Ensuring Women’s Right to Reproductive Freedom Act

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 good friends, Lizzie Fletcher and Marilyn Strickland and Jamie Raskin, for understanding the Constitution.

Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Donahue threw a Molotov cocktail in a clinic, an abortion clinic, in Shreveport, Louisiana. David McMenemy of Rochester crashed his car into the Edgerton Women's Care Center. A package left at a woman's health center in Austin, Texas, contained an explosive device. It goes on and on and on.

A Texas woman has been charged with murder after a so-called, self- induced abortion. It is clear that our friends are trying to criminalize the right to reproductive freedom.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article from NPR and a document entitled ``Violence Against Abortion Providers.''

Violence Against Abortion Providers, Clinics, and Activists

December 12, 2005: Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw

a Molotov cocktail at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. The

device missed the building and no damage was caused. In

August 2006, Hughes was sentenced to six years in prison, and

Dunahoe to one year. Hughes claimed the bomb was a ``memorial

lamp'' for an abortion she had had there.

September 11, 2006: David McMenemy of Rochester Hills,

Michigan, crashed his car into the Edgerton Women's Care

Center in Davenport, Iowa. He then doused the lobby in

gasoline and started a fire. McMenemy committed these acts in

the belief that the center was performing abortions; however,

Edgerton is not an abortion clinic. Time magazine listed the

incident in a ``Top 10 Inept Terrorist Plots'' list.

April 25, 2007: A package left at a women's health clinic

in Austin, Texas, contained an explosive device capable of

inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated

the device after evacuating the building. Paul Ross Evans

(who had a criminal record for armed robbery and theft) was

found guilty of the crime.

May 9, 2007: An unidentified person deliberately set fire

to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

December 6, 2007: Chad Altman and Sergio Baca were arrested

for the arson of Curtis Boyd's clinic in Albuquerque. Baca's

girlfriend had scheduled an appointment for an abortion at

the clinic.

January 22, 2009: Matthew L. Derosia, 32, who was reported

to have had a history of mental illness, rammed an SUV into

the front entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Saint

Paul, Minnesota, causing between $2,500 and $5,000 in damage.

Derosia, who told police that Jesus told him to ``stop the

murderers,'' was ruled competent to stand trial. He pleaded

guilty in March 2009 to one count of criminal damage to

property.

August 29, 2009: Two days after a nearby anti-abortion

protest, an unknown arsonist threw a molotov cocktail at a

Planned Parenthood in Lincoln, Nebraska. The bomb fell short

of the building, leaving no property damage or casualties.

January 1, 2012: Bobby Joe Rogers, 41, firebombed the

American Family Planning Clinic in Pensacola, Florida, with a

Molotov cocktail; the fire gutted the building. Rogers told

investigators that he was motivated to commit the crime by

his opposition to abortion, and that what more directly

prompted the act was seeing a patient enter the clinic during

one of the frequent antiabortion protests there. The clinic

had previously been bombed at Christmas in 1984 and was the

site of the murder of John Britton and James Barrett in 1994.

April 1, 2012: A bomb exploded on the windowsill of a

Planned Parenthood clinic in Grand Chute, Wisconsin,

resulting in a fire that caused minimal damage.

April 11, 2013: Benjamin David Curell, 27, caused extensive

damage to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Bloomington,

Indiana, vandalizing it with an axe: Curell was convicted in

state court of felony burglary, and pleaded guilty in federal

court to one count of violating the Freedom of Access to

Clinic Entrances Act. In the federal case, he was sentenced

to three years of probation and ordered to pay restitution.

October 3-4, 2013: 32-year-old Jebediah Stout attempted to

set a Planned Parenthood clinic in Joplin, Missouri on fire

two days in a row. Stout previously set a fire at a Joplin

mosque.

September 4, 2015: A Planned Parenthood clinic in Pullman,

Washington was intentionally set on fire. No injuries were

reported due to the time of day, but the FBI was involved

because of a history of domestic terrorism against the

clinic. The crime was never solved. The clinic reopened six

months later.

October 22, 2015: A Planned Parenthood clinic in Claremont,

New Hampshire was vandalized by a juvenile intruder. Damaged

in the attack were computers, furniture, plumbing fixtures,

office equipment, medical equipment, phone lines, windows,

and walls. The flooding that resulted from the vandalism also

damaged an adjacent business)

February 24-25, 2016: Travis Reynolds, 21, vandalized a

Baltimore-area women's health care clinic with antiabortion

graffiti. After being arrested, Reynolds ``admitted to police

that he defaced the clinic's doors, walls and windows because

he thought that it would deter women from using the clinic.''

Reynolds pleaded guilty in federal court to one count of

violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act in

October 2016.

