[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 115 (Wednesday, July 13, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H5983-H5992]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 7900, NATIONAL DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF
S. 3373, PROTECTING OUR GOLD STAR FAMILIES EDUCATION ACT; PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8296, WOMEN'S HEALTH PROTECTION ACT OF 2022;
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8297, ENSURING ACCESS TO ABORTION
ACT OF 2022; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6538, ACTIVE SHOOTER
ALERT ACT OF 2022; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1224 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1224
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 7900) to
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2023 for military
activities of the Department of Defense and for military
construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for
such fiscal year, and for other purposes. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu of the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill, an
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 117-54 shall be considered as
adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill, as
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further 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 Armed Services or their respective
designees; (2) the further amendments described in section 2
of this resolution; (3) the amendments en bloc described in
section 3 of this resolution; and (4) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. After debate pursuant to the first section of this
resolution, each further amendment printed in part A of the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution
not earlier considered as part of amendments en bloc pursuant
to section 3 of this resolution shall be considered only in
the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a
Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read,
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, may be withdrawn by the proponent at any time
before the question is put thereon, shall not be subject to
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question.
Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time after debate
pursuant to the first section of this resolution for the
chair of the Committee on Armed Services or his designee to
offer amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments
printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of.
Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for 30 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Armed Services or their respective
designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not
be subject to a demand for division of the question.
Sec. 4. All points of order against the further amendments
printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules or
amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution
are waived.
Sec. 5. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (S. 3373) to improve
the Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant and the Children of
Fallen Heroes Grant. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. An amendment in the
nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 117-56 shall be considered as adopted. The
bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of
order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill, as amended, and on any further 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 Veterans' Affairs
or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to commit.
Sec. 6. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 8296) to
protect a person's ability to determine whether to continue
or end a pregnancy, and to protect a health care provider's
ability to provide abortion services. 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 or their respective designees; and (2) one
motion to recommit.
Sec. 7. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 8297) to
prohibit the interference, under color of State law, with the
provision of interstate abortion services, and for other
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. The amendment printed in part B of the
report of the Committee on Rules shall be considered as
adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill, as
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further 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 or their
respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 8. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6538) to create
an Active Shooter Alert Communications Network, and for other
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in
the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as
amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,
as amended, and on any further 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 the Judiciary or
their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 9. (a) At any time through the legislative day of
Friday, July 15, 2022, the Speaker may entertain motions
offered by the Majority Leader or a designee that the House
suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule XV with
respect to multiple measures described in subsection (b), and
the Chair shall put the question on any such motion without
debate or intervening motion.
(b) A measure referred to in subsection (a) includes any
measure that was the object of a motion to suspend the rules
on the legislative day of June 21, 2022, or July 12, 2022, in
the form as so offered, on which the yeas and nays were
ordered and further proceedings postponed pursuant to clause
8 of rule XX.
(c) Upon the offering of a motion pursuant to subsection
(a) concerning multiple measures, the ordering of the yeas
and nays on postponed motions to suspend the rules with
respect to such measures is vacated to the end that all such
motions are considered as withdrawn.
Sec. 10. House Resolution 188, agreed to March 8, 2021 (as
most recently amended by House Resolution 1191, agreed to
June 22, 2022), is amended by striking ``July 13, 2022'' each
place it appears and inserting (in each instance) ``July 19,
2022''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Schrier). The gentleman from New York is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole),
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. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule, House Resolution 1224, for five measures.
First, it provides for consideration of H.R. 7900 under a structured
rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Armed Services, makes in order a record 650 amendments, and provides en
bloc authority and one motion to recommit.
The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 8296 and H.R. 8297
under closed rules. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate for each
bill equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, provides one motion to
recommit for each bill, and self-executes a manager's amendment on H.R.
8297.
The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 6538 under a
closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary and provides one motion to recommit.
[[Page H5984]]
The rule also provides for consideration of S. 3373 under a closed
rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs and provides one motion to commit.
Finally, the rule extends recess instructions, suspension authority,
and same-day authority through July 19, 2022, and provides the majority
leader or his designee the ability to en bloc requested votes on
suspension bills this week.
Madam Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of meaningful
legislation that I look forward to discussing with my colleagues today.
I would like to start by sharing a few words on the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023.
Our Nation faces real and serious global challenges to our security
every day, and safeguarding our national defense is vital and
necessary. The Russian Federation has launched an unprovoked invasion
of the free and democratic Nation of Ukraine, while an emboldened
Chinese military threatens our allies in the Pacific.
America must be prepared to face these threats by promoting political
stability and diplomatic engagement and ensuring our military is
prepared to meet increased threats to global stability.
I am a proud member of the House Armed Services Committee, and this
year, for the 62nd consecutive year in a row, the committee has marked
up and reported a National Defense Authorization Act to address our
national defense needs.
The fiscal year 2023 NDAA includes critical investments in our
servicemembers, bolsters our position as a leader in technological
innovation to compete with countries like China, and ensures we are
prepared to face the coercions of adversaries who already threaten
global peace and stability.
I thank the leadership of Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Rogers
for delivering a bipartisan bill that prioritizes the needs of our
servicemembers and provides the resources to protect global security
and peace.
Today, we are also considering the rule for the Honoring our PACT
Act. It has been a long road to get here, and I thank Chairman Takano
and Ranking Member Bost for their efforts to get this done.
Back home, I have had the opportunity to meet with toxic-exposed
veterans and their families, and I have heard loud and clear just how
necessary this legislation is for our veterans.
When we send our servicemembers into harm's way, we make a promise
that when they come home, we will take care of them.
Sadly, over 3.5 million veterans were exposed to toxic fumes and
carcinogens while serving our Nation, resulting in life-threatening
lung diseases and cancers. Right now, they are not getting the care
they need due to a disability benefits claims process that is
cumbersome and places the burden to prove toxic exposure on veterans
themselves.
{time} 1045
By creating a presumption for disability, this legislation will help
cut through the red tape and ensure nothing stands in the way of
servicemembers receiving their care.
It is time we make good on our promise to ensure all veterans exposed
to toxic substances during their service can access the essential care
and benefits they have earned.
Madam Speaker, I am proud to support this bill and look forward to
its passage.
