Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, very briefly. Maybe the gentleman hasn't been paying attention to what has been going on around here, but this bill actually had a hearing and a markup, 14 hours in the Committee on the Judiciary. Madam Speaker, the text has been available 72 hours in advance. The manager's amendment was made available on Tuesday night. I don't know what the heck he is talking about. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I have great respect for my friend from Pennsylvania and all of my colleagues on the Committee on Rules, and I know they feel strongly about this issue. I believe that many of the concerns that they have raised are unwarranted, and this bill deals with many of them. As has been said repeatedly, this is not about taking away anybody's guns. It is dealing with the future. It is dealing with ways that we can better protect the people of this country. So, it is frustrating when we hear arguments about, ``Oh, you said military-style. This, technically, isn't a military weapon,'' or we have all these numbers that have been kind of manipulated and presented as reasons for us to do nothing. I find that really disconcerting. Maybe it is because so many people are dying. Maybe it is because so many people are being murdered by these weapons. The sheer number is incomprehensible. Maybe some of my colleagues have lost the human ability to feel what that really means. I mean, I have talked to parents, and I have talked to brothers and sisters, to grandparents, who have lost loved ones in these massacres, who have lost loved ones to assault weapons. I mean, it is painful. We can do something to make it possible that fewer people are victims of mass shootings, that fewer children die, that fewer churchgoers die, fewer people shopping in the grocery store or going to a concert or just minding their own business. I mean, the gun violence in this country has reached epidemic proportions. It is unbelievable. The American people are sick and tired of being scared. I mean, when my own kids go to the movies, I worry about them. I am worried that there might be somebody with an AR-15 that will be in that movie theater, or if they go to a concert. I think my anxiety is similar to the anxiety of most parents when their kids go out. This doesn't have to be. All I am pleading with my colleagues to do is to think long and hard on how they vote on this. Madam Speaker, we should all be sick to our stomachs about what is happening. The idea that somehow we can't do anything about it I don't think anybody buys. I get it. The gun lobby plays a big role with many of my friends on the other side of the aisle. Follow the money; you will see what I am talking about. I don't want you to do anything, but I am pleading with my colleagues, especially on the Republican side of the aisle. I mean, this is the right thing to do. The previous assault weapons ban had an impact. Unfortunately, it was left to expire. I mean, we need to pass this. This is the right thing to do. Talk to the families. Talk to those who lost loved ones in one of these massacres. As I said, to defend AR-15s that can destroy the bodies of people--I remind you that the children in Uvalde, many of them had to be identified by DNA. I mean, at some point, we have to say enough is enough. At some point, we have to turn our words into action. Madam Speaker, I am hoping and praying that this is the day. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the rule and vote for the previous question. The material previously referred to by Mr. Reschenthaler is as follows: Amendment to House Resolution 1302 At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the bill (H.R. 471) to prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services from lessening the stringency of, and to prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security from ceasing or lessening implementation of, the COVID-19 border health provisions through the end of the COV1D-19 pandemic, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and (2) one motion to recommit. Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 471.

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, when the Committee on Rules filed its report (House Report 117-405) to accompany House Resolution 1224, the Committee was unaware that the waiver of all points of order against consideration of H.R. 7900 included a waiver of the following: Section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of legislation within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget unless referred to or reported by the Budget Committee. When the Committee on Rules filed its report (House Report 117-420) to accompany House Resolution 1232, the Committee was unaware that the waiver of all points of order against consideration of H.R. 8294 included a waiver of the following: Clause 10 of rule XXI, which prohibits consideration of a measure that has a net effect of increasing the deficit or reducing the surplus over the five- or 10-year period.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I include the executive summary in the Record. [From the United States Government Accountability Office, Feb. 2022] Incomplete Information Hinders Usefulness of Market Assessments for VA Facility Realignment The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) conducted assessments of its capacity within 96 markets to deliver health care to veterans through VA providers and, when the Department cannot provide the care needed, through non-VA providers, known as community care. For these assessments, markets are designated geographic areas made up of a set of contiguous counties that contain one or more VA medical centers and associated clinics. For an overview of VA's approach, see the figure. Text of Overview of Department of Veterans Affairs' Approach to Its Market Assessments: Compiled data about the market including veteran health care supply and demand, Identified gaps between supply and demand, Developed proposals to respond to gaps between supply and demand, and Issue final proposals. VA officials described the department's process of developing proposals as iterative in that VA continually reviewed and revised draft proposals throughout the market assessments process. The VA Secretary plans to transmit recommendations to the Asset and Infrastructure Review Commission by March 14, 2022--that is, no later than 6 weeks from the statutory deadline of January 31, 2022. The Commission will then review these recommendations, hold public hearings, and prepare and issue their own recommendations to the President. GAO identified gaps in the data VA compiled and certified for the market assessments that were relevant to determining both the supply of and demand for non-VA care. For example, VA lacked complete data on the extent to which its contractors maintain an adequate number of non-VA providers to ensure veterans have timely access to community care. VA officials told GAO that they determined supply and demand based on the most recently available data at the time of data compilation--December 2018 to November 2020. In addition, while VA officials told GAO the end-of-assessment analyses included updated data on community care, these data did not address the gaps GAO identified. Without such information, VA lacks a full understanding of the extent to which community care is able to supplement VA facility care to meet veterans' current and future demand. GAO also found that VA's approach to the market assessments did not include steps to collect information on the quality of VA data compiled from numerous VA data sources or other steps to understand any relevant data limitations. Instead, VA officials leading the market assessments said they relied on VA offices responsible for the databases to ensure the data quality. As a result, VA is unable to communicate to external stakeholders, such as the Asset and Infrastructure Review Commission, all relevant information on the quality of VA data used in market assessments, including any limitations affecting these data and the resulting proposals for realignment.