March 7, 2016: Rachel Ann Jackson, 71, vandalized a Planned

Parenthood clinic in Columbus, Ohio, with the message ``Satan

den of baby killers . . .'' She pleaded guilty to felony

counts of breaking and entering and vandalism and a

misdemeanor count of aggravated trespass. Jackson was

sentenced to probation, with the judge citing her struggle

with serious mental illness as a mitigating factor.

February 10, 2019: Wesley Brian Kaster, 43, threw a Molotov

cocktail at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Columbia,

Missouri. Kaster admitted to setting the fire because Planned

Parenthood provided abortions, although Planned Parenthood

stated that the clinic was not providing abortions at the

time due to a state law. Kaster was sentenced to five years

in prison.

January 3, 2020: A high school student, Samuel Gulick,

spray-painted ``Deus Vult'' on a clinic in Newark, Delaware

before throwing a Molotov Cocktail at the front window.

Gulick was sentenced to 26 months in prison by a federal

judge.

October 10, 2020: A man threw multiple Molotovs at a

Planned Parenthood clinic in Fort Myers, Florida.

January 23, 2021: An unknown individual fired a shotgun at

a Tennessee Planned Parenthood clinic; no one was injured.

News outlets noted that the attack took place on the

anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision and at a time when

Tennessee's governor, Bill Lee, was involved in a heated

online debate regarding abortion and health care.

December 31, 2021: On New Year's Eve, a fire destroyed a

Planned Parenthood in Knoxville, Tennessee. The building was

closed at the time for renovations. The Knoxville Fire

Department and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and

Explosives ruled the fire arson. The clinic had previously

been shot at in January of the same year.

May 25, 2022: A masked woman set a fire at a planned

abortion clinic in Casper, Wyoming. The ATF offered a $5,000

reward for information leading to her arrest.

Madam Speaker, I stand, as I said earlier, with a 10-year-old victim who had to run to be able to secure an abortion after being raped.

I stand on the Constitution where the Fifth Amendment says that we are due life and liberty. I stand in front of ``In God We Trust,'' and I tell my friend from Louisiana that the Constitution says that we have a right to freedom of religion.

We speak what we believe. That is what this legislation does, and that is what reproductive freedom is. It is to ensure that the GOP does not criminalize abortion in all 50 States.

It is to ensure that Republicans are not plotting a nationwide ban to criminalize. This Constitutional expose, and explanation, indicates that we have the right to travel and the right to be constitutionally secure in that.

Further, we need to go a step further and criminalize anyone who is a bounty hunter and hold them accountable and put them in jail.

Specifically, this bill provides and makes sure that we prohibit any person or healthcare providers who provide legal abortion or services, that we don't stop that, that we don't stop any person or any entity for helping healthcare providers. Let me thank you and ask support of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise in strong support of H.R. 8297, the Ensuring Access to Abortion Act of 2022.

H.R. 8297, the ``Ensuring Access to Abortion Act of 2022'' will protect women and girls from others preventing or interfering with a person's ability to access abortion care across state lines.

H.R. 8297 prohibits anyone acting under state law from interfering with a person's ability to access abortifacient drugs, abortion counseling, or abortion services out-of-state.

When I cosponsored this bill, I was specifically thinking of the women in my hometown of Houston, who now must travel 12 hours to reach the nearest abortion clinic in New Mexico.

I fear that Texas women and girls will because of the state's antiabortion laws will be living behind a new ``Iron Curtain.''

The harrowing stories of people escaping across the Berlin Wall to freedom will be replaced by women escaping Texas to save their own or a loved one's life.

I am concerned that there will be a new Underground Railroad with conductors ferrying women to New Mexico where they well have the freedom to make their own medical decisions.

It is the landmass of the state of Texas that makes this bill desperately needed.

Texas is the second-largest state in the US with an area of 268,597 square miles or 171,902,080 acres which is more than 7.4 percent of the United States total land mass.

In comparison, Texas is about 1.65 times larger than California, at 163,696 square miles.

Texas is not the largest state, however. Alaska, the largest state in the US is nearly 2.5 times larger than Texas at 663,300 square miles.

Texas has 29 million residents and the 13th highest GDP in the world at 1.78 trillion as of 2019.

If Texas were its own country, it would be the 40th largest out of 193 countries in the world, bigger than every country in Europe.

It is the quantitative, logistical, and legal challenge of driving to gain abortion services.

To the South is the country of Mexico with passport requirements which costs hundreds and often many weeks to obtain.

Those women living in regions of the state that border other states with prohibitions on reproduction options for women will make travel to New Mexico the only option.

To give some perspective on the size of Texas.

Austin is closer to New Orleans than it is to El Paso.

San Diego is closer to El Paso than it is to Houston.