Madam Speaker, the rule today also provides for consideration of the
Active Shooter Alert Act, which, frankly, should have passed under
suspension in June. This commonsense legislation would create a
communications network to alert people when an active shooter is in
their community.
It is tragic to think we even need such a system, but sadly, the fear
of a mass shooting has become a persistent dark cloud shrouding our
Nation.
Let's take a moment to reflect on the horrific scene on July 4 when
the Highland Park community was attacked. What should have been a
joyous occasion for families, friends, and community members instead
became a nightmare when a dangerous person wielding a dangerous weapon
fired into the crowd, killing seven and injuring dozens more.
There are those who, yet again, offered their thoughts and prayers in
response to the Highland Park shooting, yet provided no real solutions.
But there are solutions--in fact, this body has passed countless
measures that could have helped prevent such a tragic event.
I have made my position clear--meaningful, commonsense gun reform is
an absolute necessity. To my colleagues who regularly oppose solutions
to gun violence, I ask: What are you willing to do to help protect our
communities?
Let's at least come together on legislation that creates a warning
system for communities when an active shooter is present so more
innocent lives can be saved. We are talking about an alert system, just
like those already in place for disasters like tornados, earthquakes,
and AMBER Alerts. I can't imagine who would be opposed to such a
commonsense step.
I thank the more than 40 Republicans who evaluated the merits of this
straightforward bill and voted in favor this June, and I hope we can
count on your vote again this week.
Any action is better than no action, which is why I am proud to
support this legislation--but we also know it barely scratches the
surface of the many other reforms that are needed, which is why I will
continue fighting for measures to ban assault weapons, limit high-
capacity magazines, and enact universal background checks on every gun
sale.
Madam Speaker, I would like to end my opening remarks with comments
on two fundamental healthcare bills included in this rule: The Women's
Health Protection Act and the Ensuring Women's Right to Reproductive
Freedom Act.
These bills will empower women and reaffirm their right to make
independent and informed healthcare decisions.
Over the past year we have seen an all-out assault on women's bodily
autonomy. The appalling Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade
was just the beginning. We have seen States undertake efforts to
criminalize a woman's right to make basic family planning decisions.
We have seen a 10-year-old child, a victim of rape, forced out of her
State for the healthcare she desperately needs. We have seen increased
Federal efforts to restrict access to women's healthcare,
contraception, and the fundamental right to privacy.
These astounding restrictions on women are exactly why we need the
Women's Health Protection Act.
The Federal law will codify the provisions of Roe v. Wade and
establish a statutory right to access the healthcare all women need and
deserve.
We also need to pass the Ensuring Women's Right to Reproductive
Freedom Act, legislation I proudly cosponsor.
It is a sad state of affairs that we need to codify the fundamental
right to interstate travel in this country, protecting women from civil
and criminal liability, even when seeking an abortion in a State where
it is lawful.
The fact that we have already seen efforts in State legislatures to
prevent women from seeking lawful abortions across State lines
completely contradicts the claim that overturning Roe v. Wade was about
returning the decision to the States.
The radical right has and always will be about restricting women's
rights. It is hard to believe we are living in 2022, not 1722. By
passing this legislation, we are making it clear that this assault on
women's rights cannot stand.
I urge my colleagues to show this country and the world that we
respect women, we trust women, and we support women and their right to
make informed and independent healthcare decisions.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House.
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership
on the very important elements of the rule that will be brought to the
floor today. I thank him, and I thank all the members of the Rules
Committee. I particularly want to acknowledge the leadership of
Chairman Jim McGovern for his leadership in bringing so much
[[Page H5985]]
policy to bear in this one rule as we proceed with the week's
legislation.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in what is a momentous week for our House
Democratic majority as we carry on our work to defend Americans'
health, security, and freedom.
The rule includes five pieces of landmark legislation, which the
gentleman, Mr. Morelle, has very clearly explained. I thank him and Mr.
McGovern for their skilled leadership in assembling this rule and
steering this crucial legislation to the floor.
First, this week we will have our version of the NDAA. It supports
our Nation's servicemen and servicewomen, it strengthens our national
security, and promotes national leadership in the global arena.
Our majority is delivering new pay raises for heroic men and women in
uniform, while securing more investments in next-generation defense
technology to keep us strong and qualitatively superior.
We are strengthening the security of DOD supply chains, while
advancing new and fundamental research and development at HBCUs and
MSIs.
We are further supporting the Ukrainian people in their fight for
democracy with $1 billion in additional security assistance.
I salute Chairman Adam Smith and the Armed Services Committee for
their persistent patriotic leadership in assembling this legislation,
which will help ensure that Americans are safe and our democracy is
secure.
Again, when we are talking about our security, we have to talk about
our veterans. As we have said, we promised them when they fight for us,
we will protect them when they come home. This bill, the PACT Act,
takes another monumental step to care for our brave men and women in
uniform--who risked their lives to fight the enemy, but now face the
deadly threat of exposure to dangerous toxins.
The legislation in this bill, I believe, will be strongly bipartisan,
deliver access to VA healthcare to millions of veterans suffering from
dangerous diseases caused by their exposures.
Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Mark Takano for making and addressing
toxic exposure as a top priority in Congress--the PACT Act.
Next, the Active Shooter Alert Act, which the gentleman from New York
very clearly spelled out. We will pass the Active Shooter Alert Act--
Mr. Morelle described it very well--and I agree, it is a step, and we
must have what he said he supports, and I do, too--the ban on assault
weapons and other lethality.
This Federal legislation that we are doing today will quickly warn
communities when a gunman opens fire. It is a commonsense, lifesaving
measure widely supported by law enforcement.
Let us recognize Congressman David Cicilline, a longtime champion
in the fight against gun violence, for spearheading this legislation,
and also being the author of the assault weapons ban.
The fourth and fifth bills that our Democratic majority will pass
this week take strong action to defend women's health and freedom.
Our Caucus has been hard at work assembling a robust and resolute
legislative response to the Supreme Court's assault on reproductive
rights. We passed this legislation before, the WHPA, the Women's Health
Protection Act, which will enshrine the essential protections of Roe v.
Wade as the law of the land.
And with our Ensuring Women's Right to Reproductive Freedom Act, we
will reaffirm the constitutional right to travel and have access to the
abortion pill.
