investments made in this legislation, we will boost our domestic manufacturing capabilities and supply chains, end our dangerous dependence on foreign manufacturers, advance U.S. scientific research, lower costs for American consumers, and create 100,000 new, good-paying jobs. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, today's vote is about love. The love that couples have for each other and the government's role in respecting that love regardless of their sex or race. Same-sex couples and interracial couples get married for the same reason others get married: to make a lifelong commitment to the person they love. Yet, for too long, our government has rejected that love. They told these couples they were less than--that their marriages weren't valid; that they didn't deserve the affirmation or protections that come with legal recognition. The Supreme Court made clear in Loving, Windsor, and Obergefell that this rejection of interracial and same-sex couples and their commitment to one another was unconstitutional. Today, we have the opportunity to send a clear message to worried couples that the Federal Government will continue to recognize same-sex and interracial marriages, no matter what the future holds. To Mr. Jordan's suggestion that this is not necessary--tell it to the millions of LGBTQ families that are worried about the Supreme Court's intention to rip away more freedoms. They have taken away the freedom to reproductive care. They have hinted at taking away contraception. Justice Thomas urged them to look at marriage equality. This is real for families. When you talk about inflation, all families are dealing with the cost of fuel and food, but we don't have to layer on top of that another fear about the sanctity of your marriage. This is about a fundamental fairness in our system, ensuring that people can marry the person they love. If it is not necessary, then vote for it. If you are right that we are worried and we shouldn't be, reaffirm it. But don't hide behind that to justify your refusal to vote for marriage equality in this country, that every single American has the right to marry the person they love.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of my amendment, which clarifies that the statutory rights of servicemembers and their families under the Servicemember Civil Relief Act, or SCRA (SICK-RUH), cannot be waived through forced arbitration unless arbitration is agreed to by both parties after a dispute arises. American servicemembers, veterans, and their families have sacrificed much in service to our country. They have fought to protect the fundamental idea that we are a nation of laws and institutions that guarantee the rights and prosperity of every American. Since the Second World War, Congress has created many laws, including SCRA, to expand and strengthen rights and protections for service members, veterans, and their families. These laws are essential protections that guarantee every veteran and active-duty service member--including Reservists and the National Guard--the right to be free from workplace discrimination because of their military service and the right to their day in court. We are a stronger nation because of these rights. But for too long, forced arbitration has eroded them by funneling service members' claims under the law into a private system set up by corporations. Buried deep within the fine print of everyday contracts, forced arbitration clauses strip our brave men and women in uniform--as well as their family members--of their right to their their day in court to hold corporations accountable for breaking the law. SCRA prevents landlords from enacting eviction proceedings, mortgage holders from foreclosing on a home, and lenders from repossessing a vehicle while a member of our armed forces is on active duty. However, forced arbitration clauses embedded in leases, mortgages, and titles prevent accountability for bad actors who take advantage of our servicemembers while they protect our country. Charles Beard is just one or our nation's servicemen who was stripped of his rights because of forced arbitration. While Mr. Beard, a former Sergeant in the Army National Guard, was on tour in Iraq, the bank repossessed his family car in clear violation of SCRA. It was the only vehicle his wife and five children could rely on. When he attempted to hold the bank accountable for violating the law, they forced his claim into arbitration, citing a clause in Mr. Beard's contract that he was required to sign to purchase the car. This clause--which he was not able to negotiate--waived his constitutional right to a jury trial. Mr. Beard tells his story better than I could. I quote him here: ``The bank didn't care that they violated the law. When I returned home, I found a lawyer, Sergei who filed a class action against Santander on behalf of myself and the hundreds of other servicemembers who also had their vehicles illegally repossessed. We tried to hold Santander publicly accountable, however, we were kicked out of court due to a forced arbitration agreement. Instead, I was forced into an arbitration hearing individually and over the phone while I was in the hospital after being wounded in Afghanistan. . . . There are reasons why servicemembers are given these protections. The last thing we need on top of the immense pressure we are already under while deployed is to worry about the wellbeing of our family and our finances back home.'' This private system does not have the same procedural safeguards of our justice system. It is not subject to oversight, it does not have strong evidentiary standards, it does not have a judge or jury, it is not bound by laws passed by Congress or the states, and it is cloaked in secrecy. These clauses allow companies to choose their arbiter and