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.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1224 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas.

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.