Let us salute Congresswoman Judy Chu for her leadership. We passed
this bill in the fall and we need to pass it again. We thank
Congresswomen Fletcher and Strickland and Congressman Raskin for their
tireless, determined leadership on the Ensuring Women's Right to
Reproductive Freedom Act.
Madam Speaker, this legislation that the House Democrats will pass
this week is the latest in our work to defend Americans' health,
security, and freedom. Our majority will never relent in this fight--
now and in the future.
Madam Speaker, I urge a strong ``yes'' vote on the rule today and
``yes'' votes on the five bills that we are considering in the days
ahead.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I thank my very good friend, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Morelle) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes,
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, today's rule covers several major items. The first
that I will discuss, H.R. 7900, the National Defense Authorization Act
for fiscal year 2023, is of the greatest importance to the Nation and
to the world.
For 61 years in a row the NDAA has become law. As I reminded my
colleagues in the Rules Committee yesterday, this record of achievement
has only been possible because of the immense cooperation from both
sides of the aisle and is a testament to what we can accomplish when we
focus on our shared goals as a Nation.
Working together, Democrats and Republicans on the Armed Services
Committee produced a bipartisan product. I applaud Chairman Smith,
Ranking Member Rogers, and all the members of the Armed Services
Committee for their efforts.
Madam Speaker, it is no secret that the world has become a more
dangerous place in recent years. Last year saw the Taliban--a corrupt
and militant organization known for supporting and providing sanctuary
to terrorists--complete its takeover of Afghanistan.
Earlier this year, the world was shocked by Vladimir Putin's brazen,
unprovoked, and indeed outright criminal invasion of Ukraine, Russia's
democratic neighbor to the west.
Communist China continues its history of aggression in Asia and the
Pacific Rim, including increasingly aggressive acts toward Taiwan.
North Korea has continued an aggressive posturing toward the United
States and our democratic allies in Asia.
Iran continues its long march toward becoming a nuclear state.
It is more important than ever that Congress speaks with one voice
when it comes to setting our national defense policy and funding
priorities each year so that we can ensure we counter aggressive actors
and offer our allies the support they need to protect themselves.
One of the most important things accomplished in this year's NDAA is
actually what it did not do. For the second year in a row, the Armed
Services Committee rejected President Biden's proposed defense budget
number and authorized a better, higher number to ensure that
our national defense is properly funded.
Indeed, President Biden's first two budget proposals looked set to
continue the chronic underfunding of the Obama-Biden years, during
which time our military readiness declined and our rivals on the
international stage were empowered.
The increased funding in this bill will go a long way toward ensuring
that America's military is ready to confront any challenge. It will
ensure that our armed services personnel receive a 4.6 percent pay
raise, the largest in history, with additional pay bonuses to personnel
who make the least to offset the inflation caused by this
administration's policies.
On the whole, I am proud to support this legislation and I encourage
the entire House to support this measure and send it on to the Senate.
Madam Speaker, our second item in the House is S. 3373, the Honoring
our PACT Act. While this bill has gone through a frustratingly long
process to get to this point, I believe we have failed to provide our
Nation's toxic-exposed veterans with the care that they need for far
too long.
I will be the first to admit that this bill is not perfect. I share
the concerns of many about the use of mandatory spending in this bill.
Given the importance of this issue to veterans nationwide, and to those
in my district, I cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Imperfect though it is, this bill does take important strides forward,
and I plan to support it on final passage.
Unfortunately, two other bills contained in this rule are partisan
and stand no chance of becoming law. The Democratic majority is
attempting to insert a right to an abortion into Federal law,
preempting every State law that seeks to protect life.
They want to require all States to permit abortion on demand at any
time up to the point of birth. They want to outlaw commonsense
restrictions, like
[[Page H5986]]
preventing late-term abortions, preventing sex-selective abortions, and
preventing abortions targeting fetuses with Down syndrome.
They want to prevent States from adopting commonsense protections for
the unborn, such as banning mail-order and telemedicine abortion
services. They want to limit the rights of parents by creating a cause
of action for outsiders to interfere with the parent-child
relationship. That would be an unconscionable state of affairs, Madam
Speaker.
I remind my colleagues of the words of the Declaration of
Independence: that the right to life is one of those inalienable rights
endowed upon us all, including unborn children, by our Creator.
I will always stand strongly in favor of defending life, and I
proudly stand in opposition to these bills today.
Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to this rule, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
{time} 1100
Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. I will make a couple of points on what I think is one of the
most important issues that we will face in this Congress and in the
future years.
Abortion access in America changed overnight after the Supreme Court
took away a woman's constitutional right to make her own reproductive
health decisions. Nearly 34 million people of reproductive age now live
in a State where abortion is banned or severely restricted--one of the
only times that I know of that the Supreme Court of the United States
in our history took away a fundamental constitutional right to more
than half of America. My 86-year-old mother who is a grandmother and
great-grandmother will have had more right over her body and more
decision-making under this decision than her granddaughters and great-
granddaughters.
It is unconscionable, and the impact of this decision will have
horrific consequences for millions of people, particularly people with
the greatest burden: low-income individuals, people of color, and
victims of incest and abuse. I am genuinely concerned, as are millions
of people, for women's rights in this country. We refuse to be
complacent, and we refuse to stand silent. We will keep fighting every
single day however I can and however we can. Today that means
supporting the advancement of the Women's Health Protection Act.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania
(Ms. Scanlon), who is a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, it has been less than 3 weeks since Mitch
McConnell's hand-picked, rightwing Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade
and with it 50 years of settled law regarding the fundamental privacy
right of women to make their own decisions regarding their own
healthcare. That decision has also called into question a host of other
privacy rights that Americans had taken for granted, including the
right to obtain contraception and the right to interracial and same-sex
marriage.
Not surprisingly, the result has been chaos.
Why?
Because this decision is deeply unpopular and goes against the values
of a strong majority of Americans: that a woman should have the
essential freedom to decide when and if to bear children and how many
and that politicians should not be in the business of mandating that
women carry dangerous or unwanted pregnancies to term.
But in the wake of that extremist decision, we are already seeing
politicians across the country seize this moment to substitute their
own religious, economic, and, frankly, misogynistic views for that of
women who have to live with the consequences of those reproductive
healthcare decisions.
