[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.

                          ____________________