venue while denying service members any right to appeal. This is nothing short of a corporate takeover of our nation's system of laws, and the American people have had enough. The overwhelming majority of voters--including 83 percent of Democrats and 87 percent of Republicans--support ending forced arbitration. It is time to act. My bipartisan amendment would end this shameful practice by clarifying that arbitration clauses are only enforceable if agreed to by servicemembers or their families if all parties agree to go to arbitration after a dispute arises, thereby protecting their rights under the Servicemember Civil Relief Act. Earlier this year, we enacted the ``Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act,'' which ensures that millions of people who have suffered and survived sexual misconduct will have the opportunity to bring their case to court, not shuffled off into secret, forced arbitration. We have protected survivors of sexual harassment and assault from forced arbitration. Now it is time to extend those same protections to the brave men and women in uniform who defend our country and make sure their rights that they fight to protect are enforceable in court. I thank my colleagues, Congressmen Guy Reschenthaler, Jared Golden, Anthony Brown, and Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Mark Takano for their continued support for this important, bipartisan amendment. This provision was incorporated into the NDAA in fiscal years 2020, 2021, and 2022, and I urge my colleagues to again support this amendment and protect American servicemembers.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this bill that I introduced with my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the bipartisan Active Shooter Alert Act that we introduced along with 14 Democrats and 14 Republicans--fully bipartisan. This bill is a commonsense piece of public safety legislation that police have asked for over and over and over again and that we are past due in delivering to them. It is so clear that they need it. Between 2000 and 2020 there were close to 400 active shooter events with 40 active shooter incidents in 2020 alone. Last year we saw 61 active shooter events. We see what this looks like in our communities. This past April a shooter gunned down 10 people in a New York City subway and then was on the run for 29 hours. On July 4 another shooter gunned down parade goers in Highland Park, Illinois, and evaded arrest for 8 hours. Those are just two examples of the most recent ones. This doesn't even include the shooters who were at large for hours and hours in Midland and Odessa in 2019 and the Atlanta, Georgia, area in 2021; Kalamazoo, Michigan, in 2016; and in too many other life-and- death situations for our communities. Active shooter emergencies have become so common that we barely even register them anymore. We have become numb to them and starting to view them as statistics. We cannot let this become normal. And law enforcement can't and won't get used to these horrific incidents because police are the ones who have to respond to every single shooting. We left them to turn to platforms like Twitter and Facebook to let the public know there is a shooter out there. That is why law enforcement organizations from all across the country are asking for this bill. Enough is enough. We want to talk about supporting our law enforcement? Give them what they ask for. Stop acting like you are experts about responding to active shooting. They are. They risk their lives every day doing it. This bill creates and makes available to local law enforcement an AMBER Alert-like program for active shooter events. It will provide departments with cutting-edge technology to send notifications to our smartphones and let communities know if there is an active shooter in a certain area. In addition to this system, the bill calls for the development of best practices so that departments know how to send alerts in the most effective and safest way possible. We already have this type of alert infrastructure available at the Federal level. Let's maximize its potential to save lives and give officers the tools they need to keep their communities safe. Developing this kind of technology and infrastructure and identifying best practices would be a massive undertaking for many local departments and for some communities. They simply don't have the resources to do it on their own. And nothing--let me repeat--nothing in this bill is mandatory for law enforcement agencies to adopt. So if a local department determines that this program isn't a good fit for their community, they simply don't have to use it. But for the officers out there who do want it, let's deliver to them. We have to give law enforcement every tool they need to neutralize these threats and keep our communities safe. This bill helps do that in a simple and effective way. It is not complicated. It simply adds a tool to the tool belt of law enforcement all across the country regardless of their size or location to be used voluntarily. When there is an active shooter situation, law enforcement does all they can to keep people in the surrounding area safe. They organize to search for shooters posing the threat, they shut down streets and buildings and provide first response to victims, and they go door to door to either evacuate or tell people to shelter in place. But that takes time--time that could cost lives. In these stressful life-or-death situations, law enforcement are too often relying on social media to warn people so that no one accidentally walks into the line of fire or a crime scene. Law enforcement deserves better than Twitter to communicate with the community they serve. I am proud this bill has the endorsement of law enforcement agencies all across the country, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Police Foundation, the National Sheriffs' Association, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the National Association of Police Officers, and the National Association of District Attorneys, just to name a few. There has been resounding bipartisan support. I thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have supported this commonsense measure. I thank, again, my friend and colleague, Mr. Upton, for working on this bill. I encourage all of you to give law enforcement the tools they need to keep themselves and communities safe. Do not listen to this nonsense about trying to take peoples' guns or give the Biden Justice Department money. It has nothing to do with that. It is about alerting people when there is a dangerous active shooting happening in their community so we can save peoples' lives. It is plain and simple. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairwoman for yielding. I rise in strong support of the LGBTQI+ Data Inclusion Act. I will say it is troubling for me to hear of the ongoing effort by our Republican colleagues to cancel the LGBT community. Efforts are underway to be sure that you are not allowed to speak about members of the LGBTQ community, the ``Don't Say Gay'' laws that are percolating in State legislatures and that have been passed in some; efforts underway to ban books that include depictions of members of our community; and now, today, an effort to oppose collection of data so you can pretend we don't exist. We are not going to tolerate that because LGBTQ+ members have existed in this country for a very long time, and for far too long, Federal surveys have failed to collect critical data on our community. But we know even with the limited data that we have that the LGBTQ community is facing many, many great challenges. LGBTQI+ people face higher rates of unemployment, poverty, and housing insecurity and have worse physical and mental health outcomes than their peers. That is a fact. These adverse experiences are not just a consequence of who they are, but they are a consequence of the way the LGBTQI+ community is treated in our country and in society. They are disparities that are a result of a society where discrimination, rejection, harassment, even bullying of LGBTQI+ people is still common. They are the result not of our identities, but of how society treats members of our community. Unfortunately, we are in particularly perilous times for our community because in the last year alone, State legislatures have enacted more than two dozen anti-LGBTQI+ laws. Is it any surprise that our community still has so many obstacles to overcome? While we know of some of these obstacles, we lack clear, comprehensive Federal data on our community and our experiences. The LGBTQI+ Data Inclusion Act will change that. Good policy comes from good data. If we are going to better serve the LGBTQI+ community, we need to be represented in Federal studies and surveys so that we can better tailor policy solutions and address the most pressing issues facing LGBTQI+ Americans. As States move to codify discrimination into law, it is even more critical than ever that the Federal Government collect this data on our experiences so that we will have better data to be able to develop better tools to tackle the many obstacles that face our community. You know, the whole purpose of this is a recognition that particularly for LGBTQ+ youth, which seems to be the real target of this effort to cancel, this cancel culture, that they deserve to be treated with respect and kindness and empathy like every other kid. It is imperative that we collect data so that young people can understand that they matter, and that when we think about mental health strains and housing instability and more, that we are going to develop solutions that address their issues. This legislation is about making us better as a country, more inclusive, making us better policymakers, while preserving the privacy of all people in the United States, including children. You know, some people in this Chamber want to deprive LGBTQ youth of the care and the resources they need to live healthy, authentic lives. They are making inaccurate claims about today's legislation for that reason. Let me remind you: The Trevor Project just released a report. Madam Speaker, 45 percent of LGBTQ youth seriously considered suicide in the past year. Almost half of these kids in the LGBTQ community seriously considered killing themselves. Madam Speaker, 25 percent of LGBTQ youth experience homelessness or housing insecurity. If you are an LGBTQ youth, you are four times as likely to attempt to kill yourself, and 43 percent of trans kids report being bullied in school. So these are real challenges. Nobody should be okay with that. We want to make sure, as so many leading medical organizations have already affirmed, the importance of providing safe, supportive environments for LGBTQI youth and young people to grow up. By ensuring that we have robust, exclusive data, today's legislation will help to ensure that our policies provide every family in this country and every LGBTQI+ young person access to the resources they need. We should all want that. You just can't cancel a group of folks because you don't like them. This is America. Every single person deserves to be counted, deserves to be respected, deserves to have access to their government, and the collection of data does a critical part of that work. I will end by thanking Chairman Grijalva for introducing this legislation, thanking Chairwoman Maloney for helping shepherd this bill to the floor and for her strong advocacy, and I urge my colleagues: Think about those statistics. Think about the young people who are being impacted when you vote, and vote ``yes.''

