Active Shooter Alert Act of 2022

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

The Active Shooter Alert Act is unnecessary. It gives more authority to the Biden Justice Department, the most political Justice Department in history.

States already utilize emergency alert systems to warn the public about natural and human-made disasters, extreme weather events, active shooter situations, and other emergencies. Federal, State, and local officials already use the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System to send emergency alerts to mobile devices and to alert media platforms.

According to a 2020 report from the Government Accountability Office, every State has at least one alerting authority, and there are more than 1,400 alerting authorities across the country.

If the States are already using an alerting system to notify the public about imminent threats, what is this bill really doing? What is this bill really about? This bill is creating a new Federal job at the Biden DOJ to encourage State and local governments to issue public alerts any time a firearm is used to threaten anyone anywhere.

Don't take my word for it. During the markup, Congressman Jones admitted that:

This bill would be most effective at reminding us that the threat of gun violence exists all around us, but it does little to actually protect us from it.

That is right. This bill is about Democrat fear-mongering that guns are ever-present threats, and we cannot be safe until Big Government rounds up every last gun.

In fact, Congressman Jones went further and called on the committee to consider another bill that would ban assault weapons. The Democrat chair of the committee followed up by voicing his support for that very concept.

No wonder the Democrats want to push forward a bill that will create a reminder that ``the threat of gun violence exists all around us.'' They want to create a culture of fear so they can achieve their ultimate goal, which is getting rid of the Second Amendment.

If they really wanted to improve emergency alerts for active shooters, we would be moving a bill to improve the IPAWS wireless emergency alerts that are sent to mobile devices.

In a recent report, GAO stated that local alerting officials had expressed concerns about the inability to target WEA alerts with accuracy, which made local officials reluctant to even use the system at all.

They have got a system out there. Let's improve the system and alert people to emergencies, not have legislation that is about ultimately undermining the Second Amendment.

We could have had hearings. We could have received expert testimony. We could have been able to fully vet this initiative. This legislation is simply another failed attempt by Democrats to ``do something'' about the surge in violence and crime across the country.

If we need to do something, we should start by supporting law enforcement and the rule of law instead of demonizing our police and actively encouraging illegal entry into this country.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I would point out, we are not trying to hide behind the Second Amendment--we are trying to defend it. We are defending it.

It is an important part of our Bill of Rights, an important part of our Constitution.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie), no better defender of the Second Amendment, and the co-chair of the Second Amendment Caucus.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, such irony. Democrats lecturing Republicans on law enforcement and respect for law enforcement. This from the party who spent an entire summer talking about defunding the police, who had elected officials in this body, Democrats in this body, raise money to bail out the rioters and looters who they called peaceful protesters who were attacking police, and now he is going to lecture Republicans on respect for law enforcement. I mean, you can't make it up. This is how the Democrats operate today.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop), my friend.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I often think it is helpful to think about what Americans must be thinking as they watch debates here on this floor.

In this instance, I am sure that Americans think, as Mr. Massie suggested, and as I just have been thinking and was thinking in our markup: Aren't we already doing this? Aren't there alert systems that go out all the time for times when a child has been abducted, an elderly person has gone missing, all sorts of things?

Sure enough, Federal, State, and local officials already use the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System, IPAWS, to alert the public to emergency situations. Government officials use the IPAWS Wireless Emergency Alert, the WEA--a lot of acronyms, sure; it is government--to send emergency alerts to mobile devices and use the Emergency Alert System, EAS, to alert media platforms.

According to FEMA, ``Imminent threat alerts include natural or human- made disasters, extreme weather, active shooters, and other threatening emergencies that are current or emerging.''

So, wait a minute, active shooters are already specifically covered by FEMA under the existing alert system? So, what is going on?

A hint emerged in our committee markup when the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) offered an amendment to broaden the name of the bill, not just to cover active shooters. The gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline) opposed the amendment--not only opposed it, but he termed Mr. Issa's proposal offensive. Now, we are getting to it.

The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean), who spoke a moment ago, called it gun legislation. An alert system is gun legislation?

It comes down to another messaging opportunity--doesn't it?--the yearning to sensationalize an admittedly awful problem. But I have to say to my fellow Members of the House of Representatives, sensationalizing this problem is not a solution to it.

The examples given by Ms. Dean on the floor today she herself said reflected her desire for radical change, but all of her examples avoided the topic at hand, this alerting system.

How would a redundant emergency alerting system of national scope have impacted the Juneteenth day shooting on 14th Street here in the District of Columbia or the shooting last week, a gang-related shooting in Philly? How would an alerting system have changed that?

Here is what I would say to the Members on the other side: You are still not grappling with the real issue. The Juneteenth shooting did not occur because the existing public alerting systems were inadequate nor because, in fact, guns are available or even prevalent, as they have always been in the United States since its founding.

If you do not address what has changed, your efforts will only grow government and reduce freedom.

Mr. Cicilline just said, well, small police departments don't have the resources to access alerting systems or to learn about best practices. Really? I was in the State legislature in North Carolina. I know what resources we made available.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, we would never fail to make available--and it is not beyond the resources of any State in this Union--public alerting systems and to consider such issues as whether or not we wish to activate vigilantes who might respond to such an alert.

This makes no sense. You are not grappling with the issue. For that reason, this is not the answer. It should be defeated.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

First, as the gentleman from North Carolina said, this bill is redundant. There are 1,400 alerting authorities across the country that already alert citizens in those communities to an active shooter, so it is redundant.

Second, it does seek to undermine the Second Amendment. Don't take my word for it. Take one of the Democrat supporters of the legislation on the Judiciary Committee. Here is what he said:

This bill would be most effective at reminding us that the threat of gun violence exists all around us, but it does little to actually protect us.

You have to view it in context. Remember, the last 4 weeks, all Democrats have talked about is taking away people's Second Amendment liberties.

We have this huge debate going on in the Senate right now, red flag laws where you have no due process. Someone who doesn't like you comes and says, ``We are going to take away so-and-so's firearm,'' and goes to a judge or law enforcement to take away their firearm. There is a hearing you are not allowed to be at. They take it away, and then you have to go get it back. Your fundamental liberty, taking your property, your rights from you, this is the context with which they bring this legislation.

The third reason, I don't know who in their right mind would want to give the Department of Justice more authority in light of what we have seen from this Department of Justice. Frankly, I don't know why you would give any Democrat-run Department of Justice more authority after what we have seen from the Obama Justice Department and now what we see from the Biden Justice Department.

The Obama Justice Department spied on Presidential campaigns. The Biden Department of Justice is treating moms and dads as terrorists, using domestic terrorism, counterterrorism measures, the PATRIOT Act, against parents, for goodness sakes.

We know that because we have had multiple FBI agents come forward as whistleblowers and tell us about the over two dozen investigations into parents. One of those parents was investigated simply because they owned a firearm. That is the context and why we have concerns with this legislation.

I hope we vote ``no'' on this. More importantly, I hope the Senate doesn't pass this package they are talking about, which would certainly undermine liberties of law-abiding American citizens.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source