The vast majority of Americans understand that we don't need or want
politicians invading our doctors' offices and a woman's privacy to
impose an extremist, minority view because the reality is that these
decisions are complicated. They are complicated by the physical health
of both the woman and the fetus. They are complicated by the mental and
financial health of the family. They are complicated by whether or not
the pregnancy was the result of abuse or criminal activity. They are
complicated by the religious beliefs of those involved because the
rightwing views on pregnancy that the conservative Court has adopted
are not shared by most Americans or by the medical profession or even
by all major religions.
These decisions are complicated by whether or not there was access to
birth control.
In a society that for decades has prioritized the well-being of
unborn fetuses over that of children and families or even the health of
pregnant women, it is complicated by whether or not a family has the
means to provide for the basic needs of a mother or child, much less
the opportunity for them to thrive or even enjoy life, liberty, or the
pursuit of happiness.
Unfortunately, the Republican legislature in Pennsylvania has jumped
on this rightwing bandwagon, as well. Last week, in the middle of the
night, Republican lawmakers in Pennsylvania changed the rules of their
house forbidding votes after 11 p.m. in order to ram through a
constitutional amendment to limit access to abortion care. They had to
use a constitutional amendment to get around the Governor's veto and
regular order because their proposal is deeply unpopular with the
majority of Pennsylvanians.
These attacks on our essential American freedoms cannot stand. Our
families and freedoms are on the line, and it is more important than
ever that we fight to protect and expand reproductive freedom.
The bills we are considering today are a critical fight for a world
where all Americans--no matter who they are, where they live, or what
they believe--have the freedom to make their own decisions about if and
when to start or grow a family. So I am proud to support the passage of
both the Women's Health Protection Act for a second time in this
Congress and the Ensuring Access to Abortion Act.
As we see States start to pass laws that would limit the right of
women to travel--think about that, the right to travel--to obtain
healthcare, the Ensuring Access to Abortion Act makes it possible and
safe for women needing abortion care to travel to States where it is
accessible. These two bills are critical to enshrining a woman's right
to an abortion and to reproductive healthcare into Federal law. I am
proud to support these bills.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up H. Res. 11 for immediate
consideration. This resolution proposes an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States to require that the Supreme Court of
the United States be composed of nine Justices.
Madam Speaker, the Supreme Court has been set at nine Justices for
153 years. Fundamentally changing the composition of the Court to
satisfy the demands of one political party would permanently erode the
independence of the judicial branch and forever alter the separation of
powers, which is the very foundation our Constitution and our Nation
were built upon.
The independence of the judicial branch is too sacred to subject it
to the political issue of the day. The appointment of a Supreme Court
Justice is not a popularity contest, and the Court's decisions should
not be based on polls. The Supreme Court's duty is to the Constitution
and ensuring that adherence to the laws of the land.
To further explain the amendment, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), who is my very good friend and the
author of the resolution.
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman,
and I thank leadership for making my bill a priority on the floor
today.
We have heard from a number of earlier speakers that recent Supreme
Court decisions have upset the majority. These are decisions that they
disagree with.
Now, these are judicial decisions that were rendered under rules that
have been in place for more than 150 years. But there seems to be a
growing force of people who want to change the rules, that if we didn't
get the decision we wanted under the rules that have been
[[Page H5987]]
in place since 1869, then let's go ahead and change the rules. Let's go
ahead and pack the Court.
If nine Justices doesn't get what we want, then let's add two. Well,
if maybe two more Justices doesn't get us what we want, then let's add
four. Maybe we can get with four Justices the kinds of decisions we
want.
Madam Speaker, this is not a hypothetical boogieman. This is an
actual pending legislation introduced by none other than the chairman
of the Judiciary Committee. It is an active attempt to pack the Court
with 13 Justices.
Now, you might ask, Madam Speaker, is 13 the right number?
Does 13 come about because there has been some report or some
analysis that 13 Justices would make the work of the Court more
productive?
Or perhaps the Supreme Court itself, the Justices, have indicated
that they would do a better job with 13?
No. No. It does not come about because of any independent analysis or
request by the Court. This attempt to pack the Court is all about
power. It is all about power. It is all about getting the kinds of
decisions that the House majority wants.
Madam Speaker, I would submit that when Washington changes the rules
only to acquire power or only to maintain power, then it undermines
public trust in these institutions that bind Americans together. We
don't need yet a further undermining of these institutions.
Frankly, where does it end?
Once this body establishes that the size of the Court can grow only
so that we can secure the preferred judicial decisions of the House
majority, where does it end?
You take it to 13. A few years later we take it to 15. You can take
it to 17 after that.
Again, this is not a hypothetical boogieman. We have seen this happen
in other countries.
Madam Speaker, this leads to madness. This is no way to run a
judiciary.
Now, you don't need to take my word for it. Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg before her death made it clear that packing the Court would
undermine and erode public trust in the Supreme Court. She was
stridently opposed to it. Retiring Justice Stephen Breyer feels the
same and has publicly been opposed to packing the Court.
This is not something that only Republicans oppose. It is something
that reasonable and like-minded people who care about the independence
and the public trust of the Court have opposed, as well.
So that is what my resolution would do. It would simply put into the
Constitution what has already been the case since 1869, and that is
nine Justices on the Supreme Court.
I guarantee you, Madam Speaker, that we will still find plenty of
political screws to turn and leverage points for us to be able to fight
and advance our political causes. But if we can just put into the
Constitution this one thing, to keep the nine, we will be able to, at
least somehow, insulate the Court from the most corrosive political
maneuvering that we know this body is capable of.
Now, I make it clear, a ``no'' vote on the previous question which I
am urging does not submit this constitutional amendment to the States.
All it does is allow this body 1 hour to debate the merits of keeping
the nine.
What possible argument could there be against taking that 1 hour for
us to discuss together what the right size of the Court is and how do
we best maintain public trust in the Court going forward?
So, Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
heed the words of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Joe Biden, and
so many of us on this side of the aisle to consider keeping the nine.
Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
While this is not on the agenda, and I will remind people that we
have a rule that stipulates which bills are in front of us, I note with
alarm the suggestion that we ought to change the Constitution when it
comes to the Supreme Court, and for fear that we are undermining the
confidence of the Court, frankly, I am astonished.
How about following the current Constitution?