The distance from Washington, D.C. to New York City is about 228 miles, or four hours driving.

The distance from Dallas to Houston, which is roughly 230 miles, or a little over four hours in a car.

To the north and northeast are Louisiana, Arkansas, and Oklahoma all of which have and made add to the hurdles of reaching a service provider by car.

It takes around 13 hours to drive the 805 miles from the northernmost point to southernmost Texas. You would start in Texhoma, a small town that sits on the border of Texas and Oklahoma then drive south through Lubbock, San Antonio, and all the way down to Brownsville, the southernmost city on the tip of Texas.

It takes 11 hours to drive 773 miles from easternmost to westernmost points across Texas.

Any drive of just a few hours may place women in the jurisdiction of unincorporated areas, rural towns, and counties where aggressive enforcement of a state law may be a priority.

Republican Texas lawmakers have already passed SB 8, one of the most barbaric and archaic anti-abortion laws in the country, that denies women the right to bodily autonomy after carrying a fetus for more than 6 weeks.

If left to their own devices, those lawmakers hope to prevent Texan women from seeking abortions not only in Texas, but elsewhere as well.

That is why I wholeheartedly support H.R. 8297, the ``Ensure Access to Abortion Act of 2022.''

This bill would prohibit any person acting under state law from preventing, restricting, impeding, or retaliating against:

health care providers who provide legal abortion services to out-of- state residents;

any person or entity who helps health care providers provide such services;

any person who travels to another state to obtain such services;

any person or entity who helps another person travel to another state to obtain such services; or

the movement in interstate commerce of drugs that are approved to terminate pregnancies.

Women in Texas and in other states with anti-abortion laws are already in crisis. They are already forced to flee their communities, incur undue financial costs, and combat social stigma to seek abortion care beyond their state boundaries.

We cannot allow these women to then be additionally prosecuted for exercising their right to abortion care in states where that right is still upheld.

The ``Ensuring Access to Abortion Act of 2022'' would protect women in need of abortions from litigation.

But it goes admirably beyond that by protecting those who support women in exercising their reproductive rights.

Many organizations and community networks have rallied around women since the Supreme Courts Dobbs decision.

Churches, non-profits, and private companies have all stepped up to the plate to support women carrying unwanted pregnancies whether it be through financial contributions, transportation assistance, housing options, or access to abortion drugs.

The ``Ensuring Access to Abortion Act of 2022'' would shield them from those who wish to make personal gains off the private medical decisions of women.

Just last week, a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio was denied an abortion in her home state because she was six weeks and three days pregnant.

I will say it again: A 10-year-old girl. Six weeks and three days pregnant.

The anti-abortion trigger laws in her state forced this little girl to travel 175 miles to Indianapolis in order to have her rapists' fetus removed from her young body.

This little girl had to leave the comfort of her community, leave her state, and drive for hours in order to get the necessary medical care she undeniably needed.

Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have preferred it if she could not have done even this.

Many conservative lawmakers would have preferred to see lawsuits filed against the family member who made her abortion appointment, the nurse who greeted her at the clinic, the parent who drove her home.

Maybe they would have even preferred to see lawsuits against the owner of the gas station where the family refueled their car, or the search engine that helped them locate the abortion clinic that saved their child from becoming a 10-year-old mother.

Imagine if lawmakers had decided that this little girl had to see a physician 24 hours in advance of her appointment. Imagine if they had mandated that she see an ultrasound of her fetus. Imagine if they had required the physician who cared for her to counsel this child on the benefits of adoption.

That is the reality many Republican lawmakers would like to see.

That is why these two bills are so important.

I stand in proud support of both H.R. 8296, the ``Women's Health Protection Act of 2022,'' and H.R. 8297, the ``Ensuring Access to Abortion Act of 2022.''

I urge my colleagues to stand up for women and girls and the providers who meet their medical needs every day.

We cannot let those who wish to relegate women to second-class citizens turn back the clock any further.

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 yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 8297, the Ensuring Access to Abortion Act.

Just like the Democrats' abortion on demand until birth act, this bill is part of an extreme agenda to nationalize abortion for all 9 months of pregnancy. Abortion is a false choice between taking care of a woman and taking care of a baby.

What a woman needs is support. Every life is meaningful, and our actions are significant. Seventy-six percent of women seeking an abortion say that they would choose life if their circumstances were different.

Instead of promoting ways to support women and children with better healthcare, education, financial stability, and changing their circumstances, Democrats, including President Biden, are spreading fear, anxiety, and misinformation. This is a blatant attempt to spread fear and present abortion at any stage of pregnancy as a woman's only option.

So I will be very clear:

It is already unconstitutional to prevent a woman from traveling between States.

The pro-life movement does not support and has always rejected criminalizing and punishing women, period.