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her beautiful words and for her great support for the LGBTQ community. Madam Speaker, before I conclude tonight's Special Order hour, I want to make some final comments. We celebrate pride as a community and very often people think of pride celebrations as joyous public events with lots of people gathering. We just had a pride celebration in Providence last weekend. The estimates were that over 100,000 people attended. Part of the importance of pride is that it is a moment of great visibility for our community. For too long, members of the LGBTQ+ community were taught to be ashamed of who they are, to hide their true identity, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Pride was not only a time to celebrate the importance of our community but to be visible--to stop being invisible people but to be visible in the communities where we live and work. Over the years, we have had extraordinary leaders from our community in business, medicine, politics, the arts, education, and all areas of life. We have nine members of the LGBTQ community serving right here in the House and two in the United States Senate, examples of political leadership all across the country so that young people can see themselves in people who are accomplishing things in all areas of life--in the law, politics, medicine, and education. It is a time of celebration, but we have to acknowledge this year that we are facing great challenges as a community. Particularly young trans kids and nonbinary kids are living in States where the adults are putting forth legislation that will make them invisible, that will subject them to horrific discrimination, that will not recognize the humanity of those young people. It is a time of celebration. It is a time to take stock of all that we have done. But it is also a time for action to remind ourselves and the rest of the country that we demand to live in a country where we enjoy full legal protections and we can live our lives free from discrimination of any kind. The good news is, overwhelmingly, a vast majority of the American people support equality for LGBTQ people. They think discrimination is wrong. Equality is a founding value of this country. In every State in America, a majority of voters believe that discrimination against LGBTQ people is wrong because a cornerstone of who we are as Americas is that we know discrimination is wrong. It is only in the Republican Conference that we have to convince people that discrimination against the LGBTQ community is wrong. It is time for Congress and our Republican colleagues to catch up to the rest of the country that understands that when you deprive a member of the LGBTQ community of full equality, you not only hurt that individual but you hurt the whole community because the community is deprived of all that that person can accomplish and contribute. That is the real harm of discrimination. It is not just to the individual. It is to the whole community and to our whole country. Madam Speaker, as we mark Pride Month, we not only celebrate, but we also commit ourselves to make additional progress to continue in our fight for full equality. The LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus here in the House will continue to lead that fight in solidarity with all of our colleagues. I am proud to be part of a political party that fully supports LGBTQ equality. When we introduced the Equality Act, it was cosponsored by every single Democrat in the Caucus. Everyone wanted to be a partner in this fight for full equality, and that is what the American people expect. Madam Speaker, I say to the young people out there who may be struggling with their own sexual orientation, their own gender identity, feeling alone, feeling like they don't belong, feeling like they are not valued: I am standing on the floor of the House of Representatives as the chair of the Equality Caucus to tell you that you are valued. You are exactly how God created and expected you to be. You are loved by your community and your family. You will continue to be valued. You have people here in the Congress of the United States who are fighting every single day to make sure you can live in a country that will provide you with full protections and that you can live a life free from discrimination of any kind. I hope that will be some comfort to know that you have a President who said right from that rostrum, Madam Speaker, to the trans kids: I have your back. That was the President of the United States who is the most powerful person on the planet saying to young people from our community he has your back. So that has to give us a lot of hope of what future Pride celebrations will mean and the kind of country we live in. I thank all my colleagues who participated in tonight's Special Order hour. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Green, and I know Glen is looking down very proud of your words tonight and the difference it is going to make to those who are watching. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Manning), a very thoughtful member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, as well as someone who serves on the Education and Labor Committee, a member of the Equality Caucus, and a longtime champion of equality, justice, women's reproductive healthcare, and so many issues important to the LGBTQ+ community, and my friend.

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his very powerful words and for being here tonight. As Congressman Moulton was speaking, I was thinking of Congressman Pappas, because Congressman Pappas has been a great champion for veterans. He serves as a distinguished member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Veterans' Affairs Committee and in that role has been an extraordinary national leader on veterans' issues. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Pappas), a co-chairman of the Equality Caucus and a champion for the LGBTQ+ community.