Forget about amending it.
How about following the one that we have?
I just note that when Merrick Garland was nominated by President
Obama in March of 2016, 293 days his nomination went without any action
in the United States Senate. Amy Coney Barrett was nominated September
26, a mere 6 weeks, 5 weeks before election day. Senator McConnell and
the Senate didn't follow the Constitution which says advise and consent
on nominations sent by the President. They did absolutely nothing with
the nominee Garland. They didn't seek to do anything. In fact, Mitch
McConnell talked about the politics of it.
Talk about undermining the confidence of the American public in the
Supreme Court?
How about that?
Yet when President Trump just 5 weeks before a Presidential election
made a nomination, it was swiftly pushed through.
Undermining confidence in the Supreme Court?
How about confirmation proceedings where Brett Kavanaugh or Neil
Gorsuch both said that Roe is settled law; a precedent for 50 years?
They said it in confirmation hearings. They have said it as Senator
Collins has indicated her vote hung on those words. Yet they had no
intention of following those words. They misled the American public.
Undermining confidence in the Supreme Court?
I am astonished that anyone would even say it.
Frankly, when we talk about this, we know what the agenda here is.
Justice Thomas gave us a clear roadmap of where this is all headed.
Undermining confidence in the Supreme Court?
Justice Thomas urged the Court to reconsider all of this Court's
substantive due process precedence, including the right to
contraception, the right to private consensual acts, and the right to
same-sex marriage, characterizing the entire legal doctrine as
particularly dangerous.
Undermining the confidence of the Supreme Court of the United States?
Now, Justice Kavanaugh, I will say to his credit in his concurrence,
said that the Court won't go that far. But we have heard these same
assurances from Justice Kavanaugh before, and I think they aren't worth
the words on the paper that this is printed.
We should be very, very concerned. We should be concerned that the
American public has lost confidence in the Supreme Court, but not
because of the actions of anyone here or the suggestions here.
How about because of the actions of the United States Senate and the
actions of the Supreme Court itself?
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Allred).
{time} 1115
Mr. ALLRED. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of one of the most
fundamental rights imaginable in a free society, the right to bodily
autonomy and the freedom to choose when and how to begin a family.
As I stand here today, Texas women do not have that right. In Texas
right now, a woman is required, by law, to either carry to term the
offspring of their rapist or their abuser or drive 5 hours or more to
Kansas, New Mexico, Colorado, or anywhere they can get access to
abortion services.
Now, some extremist Republicans in Texas want to prevent Texans from
leaving the State to obtain an abortion. The same so-called
conservatives who talk about Big Government want to tell Texas women
where they can travel or are threatening the employers of those women
who offer to pay for their travel.
What is next, Madam Speaker? Will they place checkpoints on our
interstate highways, or question women boarding a plane or a train
about the nature of their travel?
Does this sound like freedom to anyone?
I will not stand for it. My colleagues and I will not stand for it.
The Ensuring Access to Abortion Act ensures that all American women
have the right to travel within the United States, a right that we
should not have to be affirming today but one that we will.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H5988]]
Madam Speaker, as has become all too common with the Democratic
majority, when the status quo doesn't lead to the outcome they want,
they simply change the rules to suit their needs.
You need to only look at the last 2 years for evidence: fundamentally
changing the way the House operates through the use of proxy voting; a
complete lockdown of alternative ideas; fewer and fewer committees
doing the work to make the law rather than score political points--all
aimed at protecting their razor-thin majority at the expense of the
institution and the Nation.
Democrats' current obsession with the Supreme Court is no different,
but instead of accepting the independence of the judiciary, the
majority is, instead, intent on fixing the rules of the game to ensure
their own victory. This amendment to the Constitution would prevent
that from happening and would ensure, once and for all, that the
Supreme Court will be independent and free of meddling based on the
political ideas of the day.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with the extraneous material,
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Manning). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous
question, and I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr.
Armstrong), my very good friend.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Speaker, the Constitution grants Congress the
power over the size and composition of the judiciary. The Judiciary Act
of 1789 and subsequent laws established this structure.
Since 1869, the number of Justices has been fixed at nine. Congress
has the authority to change that number. Whether Congress should
exercise this authority is another question entirely, and whether
Congress should exercise that authority in a 50/50 Senate and a single-
digit majority in the House is another question.
In Sykes v. United States, Justice Scalia wrote: ``It should be no
surprise that as the volume'' of law ``increases, so do the number of
imprecise laws. . . . Fuzzy, leave-the-details-to-be-sorted-out-by-the-
courts legislation is attractive to the Congressman who wants credit''
without dealing with ``the nitty-gritty.''
The real problem is that Congress doesn't want to deal with the
nitty-gritty. We want to fundraise off of top-line messages and vague
legislative text.
We write ambiguous law that leaves important details and major
questions to unelected bureaucrats. The decisions of those unelected
bureaucrats inevitably are left to be sorted out by the courts. The
Court is merely doing its job to say what the law is.
Our reaction should be to take back our Article I authority and to
clearly articulate congressional intent. If we write detailed laws,
judges will properly implement Congress' intent.
Instead, too many in this body seek to exploit congressional
inaction, choosing to double down on fundraising pleas by bashing the
courts and promising to pack judges onto the Court to guarantee their
preferred outcome.
Here is a better idea. If you can't pass the Clean Power Plan through
Congress, don't ask the EPA to implement it and then feign outrage when
the Court says, no, that is not how a democratic republic is supposed
to work.
James Madison said Congress would fight to the death to protect its
Article I authority. Unfortunately, I think what we have seen is that
Congress will fight to the death to maintain their membership in
Congress.
Now, the one way in which far too many on the left want to exert our
Article I authority is to pack the Court so Congress can continue to
outsource legislating to the bureaucratic state and then ensure the
Court gives them the decision they would like.
Madam Speaker, I urge everyone to defeat the previous question.
Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I appreciate the distinguished gentleman and his comments. I note,
just in passing, that Article I authority given to us by the Framers
actually gave us the authority to identify the size of the Supreme
Court.
Constitutional amendments are not Article I. They are an extensive
process that involves ratification. Article I authority, actually--I
think he would make my argument--Article I authority would be the
Congress making the decision on the size of the Supreme Court, which
has been changed many times, from as few as six to as many as nine
judges.