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairwoman DeLauro for yielding to me. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan en bloc, which would eliminate funding for the VA Asset and Infrastructure Review, or AIR, Commission, and transfer the $5 million to the Healthcare for Homeless Veterans Program. Let me be clear. The recommendations advanced so far as part of the VA's asset and infrastructure review process will lead to the closure or downsizing of nearly one-third of this country's VA medical facilities and community-based outpatient clinics. I believe that is an unacceptable and, frankly, rotten way to treat veterans, who have put their lives on the line for this country. This entire process is a backdoor way to cut services for veterans, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support our veterans and vote ``yes'' on this amendment, which has the support of a wide range of veterans advocacy organizations from across the political spectrum. This bipartisan amendment eliminates funding for a commission that would make it harder for veterans across America to get the care they deserve. The decision to recommend shutting down these VA healthcare facilities was based on totally flawed and years-old information. There are huge, unacceptable, and inexcusable gaps in the data that was used to determine which facilities to shut down. The VA did not consider cases where hundreds of millions of dollars in new investments were made in facilities that were recommended for closure. It makes absolutely no sense. Let me give you an example. One of the facilities that would be closed is the Leeds VA Medical Center in Massachusetts. They said that this facility should be closed because it needed nearly $200 million in upgrades. What they didn't say was that we already invested in those upgrades. $200 million in taxpayer money was already invested in this facility, and now they are recommending that it be shut down. Talk about ripping off the American taxpayer. The data that they used is from years ago. It is inexcusable. Even the VA admits this. This is the definition of stupid. We might as well throw taxpayer money out the window if these flawed recommendations move forward. That is not even to mention the impact this commission would have on veterans. I held a listening session to hear how these recommendations would affect many veterans in Massachusetts and across the country. I happen to have a map here, by the way. Here is the map. The yellow is partial closures, and the blue is total closures all across the country. Again, what we are finding out by objective observers is that all this is based on flawed and outdated information, and they are recommending that they shut these facilities down. But I am learning here that this would literally force veterans to drive hours and hours across State lines just to get basic care. I talk to people with PTSD who say: I am just not going to get care anymore if I have to drive across the State into another State to get care. Older veterans who need nursing home care could have to move long distances from their support systems. This process so far is a complete and total slap in the face to these veterans, and we should not spend one penny more on a commission that is going to be used to advance these awful cuts to veterans' services. If this moves forward, closures and consolidation of VA facilities are mandatory, but recommendations to build new facilities are subject to future appropriations and are not guaranteed. So, this Appropriations Committee will have to decide whether to invest in the new facilities or the consolidation of facilities. That is why groups like the Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars all support shutting down this commission right now, which is what this amendment would do. Everyone knows that this process and the commission are broken. Even VA Secretary McDonough acknowledged it to Congress, telling the House Veterans' Affairs Committee that the data is not up to speed in light of the pandemic. I am also grateful that the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee here in the House, Chairman Takano, is supporting my amendment. I want to be clear that Secretary McDonough has done a great job on advocating for our veterans, and he is working with my team and me to get to the bottom of some of these problems. But this process started because of a bill that Congress passed even before he became Secretary. I have spoken to him, and I know that he, too, does not want to make it harder for veterans to get care. The solution is that Congress needs to pass this amendment. Even our nonpartisan congressional watchdog, the GAO, recently put out a report on this called ``VA Health Care: Incomplete Information Hinders Usefulness of Market Assessments for VA Facility Realignment.''

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, moving forward with funding this fundamentally broken process would be an incredible disservice to our veterans and would jeopardize access to the high-quality, specialized care that they have earned. This commission is being dismantled as we speak because the recommendations that were made to it were so catastrophically bad. Last month, Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Jon Tester led a bipartisan group of 12 Senators to announce that the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee would not even confirm any more nominees to the commission, effectively ending this process once and for all. Last week, we had an amendment to the NDAA pass to shut this down. Why are we giving $5 million to a commission that may very well never exist and which is actively seeking to undermine care for our veterans and their families? Mr. Chair, we all believe in upgrading and updating our VA system, but let's use accurate information. There is no way that anybody here can tell me that the recommendations that are being put forward are based on accurate and updated information. We are talking about our veterans, who are now going through needless anxiety because of all these threats of closures. Mr. Chair, we need to do better, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this en bloc.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just say a couple of words in response to the gentleman from North Carolina. He just said that Democrats and Republicans should come together. Well, they did. I mean, Mitch McConnell is a Republican. Lindsey Graham is Republican. Tony Gonzalez is a Republican. I mean, Republicans and Democrats have come together like they never have before on this issue. Maybe my Republican friends ought to get together with their Republican friends to try to work it out on their side. But Democrats and Republicans have come together. I am having trouble following the gentleman's logic when he basically implies that if we can't do something to stop all shootings, then maybe it is not worth doing anything. Nobody is saying that what we are doing today will prevent every shooting. What we are saying today is that it will prevent some. What we are saying today is it will protect lives. In the aftermath of Uvalde and Buffalo, people all across this country, regardless of their politics, were so horrified. They are demanding that we act. Again, as I said at the outset, I would have preferred that we do more. I understand that we can only get done what we can get done in the reality in which we are living here in the Congress; and in the Senate you need 10 Republicans to get permission to have a cup of coffee. The fact of the matter is, there is a process over there that has prevented even a debate on gun safety legislation because of the filibuster. But a number of Republican Senators came together because they listened to their constituents, and I think they finally said we have to do something. No one is saying this will stop every shooting, but under that logic, why do we have fire departments? We have fire departments but there are still fires. Why do we have seatbelt laws? There are seatbelt laws and there are still people that get killed in car crash fatalities. I mean, the bottom line is, we have them because they save some lives, and it is worth it. As I said at the outset, for every item in this bipartisan package there has been a hearing on at some point. None of these ideas are new. So there has been a process. But what I find particularly ironic is that as we are being lectured about, oh, we need more time, we need more hearings, the gentlewoman says that we should bring up the gentleman's bill and consider it immediately with no hearings, with no process. I mean, I get whiplash just trying to follow the logic of my friends from the other side. Madam Speaker, the bottom line is either we are going to do something, or we are not. And those who are arguing for delaying this more and more and more are the same people who will never vote for it. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, earlier today, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1204, for two measures. First, it provides for consideration of the Senate amendments to the House amendment to S. 2938, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. The rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary that the House concur in the Senate amendments. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. Second, the rule provides for consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to S. 2089, the Keep Kids Fed Act of 2022. The rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Education and Labor that the House concur in the Senate amendment and provides 10 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Education and Labor. Finally, the rule deems passage of H. Res. 1132 and deems that the House concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 4346 with an amendment. Madam Speaker, let me first say that I am so disappointed with where this school meals extension landed. We had a bipartisan, bicameral agreement in place, a measure that, in my opinion, didn't go far enough. But I was willing to support it because we have a hunger cliff looming in 6 days. It passed the House yesterday by a vote of 376-42. Then, one Senator decided to hold up the bill, a bill to give kids free meals over the summer and provide administrative flexibilities and extra funding to schools in the fall. The objection? A provision that gave free meals at school for kids at 185 percent of poverty or below. For a family of four, that is a family with a maximum total household income of just over $50,000 a year. What a rotten thing to do. I can't say the words I would like to use on the House floor to describe just how callous this is, so let me just say this: It takes a real jerk to take food out of the mouths of kids. I am going to support this bill. The stakes are too high for us not to support it, and there are a lot of good provisions in here, provisions that extend the flexibilities and provide a reimbursement rate increase to schools to help them continue serving kids nutritious meals and extend universal free meals over the summer. But I am going to continue fighting like hell at every chance to make sure that every child gets a free breakfast and lunch as part of their school day. Food is a right. I believe it is a fundamental human right. And for kids living in poverty, school meals are sometimes the only nutritious food that they have access to. I thank my friends, Chairman Scott and Chairwoman Stabenow, for their work in averting the hunger cliff and getting free meals to kids this summer. I thank Speaker Pelosi for her incredible leadership. I thank Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro for her persistence on this. They are all dedicated to ending hunger, especially among children. I am going to continue to work with them until we finally end hunger in this country once and for all. In addition, Madam Speaker, let me just say that this is a historic moment. We are on the threshold of passing the first major overhaul of Federal gun safety legislation in decades. This bill that we will soon vote on will save lives, and it couldn't come at a more important time. As the American people are demanding that we do more to prevent gun violence, the Supreme Court is recklessly striking down gun safety laws that have been on the books for over a century. As the American people look to Congress to take action to prevent the next mass shooting, House Republican leaders are caving to the gun lobby, whipping against a bipartisan, bicameral agreement of commonsense gun safety measures that an overwhelming majority of the American people support. Despite what you will hear on the floor today, the American people get it. They know the terrible toll gun violence has taken on communities all across this country: over 100 per day killed by guns; more children killed with a gun in the last two decades than on-duty police officers and Active-Duty military combined; the list of mass shootings and tragedies grows longer and longer by the month. Yet, if you talk to Republicans here in the House, you would think we are living in an alternative universe. Just this week, most Republicans voted down a bill to alert people when a mass shooting was happening near them. Let me repeat that: Just this week, Republicans voted down a bill to alert people when a mass shooting was happening near them. Are you kidding me? What kind of people don't even want you to know which way to run if there is a shooting nearby? I am so sick and tired of the stranglehold that the gun lobby and their blood money have on the Republican Party. Enough is enough. The time has come for action. The time has come for us to put aside politics and actually do the right thing. I commend the many Republicans who have done just that. I don't think I could agree with Senator Mitch McConnell on where to go to have lunch, but he said that the Safer Communities Act is ``a commonsense package of popular steps that will help make these horrifying incidents less likely while fully upholding the Second Amendment rights of law- abiding citizens.'' That is Mitch McConnell. Senator Lindsey Graham--and we are polar opposites--said: ``The legislation is not perfect, but we must not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.'' That is Lindsey Graham. Even here in the House, some courageous Republicans have said that they will support this bill, like Congressman Tony Gonzales, who said: ``It is my duty to pass laws that never infringe on the Constitution while protecting the lives of the innocent.'' The U.S. Senate is notorious for not being able to build consensus around solutions to fix the most straightforward of problems, yet here they have come up with a reasonable, bipartisan deal on a contentious issue. I think it is shameful, quite frankly, that GOP Leader McCarthy and his team are parroting the gun lobby's talking points. But what I find even more disappointing, frankly, are the crocodile tears about bipartisanship from the GOP when they vote time and time again against substantial bipartisan deals like this one. Please spare us the lectures. Nothing in this bill is new. Nothing in this bill is controversial. These ideas have been around for decades, and they are what the American people want. If people are worried about backlash back home, this is an opportunity for you to correct the record. Go home and tell the truth that this bill does nothing to infringe on the Second Amendment, and it doesn't punish law-abiding gun owners. This country is crying out for action. Americans are begging us to work together to protect our kids and our communities. I know I am asking you to vote against your party's leadership. I know that is a tough spot to put some of my Republican friends in. But I think at the end of the day, you owe it to yourself to consider this one idea: What if this bill stops even one mass shooting from happening? Is a ``no'' vote worth the lives of your constituents? Don't listen to those who are spreading crazy conspiracy theories, saying that this is going to lead to everyone's guns getting taken away. We hear it over and over and over again. Listen to your GOP colleagues who helped write this bill and who passed it over in the Senate. Listen to the American people who overwhelmingly support this bill, and then listen to your conscience. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1204 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, let me just say that it is a little frustrating to kind of hear my colleagues imply that somehow we are moving too fast, after decades of inaction, of doing absolutely nothing, after massacre after massacre after massacre, doing nothing. Now we are being accused of moving too fast. Want to talk about the process? We have had countless hearings on gun violence and on measures to combat gun violence in a variety of committees here. We had a committee hold a hearing with a young girl from Uvalde who told Members of Congress that she had to cover herself with the blood of her dead classmate and pretend that she was dead in order to escape being killed herself. We have heard from law enforcement officials. We have heard from grieving parents. Nothing in this bill is controversial. People have seen--the text of this bill has been available since Tuesday. It is not that complicated. So when people say: Process, oh, we just need more time, and we should do more hearings, and we should do this and we should do that-- no. I mean, this is put up or shut up time for all of us. This is an opportunity that we cannot miss. So the choice for Members on both sides is simple. I mean, we are either going to do something--again, this is way more modest than anything that I would suggest that we do. But we are either going to do something, or we are going to do the same old same old, nothing. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I just want to take a moment to recognize and thank a longtime Rules staffer who will be leaving us next week for the Department of Commerce as their director of legislative affairs. Rose Laughlin, who is next to me, has been with the Rules Committee for 8 years, starting as an intern with the late Congresswoman, Chair Louise Slaughter. Rose was Ms. Slaughter's right-hand woman. Rose, I know that Louise was terribly proud of all of your accomplishments and your dedication to the people of this country. Madam Speaker, I think it is fitting today that Rose is here because this will be her last rule on the House floor. It is fitting that she is here because this is a historic bipartisan measure on gun reform that will actually make it to the President's desk. No one on this committee has worked harder or more thoughtfully over the years for gun reform than Rose. Her dependable, resourceful, collaborative attitude has made this work easier for us all. This institution, and those we serve, are better off because of her dedication to public service. Rose, you always will have a home here at the Capitol. We are going to miss you, but we are excited about continuing to work with you in your new role, and we are very proud of you. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to vote for this bipartisan bill. It is not that long, and people have had it since Tuesday. It has been posted since Tuesday. As I said, it is not everything that I think needs to be done. Certainly, it is not everything that we have passed in this House, but it is a start. If we pass this and send it to the President for his signature, and it becomes law, it will save lives. It is what the American people want. Madam Speaker, I have talked to so many families who have lost loved ones to gun violence. I have watched the hearings in which grieving parents and brothers and sisters have talked about how horrific it was to lose a loved one to gun violence, begging us to do something so that no other family has to go through that. For years, all of those pleas have fallen on deaf ears. When we have even tried to get anything done here, modest legislation, we send it over to the Senate and couldn't get the 60 votes to even have a discussion on the Senate floor. That just changed. It changed, I think, because people are so horrified about what just recently happened, but also what has been happening time and time again in this country. I know the question for everybody here is not about: Does this violate the Second Amendment, or is this taking away guns from lawful gun owners? It is not. That is all garbage. It really is. That is not what this is about. I get it. The gun lobby is making phone calls and threatening to hold back checks if people somehow don't frustrate this bill so that it can't get to the President's desk. We were elected to help people and to protect people. In the Senate, we have this remarkable bipartisan collaboration, and in the House, we have Republicans who have supported sensible gun safety legislation. Madam Speaker, I hope this is an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote in the House. I know that it may not be because the leadership here has urged Republican Members to oppose this. I regret that very much. When people say that this is somehow a leftwing bill--I mean, Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham? Give me a break. This is a truly bipartisan bill. It is a compromise. To suggest that we need more hearings on a bill on a compromise that every single topic in this compromise has had hearings on before, to suggest to do that by people who don't want this to move to begin with, come on. This is the put-up-or-shut-up moment for people here. We either do something, or we are going to do nothing. We have been doing nothing for years. I urged in my opening that people think long and hard before they vote. Consult your conscience. I can't go back and talk to parents who lost loved ones to violence and say: ``Oh, we tried, but it wasn't perfect.'' I could easily go back and say: ``I wish it were bigger and more. It is not perfect, so I am not going to support it.'' I am supporting this because it is something, and it is going to save lives. Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to please support this. I urge a ``yes'' on the rule and a ``yes'' on the previous question.

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. Twenty years ago, Congress established McGovern-Dole as a permanent program under USDA in the 2002 farm bill. McGovern-Dole provides at least one nutritious school meal to some of the world's most vulnerable children. It is a life-changing program that has improved the food security, nutrition, literacy, and education of 31 million children, their families, and communities--building goodwill toward the American people in over 48 countries. With the support of American farmers, ranchers, and millers, McGovern-Dole programs are carried out by NGOs, the U.N. World Food Programme, local partners with U.S. financial and technical assistance, and U.S. and locally purchased food commodities. Congressman Tracey Mann and I have introduced H. Res. 1156 to continue the McGovern-Dole program and build upon its 20 years of success. I invite all of my colleagues to cosponsor and support this resolution.