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, my colleagues and I are here today for this Special Order hour to celebrate Pride Month. Pride is a time of celebration of our community and its diversity. It is a time to uplift LGBTQ+ people all across the country and honor our identities and how these individuals have shaped our lives. Pride is also a time of action. Fifty-three years ago, LGBTQ+ patrons fought back against discrimination and police harassment at New York's Stonewall Inn. Now, we need to harness that same strength and determination to fight back against State legislatures' attacks against our community, especially trans and nonbinary kids. For every person able to celebrate Pride Month, there are others who are struggling. There are countless people unable to come out because of discrimination, harassment, and threats of violence. In too many States, this discrimination is being led by elected officials. Here in Congress, the Congressional LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus fights every day so that all people, regardless of sexual identification or gender identity, can live their lives openly and have every opportunity to be successful and to lead happy lives. I am proud to have introduced the Equality Act, along with every single member of the Democratic Caucus as cosponsors, to ensure that LGBTQ+ people are protected from discrimination in key areas of life. I also introduced the Global Respect Act to deny visas to those who commit gross human rights abuses against members of the LGBTQ+ community around the world. Both of these bills passed the House with bipartisan support, and I urge the Senate to quickly do the same and advance LGBTQ+ equality both at home and abroad. As chair of the Equality Caucus, I will never stop fighting so that all LGBTQ+ people, no matter where they live or how they identify, can live their lives openly with the full protections of our Federal laws. We have made important progress this Congress. In addition to passing several LGBTQ+ bills through the House, two key caucus priority bills have also become law: H.R. 49, to designate the Pulse nightclub as a National Memorial, and S. 937, which included the Jabara-Heyer NO HATE Act, which provides for grants to improve data collection of hate crimes, including hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation or gender identity, and grants for States to create hotlines to assist victims of hate crimes. I am so grateful we have a devoted ally to the LGBTQ+ community in the White House who signed both of these bills into law. President Biden has been a champion for our community. Just last week, he signed an executive order advancing LGBTQI+ equality during Pride Month. This executive order aligns with the goals of numerous bills introduced by Equality Caucus members. But we are not done fighting for LGBTQ+ equality. Later this week, we will be voting on the LGBTQI+ Data Inclusion Act to ensure Federal surveys collect information on the LGBTQI+ community. We know better data leads to better policies, and this bill will ensure we have the data we need to draft the best solutions to address the needs of our community. It has been an especially difficult year for our community, particularly for transgender and nonbinary youth who are under attack across the country. Please know that the Congressional LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus and I will never stop fighting for you. You deserve to live your lives openly, free from discrimination or harassment, and to have every opportunity to succeed as your non-LGBTQ+ peers. This Pride Month, we all have to recommit to fighting for true equality for all, every single person in our country, no matter where they live, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation. I am so grateful to be joined today by several of my colleagues who are helping to lead this fight for LGBTQ+ equality in the Halls of Congress, and I look forward to hearing from them during this Special Order hour. I again extend a happy Pride to everyone. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton), a member of the Equality Caucus, a strong advocate for the LGBTQ+ community, who took time out of a markup to be sure that he could be a part of this Special Order. For that, we are incredibly grateful.

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I thank Congressman Pappas so much for his powerful words and for his leadership and the example he has set. Madam Speaker, I will now call on another co-chairman of the Equality Caucus, an extraordinarily distinguished member of the Financial Services Committee and Homeland Security Committee and someone who, though he is very young, has, throughout his entire life, been a great inspiration to young LGBTQ Americans and continues that great tradition as a Member of Congress. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Torres).

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her words and her tremendous support of the LGBTQ+ community. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), my friend, a member of the Equality Caucus, a strong and consistent advocate for the LGBTQ+ community, the lead sponsor of the House LGBTQIA+ Pride Month resolution for many, many years, and a great champion for our community.