But having said that, and just making that point, let's talk about
some of the real issues that need addressing that, frankly, are before
us, because the size of the Supreme Court is not before us, as
interesting as that conversation might be. Let's talk, instead, about
issues that real Americans face.
While bravely serving our country, many veterans were exposed to
hazards, from burn pits, PFAS, and radiation, toxic exposures that have
caused cancers, infertility, respiratory conditions, and unexplained
chronic illnesses. As many as 3.5 million servicemembers have been
exposed to dangerous toxic fumes.
The cost of war goes far beyond the battlefield, and we have a duty
to uphold our promises to toxic-exposed veterans by investing in the
healthcare they need and so richly deserve.
In their time of need, veterans should be receiving high-quality
care. Instead, they are being burdened with proving that their illness
is connected to their service.
I have had the privilege of meeting with many veterans in my
community, and the families of veterans who have been lost because of
exposure, while they continue the work of having to prove that their
illness is a result of exposure to toxic chemicals, to carcinogens, to
burn pits.
The Honoring our PACT Act is included in this rule, and this
legislation will address the wide range of issues impacting toxic-
exposed veterans and their access to earned benefits and care. You can
bet I am voting ``yes.''
That is one of the bills being discussed before us today, and I think
people watching us on television, people watching this later, seeing
clips, would be curious as to why suddenly we are talking about an
issue not on the floor, not before us. But this is, the Honoring our
PACT Act, before us today.
We can all do something to safeguard those who have served in our
Armed Forces and their families by doing the right thing, passing this
rule, and passing the underlying legislation.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Burgess), my very good friend and a distinguished member of
the Rules Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the
time.
Before coming to Congress, I practiced medicine for nearly 30 years.
I had the privilege of delivering 3,000 babies. I dedicated my career
as a physician to protecting the lives of children and families and
running a pro-life practice in north Texas. I have seen both sides of
this argument, both as a doctor and a policymaker.
Indeed, the chairman of the Department of OB/GYN at Parkland
Hospital's Southwestern Medical School, when I was a resident, pointed
out to us that those of us who were privileged to begin the practice of
obstetrics were unique in medicine in that we are going to be charged
with taking care of two patients, with a combined life expectancy of
over 100 years, and almost nowhere else in medicine do you have that
ability to impact the future.
Back in 2002, I decided to run for Congress because I saw lawmakers,
particularly in Congress, who have never experienced taking care of a
patient, discussing and setting the stage for how you are supposed to
run a medical practice.
Today is no different. It is deeply frustrating to see individuals
discussing procedures with little understanding of how or why they are
performed and how they affect the patients involved, both the mother
and the baby.
Throughout my time as an OB/GYN, I have taken care of women with
ectopic
[[Page H5989]]
pregnancies--never any hesitation. That does not change after a Supreme
Court decision.
I have taken care of women who, unfortunately, were suffering from
miscarriages. That will not change after a Supreme Court decision.
I have had cases where a woman had an abortion at another location
and then presented to my hospital in a crisis because of complications.
Without hesitation, I would render care to those patients, irrespective
of any Supreme Court decision.
Many of those cases, indeed, were life-threatening, but each and
every time, my responsibility was to step in and save a life. Again,
that is done without hesitation. The Supreme Court decision changes
none of that, despite the heated rhetoric we are hearing from the other
side.
It seems like a simple answer: Have an abortion, take care of a
problem.
Back in 1973, when Roe v. Wade was first decided, medical sonography
was really just beginning. In the time since then, it has really
developed into a science unto itself.
In fact, two generations of Americans since Roe v. Wade was decided
have as their first picture in their baby book an ultrasound picture or
maybe a videotape of themselves as an unborn child. Indeed, two
generations of Americans have no trouble assigning agency to that
pregnancy because they know from whence they came.
An abortion is a highly complex and deeply emotional decision. The
decision affects, yes, the mother. No question that it affects the baby
and affects other family members. Yes, it affects the provider as well.
My belief in the right to life has influenced my professional career
for much longer than my time in Congress, and I will remain committed
to that. After a lifetime dedicated to pro-life work, there is no
question it is just the right thing to do. You always err on the side
of life. You always give life a chance.
This rule also includes consideration of the National Defense
Authorization Act. Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, there were a lot
of amendments submitted. There are a lot of amendments we are going to
debate on the floor. Most of them were amendments submitted by
Democrats. Republicans got very few of those.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BURGESS. I submitted amendments to require reports to Congress on
our military response in Ukraine and the chaotic withdrawal from
Afghanistan last August, something that we cannot allow to be repeated.
Russia invaded Ukraine in February, yet we have not had another
briefing by the generals and State Department as we did prior to that
invasion. The situation is vastly different on the ground. We were
given to understand that it would not take long for Russia to
completely overrun Ukraine. They didn't anticipate the response of the
Ukrainian people. Now, we see a war of attrition evolving, but Congress
is not read into any of the administration's plans.
Then, finally, we have to ensure that the chaotic withdrawal from
Afghanistan is fully investigated and understood. What advice was the
President receiving? From whom did he receive it? How do we prevent
that from ever happening again?
I thank the gentleman for yielding me additional time.
{time} 1130
Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. I appreciate the comments from my distinguished colleague on
the Rules Committee, Mr. Burgess. But what he points out, in my mind,
reminds me how deeply personal this decision is for women involving
their body and their healthcare.
I would certainly never question his credentials as a doctor or as a
professional, but I have heard from a number of obstetricians and
gynecologists who raise, I think, what are really important questions.
For instance, in some States, the health of the mother is the only
consideration to be given when it comes to an abortion or reproductive
services. Some have raised the question: How long do you wait before
you can make the judgment that that is the only determination that can
be made? If you wait too long, do you actually jeopardize the health of
the mother by waiting so long for fear of violating a State law that
restricts the right of a woman to an abortion?
Then there is the question of miscarriages. Many, many women have
miscarriages. And concerns have been expressed by their doctors of when
we provide care after the fact or during a miscarriage, will there be
questions raised about whether or not that was actually an abortion
instead of a miscarriage? Will we be jeopardizing our careers? Will we
be putting our professional license into question?
These are very difficult questions to answer. I am certainly no
expert in them, but they raise, to me, significant questions.