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Bruce Platzman, a passionate entrepreneur and community leader who, as CEO and President of the furniture manufacturing company Affordable Interior Systems (AIS), has improved lives both locally and nationally over the last three decades. Beginning his career as a salesperson, Bruce has been a worker in the furniture industry for over 35 years. In 1989 Bruce co-founded AIS and has been the driving engine for its rapid growth, ushering the company into the 21st century as a strong leader in the industry. Under his leadership, AIS has prioritized working with local groups, such as Veterans agencies, on a regular basis. From customer service to product development, Bruce has never wavered in his commitment to making AIS a company that serves and centers people. Bruce's passion for giving back isn't limited to his work with AIS. He serves on the board of directors at Make-A-Wish Massachusetts and Rhode Island, Mass Econ, and the Worcester Chamber of Commerce and is also a board member of the North Central MA Chamber of Commerce and the United Way of North Central Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, Bruce's commitment and love for our community doesn't stop there. At the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, Bruce led the AIS launch of Sew the Masks, a nationwide initiative to make and distribute high-quality facemasks. The program amassed almost 1,000 volunteers from 45 states and resulted in the donation of over 600,000 facemasks to first responders, frontline workers, and people in need. The impact of Bruce's leadership cannot be understated. He has shown, time and time again, remarkable initiative and commitment to both Central Massachusetts and this country. Although Bruce is stepping back from his duties as CEO and President, I know he will continue to put forth his unwavering commitment to supporting and nurturing the communities he loves for years to come. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the United States Congress and all the people in whose lives Bruce has made a difference, it is my great honor to thank Bruce Platzman for his service to the people of Massachusetts and to congratulate him on his retirement.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Minnesota, Congresswoman Omar, for leading this Special Order hour, at such a critical time for our Nation's children. Congresswoman Omar has been a champion for expanding access to universal school meals and ending childhood hunger, and indeed, all hunger in this country and around the globe, and I recognize her for her leadership. Madam Speaker, my two sisters are schoolteachers in the Worcester public school system in Massachusetts. They remind me all the time that school meals are as important to a child's ability to learn as a textbook or a laptop. They wonder all the time why Congress, State governments, and the Federal Government don't get that. They see children show up to school on Mondays hungry because they haven't eaten all weekend. It takes a while to get them the nutrition that they need so they can focus again. If you are hungry, you can't focus. If you can't focus, you can't learn. If you can't learn, you fall behind. It is that simple. They also tell me that Fridays are a tough day because those same children come to them and ask if there is any food that they can take home, not just for them but for their families. I have heard heartbreaking story after heartbreaking story of children who are food insecure, who are hungry in this country. If you ever meet a child or see a child who is hungry, it breaks your heart. It, quite frankly, angers me because we live in the richest country in the history of the world. Even before the pandemic, close to 40 million Americans didn't know where their next meal was going to come from. I tell people all the time that hunger is a political condition. It is not a partisan condition. It shouldn't be a partisan condition. It is a political condition. By that I mean we have the food, we have the resources, we have the infrastructure, we have the knowledge of what we need to do. We have everything but the political will. As has been pointed out here today, we are about to reach a hunger cliff at the end of June. Waivers are going to run out. Money is going to run out. If we don't do something, millions and millions of children will lose their school meals and will lose their summer meals as well. During the pandemic, thankfully, schools received flexibility and funding to make sure their students got a healthy breakfast and lunch at school. This has been a lifeline for families and school districts facing rising costs and supply chain shortages. We are coming to an end. All those safety measures that were put in place during the pandemic will expire. I think what we are coming to appreciate is that those safety measures should have been in place even if there wasn't a pandemic. We can't go back to the days when close to 13 million kids went to bed hungry every night in the country. With the group of leaders who are here on the floor, members of the Progressive Caucus, as well as working with Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Bobby Scott, Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro, and working with Chairwoman Stabenow over in the Senate, we have been trying to figure out ways to extend the flexibility and funding needed to get healthy food to America's students. I believe that we will get there. The amazing leadership of Speaker Pelosi will get us all together and we will find a way forward. We will avoid this hunger cliff. Madam Speaker, I am a liberal Democrat. I serve in this Congress, both in the House and Senate, with many conservative Republicans, and I understand that not everybody agrees on everything here. For example, I want free universal school meals for every kid to be part of our educational policy, and I want it there forever. I commend States like California, Vermont, and Maine for taking a lead in their States. Their legislatures have passed universal meals for their students. I want Massachusetts to follow. I want every State to follow. I get it. Not everybody shares my view. I also get that in order to get anything to the President's desk we are going to have to navigate through the Senate, which is always a challenge because in the Senate you need 60 votes to have a cup of coffee, never mind pass a piece of legislation. We are going to have to figure out what it is we can get done in the next couple of weeks. There are some who don't want as big a package as others. There are some who are insisting on offsets. There are some who are insisting on other things. We have to figure it out. We are going to have figure it out because our kids are important. They are 100 percent of our future, and we ought to treat them as such. Finally, one last point. America used to think big about solving problems like hunger. In 1969, we held the first and only White House Conference on Hunger. It was the same year we landed on the moon. That conference led to a major expansion of the school lunch program and the creation of the Women, Infants, and Children program, among other things. As a proud member of the Progressive Caucus, I have long thought that it is time for America to think big once again to solve problems like hunger. To think big the way we used to, not to manage problems, but to solve them. We have the food to end child hunger in America. Again, it is a matter of building the political will. I personally believe that food ought to be a fundamental human right here in this country and around the world. I say this because I am thrilled that President Biden recently announced that he will host a White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health to bring together experts from across the country, and all agencies within the Federal Government to create a plan, not to manage hunger in America, to end hunger in America. It will be an opportunity for people with lived experiences to have their voices heard because sometimes we make decisions here and we don't talk to the people who are most affected by what we are trying to do. We have the opportunity to prevent child hunger and to make universal free school meals a reality. This is our moment to make it happen. In the lead-up to this conference, Members of Congress have the opportunity to host listening sessions to hear directly from local educators and families who benefit from free school meals. I encourage my colleagues to host these sessions and to transmit their findings to the White House so that the recommendations that come out of this conference reflect the power of school meals to change lives and improve nutrition among children. Madam Speaker, I encourage not just progressive Members, I encourage moderate Members, and conservative Members to do listening sessions in their districts to hear about not only the extent of this problem, which is a costly problem, but hear about potential solutions so we can end hunger. If you are interested, you can reach out to my office, and we can point you in the right direction. Madam Speaker, I, again, thank Congresswoman Omar for bringing us together at such a critical moment. There are some problems that we are faced with that I don't know what the solution is, but hunger is not one of them. This is a solvable problem that we can solve in a matter of a few years if we put our minds to it and if we work together. Let's do something big, something bold, something that will reflect the goodness of the people of this country and make a real difference. It may be an example for the rest of the world.