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his words and for the example that he set. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stevens), my friend, a member of the Equality Caucus, and an incredibly strong advocate for the LGBTQ+ community, a cosponsor of the Equality Act, and a cosponsor of every single piece of legislation that has come to the floor of consequence to our community.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, for too long, Americans, including children, struggling with mental illness and substance abuse, have suffered in silence, intimidated by stigma and unable to access treatment. The 2019 Rhode Island Youth Risk Behavior Survey found that 15 percent of Rhode Island high school students reported attempting suicide one or more times in the previous 12 months. That is 4 students in a class of 25. There is a mental health crisis in Rhode Island and throughout our country, and we have to address it now. The Restoring Hope for Mental Health and Well-Being Act will save lives by expanding access to mental health and substance abuse disorder treatment through: Establishing the Behavioral Health Crisis Coordination Office; reauthorizing critical public health programs to prevent suicide and expand access to mental health and substance use disorder treatment; and eliminating unnecessary limits on providers' ability to prescribe treatments for opioid use disorder. I urge my colleagues to join with me in support of this critical legislation to save lives and to help us address addiction all across our country.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, if I were a classroom teacher right now, I would say to the gentleman from Ohio: Focus. Focus. Pay attention to what we are talking about. What we are talking about is an active shooter alert. We are not talking about a red flag bill. We are not talking about any effort to undermine the Second Amendment. We are not talking about education policy. We are talking about one thing: Can we help keep people safe? This is not redundant because while it is being used by 1,400 cities and towns around the country, there are thousands and thousands who have not used it because they can't access it because they don't have the resources, the protocols, the best practices. This will allow them. If we save one life, if because of the active shooter alert we save one child, one police officer, it will have been worth it. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 6538. Give our brave law enforcement men and women who keep our communities safe every tool they need to keep themselves safe and keep the communities they serve safe. Don't take my word for it; take theirs. They have all endorsed it. They are asking for a ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I will respond briefly to the last speaker suggesting that somehow this isn't going to solve all the problems of gun violence. No one suggested it is. This is a simple bill that is introduced to protect law enforcement and members of the community when an active shooter happens. We can continue to fight about how we should reduce gun violence, but when it occurs, this will save lives. It is not intended to be the solution, the big answer to everything. It is intended to save lives. I will repeat again--with all due respect to my Republican colleagues who think they are experts in policing, who think they know better than law enforcement what they need when they run into danger--it is easy to say that in the comfort of the House Chamber, where you are protected by Capitol Police and you get alerts. These are men and women who are running into bullets and communities that are threatened. You raised what happened on 14th Street. A young man who works for me received a notice 35 minutes after the scene was cleared through his Ring security system in his building that there was an active shooter. Had there been one in place, he would have been notified and not walked into danger. You have the National Sheriffs' Association, the FOP, and others saying this will be very helpful. These are people who, admittedly, actually are responsible for keeping communities safe, unlike anyone who just spoke on the Republican side. They say it will help us keep communities safe. The CEO of the National Sheriffs' Association said: ``This alert system will be another excellent tool for law enforcement to do its job.'' Bryan Porter from the National District Attorneys Association: ``This bipartisan legislation creates a new alert system for law enforcement to alert the public when there are active shooters while also providing resources as our members work to keep our communities safe.'' Jeri Williams, president of the Major Cities Chiefs Association: `` . . . which will undoubtedly be a valuable tool and resource for law enforcement agencies.'' Bill Johnson, the National Association of Police Organizations: ``The Active Shooter Alert Act will assist law enforcement in alerting citizens of an active shooter situation in their vicinity, keeping them away from the incident and maintaining their safety.'' Finally, Patrick Yoes, the national president of the Fraternal Order of Police: This bill will help ``improve the ways officers and agencies communicate with the public about active threats.'' I could read 10 more quotes from people who actually do this work. The North Carolina Association of Chiefs of Police has also endorsed this bill, which I think should be important to Mr. Bishop, who just spoke. Look, these are men and women who do the job every day, and they are saying they need this, that it will be useful. It doesn't solve all the problems, but it works, and the notion that, ``Well, you can just do it. It is redundant,'' it is just not true. This bill has in it provisions that will provide for the development of protocols, the sharing of best practices, a law enforcement advisory group, things that will make sure the active shooter alert works even better. It is made available to communities that may not have all those resources to support the implementation of this system. Can anyone say that every single American doesn't deserve to get this information, and every member of law enforcement doesn't deserve to get this information, so