As many have pointed out, there will be abortions in the United
States. There will be abortions in Texas. There will be abortions in
Mississippi. There will be abortions in every State in this country.
The question is: Are they going to be safe? Are women going to suffer
unduly? Are there going to be deaths of women because they weren't
given access to safe, reproductive care that is ultimately, as I said,
so deeply personal, so deeply involved in their autonomy?
Those are the questions before us. They are deep-seated questions.
They are important questions. But, ultimately, we side with the right
of a woman to make the decision for herself.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice), my very good friend and a member of the House
Armed Services Committee.
Mrs. BICE of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague
for yielding.
I rise in opposition to the combined rule, although I support the
underlying NDAA. This year's NDAA makes targeted investments in our
defense to protect us from increasingly aggressive adversaries like
China and Russia.
I was pleased to include a wide range of priorities for my home State
of Oklahoma, and multiple amendments focused on supporting
servicemembers, strengthening our cybersecurity posture, and deterring
our enemies.
Many Oklahomans were concerned when President Biden announced his
intent to divest half of the E-3 AWACS fleet at Tinker Air Force Base.
I worked on this issue for months and secured an amendment to slow the
divestment and to retain the training pipeline that will be needed as
we transition to the new E-7.
I was also proud to work with my colleague and friend, Tom Cole, to
secure $30 million for the new B-21 depot maintenance campus at Tinker
Air Force Base.
The NDAA also includes two bills I introduced: H.R. 7738 which would
facilitate greater security clearance portability for departing
servicemembers, and H. Res. 1143 which honors the USS Oklahoma City for
three decades of service.
With that said, I am concerned that the combined rule has excluded
many important amendments that deserve to be debated. This includes an
amendment I offered to stop the Department of Defense from recouping
bonuses to servicemembers based on their COVID-19 vaccination status. I
have heard about this issue from my constituents, and this practice
must be stopped.
Lastly, this combined rule provides for two abortion measures which I
strongly oppose. I am deeply concerned that these measures would remove
all pro-life protections at the Federal and State level. Constituents
in my home State of Oklahoma overwhelmingly support these protections,
and as a former State legislator myself, I find this approach to be
unacceptable.
Madam Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject the
combined rule.
Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I want to talk about another important piece embodied
in the rule, and it is related to the question of alerts and the Active
Shooter Alert Act.
[[Page H5990]]
It is no secret our country is plagued by gun violence. This year
alone, the Gun Violence Archive counted at least 323 mass shootings. It
is hard to even process that--323 mass shootings in the United States.
We are just halfway through the year.
On May 14, ten Black Americans were targeted in a racially motivated
mass shooting at a local Tops grocery store 60 minutes from my home in
Buffalo, New York.
Ten days later, the deadliest shooting since Sandy Hook took place in
Uvalde, Texas, where 19 kids and 2 teachers were gunned down at Robb
Elementary School.
Just a week ago, on July 4 in Highland Park, Illinois, seven people
at a 4th of July parade were killed by a gunman during a mass shooting
incident. Hard to imagine. So many of us were at parades and activities
just like that in our hometowns. Seven people dead.
I have made my position and others have made their position very
clear on gun reform, that meaningful, commonsense reform is an absolute
necessity. I am committed to fighting for the change that will provide
real change and save real lives, big changes.
But, in the meantime, I think this demonstrates our willingness to
find common ground on solutions. Again, the Active Shooter Alert Act is
bipartisan. It is something we should all be able to get behind on
voting ``yes.''
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for the time, and frankly, for the
thoughtful and wide-ranging debate. It is not a surprise that a rule
that covers five very different pieces of legislation would provoke
that kind of discussion.
I want to begin in the areas we agree. There are actually three areas
in this bill that I will be voting for. Most importantly, quite
frankly, is the National Defense Authorization Act.
There is going to be some opposition to that. It was a give-and-take
bill, but I remind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that it
actually came out of committee on a 57 to 1 vote; 57 to 1. That says a
lot of wonderful things about the leadership of Chairman Smith and
Ranking Member Rogers on that committee and its ability, after
considering over 600 or 700 amendments itself, to find common ground
and move forward.
For my colleagues that vote no, that is fine. Again, there is always
something in a bill this size you can find to disagree with, but I will
remind my friends on my side of the aisle that every single Republican
on the committee voted for the bill. So I think it is going to pass and
pass quite easily.
I also want to associate myself with my friend's support of the toxic
burn pit bill. It is a bill that I have some serious problems with,
such as the manner in which it was funded and some of the procedures by
which it moved, but it is a much better bill than we have seen before.
It is a step in the right direction.
There is no question my friend is correct when he talks about our
obligation as a Congress to look after the men and women who have put
their lives on the line for us and suffered egregious harm.
I hope we can do better in the future. I hope we can even revisit
some of the financing measures here, but it is important that it get
done and that it passes, and I look forward to working with my friend
to do that.
I agree with him on the AMBER Alert bill as well, and I will be
supporting it. There are some concerns on my side of the aisle about
that, and I understand those concerns. Again, I think this is a
commonsense measure.
The area that I will not be able to join my friend on does deal with
the fundamental protection of human life and the effort of this body to
pass legislation that it knows will go nowhere in the Senate simply to
make a point.
We ought to be working to find common ground, not to dig down the
divisions that we have even more deeply. So I will oppose the rule
partly because I oppose some of the measures in the rule; also, because
I certainly would like the previous question to be considered.
I thought both of my friends from North and South Dakota made some
excellent points on the need to codify the number nine or at least have
a discussion about that in this body, and obviously, if we defeat the
previous question, we intend to do that.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous
question, ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I begin by thanking the distinguished gentleman from
Oklahoma. We have the great privilege of serving together on the Rules
Committee. We spend many hours together, and I almost always--almost
always--find myself in agreement with him.
He is thoughtful. He is dedicated to this institution, committed to
the important principles of our democracy and the Constitution, and I
consider it a privilege to be able to serve with him and to learn from
him, and I appreciate his thoughtfulness in this debate as well.
I also thank my colleagues for their words in support of the rule
before us today. A vote in favor of the rule today, in my view, says
volumes about what we value. Support for this rule shows we value our
servicemembers who put their lives on the line for this country each
and every day. When they come home, we will be here to take care of
them.