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1153, for two measures. First, it provides for consideration of H.R. 2377 under a closed rule. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment, provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, and provides one motion to recommit. Second, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 7910 under a closed rule. The rule provides 2 hours of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. It provides that following debate the House will vote separately on retaining each title of the bill and provides one motion to recommit. Additionally, the rule deems passage of H. Res. 1151 and H. Res. 1152. Finally, the rule extends recess instructions, suspension authority, and same-day authority through June 17. Madam Speaker, I am struggling to put into words right now the tremendous pain that so many Americans feel in the wake of the mass shootings in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, New York, pain because, once again, we are burying America's children. The hopes and dreams and futures of our kids, birthday parties and bar mitzvahs, and summer breaks and high school graduations stolen by a senseless, unceasing drumbeat of gun violence. The lives of innocent shoppers ended in a hate-fueled rampage of white supremacy. It does not have to be this way. What kind of country are we if we let this happen and do nothing? What does that say about our values and our priorities as a society? I am so deeply disappointed and frustrated as a Member of Congress, but even more as a parent. What happened in Uvalde is unconscionable. For God's sake, the parents had to submit DNA because the bodies of their fourth graders were unrecognizable. They had to identify them by their shoes because the exit wounds produced by an AR-15 were so large that their bodies were torn apart by the bullets. Madam Speaker, 18-year-olds can't even rent a car, but they can buy guns that can tear people apart. It just doesn't make any sense. When I think of the trauma the parents had to go through, burying their kids, knowing that this could have been prevented if bills like the ones we are considering today were passed into law, it is beyond heartbreaking. There are no words, just sadness, when I think of my kids. Then, I think of all the parents who won't get to watch their own kids grow up. For Uvalde, for Parkland, for Sandy Hook, for Buffalo, and all the mass shootings that have torn apart communities all across this country, I am pleading with my colleagues: Do not throw away this opportunity to get something done. Do not let partisan talking points get in the way of reasonable gun safety measures. None of these ideas are extreme. In fact, they are what the vast majority of people in this country want us to do. This vote will unequivocally show where each and every one of us stands: on red flag laws, on raising the age to purchase a semiautomatic rifle from 18 to 21, on gun trafficking and straw purchases, on ghost guns, on the safe storage of firearms, particularly when a minor is likely to gain access to them, on bump stocks, and on large-capacity magazines. We will have separate votes on all of these issues. This week there will be no excuses. Really, think about that list. None of these proposals are aimed at taking firearms away from law-abiding gun owners. They are aimed at stopping people from getting slaughtered in their schools, in churches, in grocery stores, in homes. These bills would have stopped the shooters in Buffalo and Uvalde from buying their guns. Madam Speaker, I am pleading with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to work with us, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentlewoman said Republicans stand ready to address school safety and other root causes of gun violence. I include in the Record a May 26, 2022, article from The Texas Tribune entitled: ``Texas already `hardened' schools. It didn't save Uvalde.'' [From The Texas Tribune, May 26, 2022] Texas Already ``Hardened'' Schools. It Didn't Save Uvalde. (By Jolie McCullough and Kate McGee) Four years after an armed 17-year-old opened fire inside a Texas high school, killing 10, Gov. Greg Abbott tried to tell another shell-shocked community that lost 19 children and two teachers to a teen gunman about his wins in what is now an ongoing effort against mass shootings. ``We consider what we did in 2019 to be one of the most profound legislative sessions not just in Texas but in any state to address school shootings,'' Abbott said inside a Uvalde auditorium Wednesday as he sat flanked by state and local officials. ``But to be clear, we understand our work is not done, our work must continue.'' Throughout the 60-minute news conference, he and other Republican leaders said a 2019 law allowed districts to ``harden'' schools from external threats after a deadly shooting inside an art classroom at Santa Fe High School near Houston the year before. After the Uvalde gunman was reportedly able to enter Robb Elementary School through a back door this week, their calls to secure buildings resurfaced yet again. But a deeper dive into the 2019 law revealed many of its ``hardening'' elements have fallen short. Schools didn't receive enough state money to make the types of physical improvements lawmakers are touting publicly. Few school employees signed up to bring guns to work. And many school districts either don't have an active shooting plan or produced insufficient ones. In January 2020, the Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District received $69,000 from a one-time, $100 million state grant to enhance physical security in Texas public schools, according to a dataset detailing the Texas Education Agency grants. The funds were comparable to what similarly sized districts received. Even with more funds and better enforcement of policies, experts have said there is no indication that beefing up security in schools has prevented any violence. Plus, they said, it can be detrimental to children, especially children of color. ``This concept of hardening, the more it has been done, it's not shown the results,'' said Jagdish Khubchandani, a public health professor at New Mexico State University who studies school security practices and their effectiveness. Khubchandani said the majority of public schools in the United States already implement the security measures most often promoted by public officials, including locked doors to the outside and in classrooms, active shooter plans and security cameras. After a review of 18 years of school security measures, Khubchandani and James Price from the University of Toledo did not find any evidence that such tactics or more armed teachers reduced gun violence in schools. ``It's not just guns. It's not just security,'' Khubchandani said. ``It's a combination of issues, and if you have a piecemeal approach, then you'll never succeed. You need a comprehensive approach.'' Insufficient Active Shooter Plans Since the shooting, GOP lawmakers have repeatedly suggested limiting access to schools to one door. ``We've got to, in our smaller schools where we can, get down to one entrance,'' Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick offered at the press conference Wednesday. ``One entrance might be one of those solutions. If he had taken three more minutes to find that open door . . . the police were there pretty quickly.'' There are still questions about the timing and details of the tragedy, however, including whether the shooter busted a lock to get into the school or if a door was unlocked. A state police official reported Thursday that the door appeared to be unlocked but that it was still under investigation. Khubchandani and education advocates said locking doors and routing everyone through one entrance is already standard practice in most districts. And safety leaders said locking exterior doors is a best practice, but it's one strategy that needs to be strictly enforced. ``Sometimes convenience can take priority over safety and you can have a plan in place, you can have policies in place,'' said Kathy Martinez Prather, director of the Texas School Safety Center at Texas State University. ``They're only as effective as they're being implemented.'' At Wednesday's press conference, Abbott emphasized that the package of school safety laws passed in 2019 required school districts to submit emergency operations plans to the Texas School Safety Center and make sure they have adequate active shooter strategies to employ in an emergency. State law dictates that districts must be able to show how they will prepare for, respond to and recover from disasters like active threats, but also extreme weather and communicable disease. These plans must include training mechanisms, communication plans and mandatory drills. Schools must create safety committees and establish a way to assess threats. But a three-year audit by the center in 2020 found that out of the 1,022 school districts in the state, just 200 had active shooter policies, even though most districts reported having one. The audit revealed 626 districts did not have active shooter policies in place and 196 districts had insufficient policies. Just 67 school districts had viable emergency operations plans overall, the report found. Martinez Prather wouldn't say if Uvalde's emergency plan was considered adequate because of ongoing investigations into the shooting. But said the center's review did not find any areas of noncompliance. The audit reviewed school districts' emergency plans in June 2020, and Martinez Prather said she was ``absolutely'' surprised that so many schools did not have clear-cut plans, especially after the Santa Fe shooting and others around the country. ``Our attention to this issue should not be as close to the nearest and latest school shooting,'' she said. ``We need to keep sending that message that this can happen at any point in time and to anybody.'' She said the center has spent the last year and a half following up with schools to get their plans up to standard. Arming Teachers and Staff With Guns Texas leaders have already shunned the idea of restricting gun access in the aftermath of the Uvalde shooting. In fact, in recent years, Texas lawmakers have loosened gun laws after mass shootings. Instead, lawmakers point to the nearly decade-old school marshal program in Texas as another measure to deter and prevent mass shootings. That program was created in response to the deadly shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, that left 26 people dead, including 20 first- graders. Designated school employees who take an 80-hour training course and pass a psychological exam are allowed to keep a firearm in a lockbox on school grounds, an idea most attractive to rural schools in areas where law enforcement response can take longer. After the school shooting in Santa Fe, state lawmakers removed the cap that limited schools to one marshal per 200 students. Today, according to the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement, which oversees the training for the program, there are 256 marshals across the state. While lawmakers tout it as a potential tool to prevent mass shootings, just 6% of school districts use it, according to a report from the Texas School Safety Center. Martinez Prather at the Texas School Safety Center said many school districts say it's expensive and the training is time-consuming for educators. Meanwhile, 280 schools are utilizing an unregulated option known as the Guardian Program, which allows local school boards to approve individuals in schools to carry concealed weapons. Each ``guardian'' must have a handgun license and take 15 to 20 hours of specialized training by the Texas Department of Public Safety. Nicole Golden, executive director of Texas Gun Sense, said she's concerned by the ``minimal'' level of training school staff go through before they are approved to have a weapon in the classroom. ``These aren't law enforcement officers,'' she said. ``These are school staff who have some training, and there's really not a lot of data to support that that's the safe direction to go in.'' Plus, Golden said, placing more guns on school grounds can be problematic when data shows students of color are disproportionately disciplined. When lawmakers decided to expand the number of marshals in Texas schools in 2019, Black students and parents said the idea made them feel less safe in school, knowing they are disciplined more than other students. The study from Khubchandani and Price pointed to a 2018 shooting at a high school in Kentucky where the shooter killed two and injured 14 students in 10 seconds. ``Armed school personnel would have needed to be in the exact same spot in the school as the shooter to significantly reduce this level of trauma,'' the researchers wrote. ``Ten seconds is too fast to stop a school shooter with a semiautomatic firearm when the armed school guard is in another place in the school.'' $10 per Student for Safety Big changes often take big money, and officials have noted that the 2019 school safety bill gives about $100 million per biennium to the Texas Education Agency. The agency then distributes the money to school districts to use on equipment, programs and training related to school safety and security, a little less than $10 per student based on average daily attendance. The money can be used broadly, ranging from physical security enhancements to suicide prevention programs. According to a self-reported survey of districts by the Texas School Safety Center, more than two thirds of school districts have used this money for security cameras. 20% used it for active shooter response training. Nearly 40% of districts installed physical barriers with the allotment. But Zeph Capo, president of the Texas chapter of the American Federation of Teachers, said that money wasn't enough to pay for the more expensive projects lawmakers were suggesting. ``Districts ended up spending money on some programs, some electronic AV equipment, but I don't think it was nearly enough to do what needs to be done in most of the schools, which is really change the structures of the buildings so there's better control over entrance and egress,'' he said, noting that AFT believes more gun restrictions is a better solution. The TEA also received a separate one-time $100 million pool of money to provide grants to districts specifically for physical security enhancements, like metal detectors, door- locking systems or bullet-resistant glass. It's unclear how Uvalde CISD spent the $69,000 it received from the state to enhance its physical security. School officials did not respond to questions Wednesday. As of the May 2 report, the district had spent about $48,000 of the grant, which is set to end at the end of the month. Other remote town school districts received comparable grants per their student population, according to an analysis by The Texas Tribune. For example, the Sulphur Springs Independent School District in East Texas has only a slightly larger student population and received about $71,000 in grant funds. According to a district document, Uvalde CISD, which enrolls around 4,100 students, had a variety of so-called hardening measures in place that