they don't go into a dangerous situation? I know it is difficult because you somehow have it in your head that Democrats are up to something. Fred Upton, Victoria Spartz, Peter Meijer, Nancy Mace, Don Bacon, Andrew Garbarino, Jay Obernolte, Jefferson Van Drew, Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, Brian Fitzpatrick, John Carter, Tom Rice, Michael McCaul, Kelly Armstrong, David McKinley, and Julia Letlow are all Republican original cosponsors. Do you think they are up to something, too? They are just trying to keep their communities safe and give law enforcement the tools they need. We can argue about the underlying cause of crime. I am happy to have that debate. This bill is not about that. It is about protecting people when an active shooter incident happens. The final thing I would say is, if you look at the after-action reports that are done after active shootings, almost without exception, they all reference that it would have made a real difference if we had a good communication system. In the situation Mr. Upton talked about in Kalamazoo, in their after- action report, they said neither the Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety nor the Kalamazoo County Sheriff's Office ``had a strong social media presence at the time of the shooting,'' which ``hampered the departments' ability to update the community on the progression of the incident, notify them when the arrest was made, and reassure them that they were indeed safe from further violence.'' In the Columbine shooting, in the after-action report, they say: Our schools' greatest vulnerabilities exist because of voids in basic security policies and strategies, such as effective communications and notification systems. In the Broward County incident at the Hollywood airport in 2017, they write in their after-action report: ``Review and budget for improvements to public notification systems, including visual paging, overhead announcements, and mass notification systems'' would be helpful. It was noted during the event that airport patrons lost personal items except one, their cellular phones. The ability to reach every cell phone with messages enables law enforcement to provide instant information directly to victims. It goes on and on and on. Again, police are asking for this. The after-action reports underscore the need for it. Set aside the fact that the lead sponsor or the author is me. There are 15 other Democrats, 15 other Republicans, very bipartisan, and I haven't heard any argument why we shouldn't give law enforcement what was identified as one of their top priorities during National Police Week. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his thoughtful words. I also want to mention that some of my colleagues earlier in the debate said creating this is going to create a fear of shooting. That is what Democrats are really up to, and the 15 or 16 Republicans that are the original co-sponsors of this bill. Well, I would ask one question: When we created the AMBER Alert to help families find a child who is lost, or the Silver Alert, it didn't create any great fear. It effectively made sure when seniors were lost, they were found. When children were lost, they were found. So that is a specious argument. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will make a couple of points quickly. This legislation has nothing to do with limitations on the Second Amendment. It has nothing to do with red flag laws. It has nothing to do with this claim of defunding the police. I have lots of material for the Record that shows police departments have been cut in other communities led by Republican mayors and Republican Governors. Let's not have that debate. This is about a simple provision that will save lives. With all due respect to my colleagues who claim they understand what this legislation is about, I trust the judgment of the men and women who are actually going into active shooter situations. I don't think there is a single Member who has spoken who has been responsible for responding to an active shooting incident. I think it is time we respect the men and women who actually do that every day. The men and women of law enforcement are pleading for this legislation to help keep them safe, as well as the communities they serve. I won't be so presumptuous, Madam Speaker, to think I have better judgment on that question than they do. That is why they have all endorsed this bill. The third thing I will say: Mr. Massie said, Madam Speaker, that this question wasn't answered. I will answer it again, the same way I answered it in committee. The standards are established by law enforcement. Active shooter alerts already exist in some States and in some local communities. There are a set of protocols. Obviously, they don't wait until the shooting has concluded to notify people. They use common sense, their own standards about when they see a danger; someone with a gun that is expressing some intention to use it or whatever standard they consider appropriate as members of law enforcement to alert the community. This is common sense. The problem is, there are a lot of small departments that don't have the ability to access this system or to understand best practices or to see the research about how it is used most effectively. This would allow them to have access to that. Not a single jurisdiction that doesn't want to use it is required to. There is no Federal Government power here. It is making it available. If you decide as a local law enforcement agency or State you don't want to use it, you don't have to, but it is making it available. This will save lives. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this bill, H.R. 6538, the Active Shooter Alert Act, bipartisan legislation which I introduced with Congressman Upton and 16 other original Republican and Democratic cosponsors to help keep our communities safer in the event of an active shooter. Between 2000 and 2020, there were close to 400 active shooter events, including 40 active shooter incidents in 2020 and 61 such incidents in 2021 alone. In 2016, in Congressman Upton's backyard, we saw a Michigan Uber driver go on a shooting rampage and then continue picking up passengers. In 2019, a shooter drove around a community in Texas, killing 7 and wounding 25 people. In 2021, a shooter traveled 30 miles, murdering eight people at various Atlanta-area spas. Just this past April, a shooter attacked a subway station full of people in Brooklyn and was then on the run for 24 hours before police finally detained him. Such active shooters have become ubiquitous, so frequent that some of these horrific events barely make headlines. This is not normal, and we cannot let it become normalized. We cannot become numb to these events or settle for the status quo. We need to act now to make our communities safer, and that includes providing law enforcement with every tool they need to do so. Law enforcement has asked for ways to better alert their communities when active shooter incidents arise. This legislation answers that call. The Active Shooter Alert Act creates an AMBER Alert-like program for active shooter events. This bill will provide law enforcement with cutting-edge technology to send notifications to our smartphones and let communities know if there is an active shooter in a certain area so they know to stay away. The bill also instructs the Department of Justice to consult with police safety experts, including officers who have responded to these incidents, to develop best practices and protocols for sending out these alerts. This will allow law enforcement to learn from each other as they adapt this alert system to the needs of the communities, if they so choose. Developing this kind of technology and infrastructure, and identifying best practices, would be a massive undertaking for many local police departments. Some communities simply don't have the resources to do it on their own. However, we already have these resources at the Federal level. This legislation simply gives every law enforcement agency across the country the option to access the Federal alert system so they can send alerts in their area. Nothing in this bill is mandatory for law enforcement agencies to adopt, but it will provide access to an important tool for law enforcement departments across the country, regardless of their size or location. It is, sadly, becoming more and more necessary to have these protocols in place. As we have seen time and time again, when there is an active shooter situation, law enforcement does all they can to keep people in the surrounding area safe, including going door to door to either evacuate or tell people to shelter in place. But that takes time, time that could cost lives. More than anyone, law enforcement understands the strain an active shooter puts on a community in an ongoing crisis. In these stressful, life-or-death situations, law enforcement is too often, in many cases, relying on social media to communicate with the surrounding community so that no one accidentally walks into the line of fire, including other members of law enforcement. Law enforcement deserves the best tools available, certainly better than Twitter, to communicate with their communities. Now, if you look at the after-action reports in so many of these active shooter incidents, they all recognize that it would have been so helpful to have a way to quickly and safely communicate with other members of law enforcement or the local community about an active shooter. I am proud that this bill has the endorsement of law enforcement organizations across the country at the national, State, and local levels and that it is a resoundingly bipartisan effort. I thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have supported this commonsense measure and Mr. Upton for leading this effort with me. I encourage a ``yes'' vote. Just to be clear, this is legislation endorsed by the National Sheriffs' Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Police Foundation, the National Association of Police Organizations, Major Cities Chiefs Association, National District Attorneys Association, and many other local law enforcement agencies. The men and women who are protecting our communities are saying they need this. It is bipartisan. I urge everyone to vote for it. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 6538.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan), the author of this legislation.

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, H.R. 3285, the 21st Century President Act, does indeed take our criminal code into the 21st century by removing gender terms and assumptions about who can be President from our criminal code. It passed, as I said, on a voice vote last Congress. I ask my colleagues to again stand with me in supporting this legislation. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3285, the 21st Century President Act. A century ago, women in this country had only barely won the right to vote. Today, we have the first female Vice President, a female Speaker of the House, and record numbers of women running for Federal office. Although we still have a long way to go both in equality and representation, our country's government is growing closer to finally representing our Nation's brilliant diversity. Our laws must reflect the fact that a President and their spouse can be of any gender. That concept may have seemed impossible a few decades ago, but today it is, thankfully, a true and real possibility. Currently, our criminal code defines a spouse in the ``immediate family'' of a President as ``the wife of a former President during his lifetime'' and ``the widow of a former President until her death,'' implying that the spouse must be female and the President must be male in order for a threat against a former President's family to be treated as a crime. This completely disregards the fact that a President may be female and the President's spouse may not be. This does not reflect the progress we have made in this country. I am proud to vote ``yes'' for this bill, which passed out of this Chamber by a voice vote last Congress, and I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for its passage to support equality in our highest branch. Madam Speaker, I again thank my colleague and friend, Congressman Pocan, for introducing this bill and being such a strong advocate for it. I look forward to seeing it made law. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.