A ``yes'' vote shows we value our defense preparedness and ensures
our Nation is ready to face the very real and serious global challenges
threatening our security. It also demonstrates a willingness to do the
bare minimum to address gun violence by ensuring our communities can
effectively be able to alert people when an active shooter is in the
area.
Last, but certainly not least, a vote in favor tells women in this
country that we value and respect them. We support their right to
manage their own healthcare.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle can attempt to misdirect
and confuse the issues at hand all they want, but the reality is we are
presenting concrete proposals to address real issues facing our Nation
when it comes to national defense, and I appreciate the bipartisan
support for that, the NDAA, gun reform, women's rights, support for
veterans. I choose to be on the right side of history on these issues.
I am voting ``yes.''
Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous
question.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Cole is as follows:
Amendment to House Resolution 1224
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 11. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 11) proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States to require that the Supreme
Court of the United States be composed of nine justices. All
points of order against consideration of the joint resolution
are waived. The joint resolution shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the joint
resolution are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the joint resolution 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
the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 12. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of House Joint Resolution 11.
Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and
I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of
the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218,
nays 208, not voting 4, as follows:
[[Page H5991]]
[Roll No. 303]
YEAS--218
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (MD)
Brown (OH)
Brownley
Bush
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel, Lois
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jacobs (CA)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Jones
Kahele
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Leger Fernandez
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mrvan
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newman
Norcross
O'Halleran
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--208
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bergman
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Bost
Brady
Brooks
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Conway
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Flores
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gohmert
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson
Jacobs (NY)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kim (CA)
Kinzinger
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Lesko
Letlow
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meijer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--4
Boebert
Herrell
Ocasio-Cortez
Spartz
{time} 1221
Mrs. MILLER of West Virginia changed her vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress
Barragan (Correa)
Bentz (LaMalfa)
Bowman (Evans)
Brown (MD) (Evans)
Cardenas (Correa)
Carter (GA) (Mace)
Castro (TX) (Neguse)
Cherfilus-McCormick (Evans)
Cohen (Beyer)
Deutch (Schneider)
Doggett (Beyer)
Fallon (Gonzales, Tony)
Hartzler (Bacon)
Higgins (NY) (Pallone)
Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
Kahele (Correa)
Katko (Meijer)
Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
Lawrence (Stevens)
Leger Fernandez (Kuster)
Lieu (Beyer)
Meng (Kuster)
Moore (WI) (Beyer)
Moulton (Stevens)
Newman (Beyer)
Panetta (Beyer)
Pappas (Kuster)
Pascrell (Pallone)
Payne (Pallone)
Pingree (Kuster)
Porter (Neguse)
Ryan (Beyer)
Salazar (Gimenez)
Sires (Pallone)
Soto (Castor (FL))
Speier (Correa)
Steel (Obernolte)
Taylor (Pfluger)
Timmons (Armstrong)
Torres (NY) (Carter (LA))
Trahan (Stevens)
Walorski (Baird)
Williams (GA) (Carter (LA))
Wilson (SC) (Lamborn)
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Bourdeaux). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question
are postponed.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. HOYER was allowed to speak out of order.)
Regarding Time for Voting
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, this is going to be a very busy week. There
are over 600 amendments made in order to the defense bill.
Clearly, if we do what we just did, and we do it too often--take
three times the time allotted to vote; this took about 47 minutes, 48
minutes to vote in the first vote--we will be here for a very long
time. No one wants to shirk their duties, but they do want to do their
duties on time.
I want to make it clear to the House that I have asked the
leadership, the Speaker's Office, to join with me in ensuring that 5-
minute votes are 5-minute votes.
My colleagues, invariably, that announcement brings cheers, and
invariably, those cheers come after 10, 15, 20 minutes have elapsed on
a 5-minute vote--not all of us, but some of us, and many of us
sometimes.
In consideration of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, some
of you are going to be angry because you are going to miss a 5-minute
vote.
Now, for those of you who are casting proxies, I ask you to cast them
immediately upon the vote opening so that we can process the proxies at
the desk.
Yelling at one another doesn't help trying to bring some self-respect
to this institution. Each of us has to take personal responsibility to
do our job, which is to put our card in the voting machine, to put our
proxies in, to move along.
I ask all of us to respect that because I am going to try, to the
extent humanly possible, to end votes at 5 minutes. Some of you are
going to be upset. You are going to walk down the aisle.
Mr. McCARTHY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I
would like to speed this up, and with all due respect, not to yell
anything else, but if we did eliminate proxies, we could go to 2-minute
votes.
Now, with all due respect, the proxies were put in because of the
pandemic. It was put in during the pandemic. You no longer have that
from any procedure here. The proxies will take longer than 5 minutes.
If we want to be able to----
Mr. HOYER. Ladies and gentlemen----
Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I thought the gentleman said yelling at
one another doesn't help.
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I just admonished some
people.
[[Page H5992]]
This is a serious issue of how the House operates and how your time
is respected. We have proxies. We are going to keep proxies. We can
debate that, but the fact of the matter is, as long as we have proxies,
we are going to have to take into consideration proxies.
But we don't have to simply waste time by people not showing up,
proxy or not. That is my whole point, so that we can respect one
another's time, respect the work of this institution, respect the work
of our committees.
{time} 1230
I would urge--and I will yield again--I would urge us to respect one
another, respect our time, and respect the constraints of voting within
a timeframe, whether it is 15 minutes or 5 minutes.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr.
McCarthy).
Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, if we look in the Chamber right now, we
have a large number of people here, not one person wearing a mask--all
right, three or four--and you can continue to wear your mask to vote in
person. I don't see how you are going to do a 5-minute vote with
proxies.
I understand the lecture you are giving to everybody, but on this
side of the aisle we will be here, we will vote, and we would gladly
like to do it the same way every other Congress has done it in history,
to be here and do the job like we expect the American people to do. And
we won't break until the proxies are done.
Mr. HOYER. Let me conclude, Madam Speaker, by urging everybody to
stay on the floor. What we are seeing happen many times is somebody
votes, they are registered, and then when you go to the next vote they
are 10 minutes, 15 minutes late. That is not what we ought to be doing.
We are going to hew to the time limits as closely as humanly possible
within the constraints of our clerks who are working very, very hard to
accommodate us.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________