lawmakers and school safety leaders recommend. The district employed four district police officers, installed perimeter fencing meant to limit access around schools, including Robb, and instituted a policy that all classroom doors remain locked during the day. There are campus teams that identify and address potential threats, and schools hold emergency drills for students ``regularly.'' The district employed a threat reporting system for community members to raise concerns. Some schools had security vestibules at their entrances and buzz-in systems to get inside from the outdoors. But a security vestibule, which is basically a secure lobby to the school, can be a huge expense for school districts already tight on money. In 2019, the Waller Independent School District estimated that the addition of two of these entrances to the junior high school would cost $345,000. Security cameras at a small elementary school can cost more than $20,000, according to industry experts. In recent years--even before the Santa Fe shooting--school districts have begun to rely on bond proposals to find the money to implement some of these changes. But Texas voters have expressed hesitancy at the ballot box to approve such bonds in recent years, which the Texas Association of School Boards attributed to the lingering pandemic and political polarization. Recent changes by the Texas Legislature have also complicated bond requests for schools after it started to require districts to write, ``This is a property tax increase,'' on bond project signs, even when the proposals wouldn't affect the tax rate. Overall, Monty Exter, a senior lobbyist with the Association of Texas Professional Educators, said the per- student allotment and one-time grants set aside for school security could never pay for the types of construction projects lawmakers have touted publicly in the wake of the shooting. ``Thinking about making significant changes to 8,000-plus campuses, $100 million doesn't necessarily go that far,'' he said.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, we keep hearing that the epidemic of mass school shootings can be solved by hardening schools. Guess what? Robb Elementary had been hardened. We can harden schools all we want, we can turn them into fortresses, but unless we deal with the underlying issue, it is going to keep happening. The gentlewoman from Minnesota also said mental health is a root cause. I include in the Record a Bloomberg article published May 27, 2022, entitled: ``Republicans Push Unfounded Mental Health Claim for Gun Violence.'' [From Bloomberg, May 27, 2022] Republicans Push Unfounded Mental Health Claim for Gun Violence (By Emma Court) Republican politicians from Senator Ted Cruz to Texas Governor Greg Abbott have been quick to blame mental illness following a deadly school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, that killed 19 children and two teachers. The problem with that thinking is that the evidence doesn't support it--even if common sense suggests a mass shooting, especially of children, is not the act of a person who is mentally well. While reporting from Texas following the May 24 shooting makes clear the Uvalde gunman, Salvador Ramos, was a deeply troubled individual, state officials have said he had no documented mental health issues. Research shows that only a very small percentage of violent behavior is connected to mental illness. ``If we magically cured all these serious mental illnesses tomorrow, which would be wonderful--imagine the alleviation of suffering--our violence problem would go down by about 4%,'' said Jeffrey Swanson, a professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University. Firearm violence is a greater risk for young males, individuals with a violent childhood and those who abuse drugs and alcohol. While mental illness can contribute to gun violence, the vast majority of those suffering from mental illness will never engage in violent acts, Swanson said. Attributing school shootings to mental illness, meanwhile, increases the stigma around such conditions, which include depression, schizophrenia and psychosis, according to experts. Gun Deaths National Rifle Association leaders are expected to shift the focus away from gun policies that put deadly weapons in the hands of the public when their national convention kicks off in Houston on Friday. The organization called the Uvalde massacre ``the act of a lone, deranged criminal'' in a statement. Around 45,000 people died from gun-related deaths in the US in 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. More than half those deaths were suicides, and many of the remainder were murders. Guns are also now the leading cause of death among children and adolescents, surpassing car crashes, drug overdoses and drownings, according to recent CDC data. Texas is fiercely pro-gun rights, and Abbott last year signed legislation allowing Texans to carry handguns without a license. Abbott, at a press conference in Uvalde, suggested that access to guns isn't the issue. ``We haven't had episodes like this before,'' Abbott said. ``One thing that has substantially changed is the status of mental health in our communities.'' In truth, shooters in the US have tried to kill in places like schools, malls and bars for decades. Cruz, who is expected to be at the NRA event, has described the shooting as the actions of a ``violent psychopath.'' He also said none of the gun-law proposals made by Democrats would have stopped it. Democrats have been quick to dispute those claims. ``Spare me the bull,'' Democrat Chris Murphy of Connecticut said to reporters after urging his colleagues to take action against gun violence. Other countries have mental health problems too but rarely have mass shootings, President Joe Biden said in a May 24 speech in which he pleaded for gun reform and called for standing up to gun manufacturers. ``They have mental health problems. They have domestic disputes in other countries. They have people who are lost,'' Biden said. ``But these kinds of mass shootings never happen with the kind of frequency they happen in America.'' Widespread Misconception Many people associate mental illness with violence, likely because of how these conditions are portrayed in the media, including in reporting about shootings like Uvalde. Mental illness can also be an easy scapegoat for making sense of tragedies like Uvalde, which are devastating and hard to comprehend, said Lynsay Ayer, a senior behavioral scientist at Rand Corp., a nonprofit research organization. ``People want to explain it, to say `this person wasn't thinking rationally, wasn't thinking like you and me, something went wrong in their brain wiring,' '' she said. Blaming mental illness is ``convenient, but it's overly simplistic and runs the risk of hurting people who have mental health problems.'' People with mental health disorders are, in fact, more likely to be the victims of violence than a perpetrator, Ayer said. Using mental illness as an explanation for such events also plays into outdated tropes, like the idea that ``something is wrong with'' those individuals, said Hannah Wesolowski, chief advocacy officer for the National Alliance on Mental Illness. ``I think people confuse having a mental health condition with being troubled, and they are not one and the same,'' she said. Mental illness is defined by specific medical guidelines. It's also widespread, affecting one in five US adults every year. Gun violence remains poorly understood. One reason: Since 1996, Congress has limited federal funding of research into the subject. While that's now changing, gaps in understanding remain. Studying mass shootings is also challenging because such events are relatively rare, Ayer said. (Everytown for Gun Safety, which advocates for universal background checks and gun-safety measures, is backed by Michael Bloomberg, founder and majority owner of Bloomberg News parent company Bloomberg LP.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1153 and ask for its immediate consideration.