State laws currently in effect have exceptions to save the life of the mother.

And pro-life laws do not prevent women from getting care they need in cases of miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies.

Regarding this legislation, the Ensuring Access to Abortion Act, I have many questions and concerns. Its vague language, designed to promote more abortions, undermines parental consent for minors, opens loopholes for abuse, and eliminates medical supervision for chemical abortions.

This bill does nothing to explicitly prevent an unrelated adult or a sexual abuser from taking a minor out of State for an abortion without parental consent. It would prevent healthcare professionals, social workers, and schools in every State from reporting instances of child abuse, sexual abuse, and neglect because they could be seen as delaying or hindering access to abortion.

It also undermines parent rights. Parents can be targeted by the Federal Government and sued for wanting to help their child just by asking them to delay traveling to get an abortion.

If their child is 16, for example, the parents lose power to protect their teenager from being coerced by an older man to get an abortion.

The Ensuring Access to Abortion Act undermines the health and safety of women by preempting State laws regulating the practice of medicine. It overrides the majority of States that have determined it is safest for doctors to prescribe pills for chemical abortions. This puts women and minors in danger if they experience complications.

Finally, these same provisions give sexual abusers and human traffickers more direct access to chemical abortions in all 50 States and ensures that doctors in States like California, where there is no parental consent, can effectively become pill mills by prescribing and mailing abortion drugs to children and minors and end lives all over the country.

This is extreme.

Again, I ask my colleagues to abandon this agenda for unlimited abortions with no restrictions. It only promotes more fear, pain, and dehumanization of the most vulnerable, the helpless among us.

Instead, let's come together. Let's come together around human rights of every person in this country, the born and unborn. Let's celebrate the dignity, the value, and the potential of every person. This is our chance to lead a new era of hope and healing in our country for every person, for moms and babies at every stage of life.

Every life is worth living.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Flores), a new Member just elected from the great State of Texas, the first Member who was born in Mexico, and a great member of our Republican Conference.

Madam Speaker, just to clarify, not a single legislature or Congress is debating making contraception illegal. Contraception is not abortion. It prevents conception. The scare tactic about making contraception illegal is another scare tactic by the Democrats to advance a radical abortion agenda to end life up until 9 months.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Harshbarger), a strong defender of the right to life.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), our whip and a strong defender of life.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Steube) to continue our fight for human rights for all.

Madam Speaker, as we celebrate a record number of pro-life women serving in the United States House of Representatives today and an army of pro-life women all across this country from every corner, we are fighting for the human rights of all, especially the unborn.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack), one of those mighty warriors.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), another defender of the right to life.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce), who is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Dr. John Joyce is continuing our fight for the right to life.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), who is a great member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cloud), who is a great defender of the human right to life.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington), who is continuing our fight for life.

Madam Speaker, we are working on a privacy bill, but that is a separate bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher), a great defender of life.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast), a leader defending life.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), a defender of life fighting for the right to life.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson), who is on the leadership team in the House and a great defender for life.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Madam Speaker, in the United States of America, we continue our search for a more perfect Union. We all get to be a part of that.

In our history, the Supreme Court has overruled 300 of its own cases, cases such as the Dred Scott decision, and now, Roe v. Wade.

Abortion is a false choice between taking care of a woman and taking care of a baby. What a woman needs is support.

Every life is meaningful, and our actions significant. Ending abortion is the human rights issue of our generation. Every life has value and dignity.

And to every person all across this country, may each one of us open our eyes and see one another. May each one of us open our ears and hear one another. May each one of us open our hearts to one another.

We are a Nation founded on the inalienable, God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As has been noted by others, life comes first. You can't have liberty without life. You can't have the pursuit of happiness without life.

That should guide us and be the bedrock for our moral authority so that abortion would become unthinkable in America.

Today before this House is a radical agenda. The Democrats' abortion agenda is much more radical than anything that was in Roe. This is extreme.

It nationalizes abortion for all 9 months, making America just as radical as China, North Korea. It legitimizes discriminatory abortions at any stage based upon baby's sex, race, or disability, including Down syndrome. It overrides State laws that protect women from coercion.

There is no part of this that celebrates the dignity, the value, or the potential of human life. Pew Research reports that in Washington, D.C., in the 29 States that provide racial and ethnic data on abortion to the CDC, 38 percent of women who underwent an abortion in 2019 were non-Hispanic or Black, though U.S. Census numbers indicate that Black people comprise 13.4 percent of the population.

CDC data from 2019 also indicates that Black women are five times more likely to have an abortion than White women.

Madam Speaker, we stand on the side of life. Let's defend life. It is the human rights issue of our generation. Reject this bill. I yield back the balance of the time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his extraordinary leadership on this subject not only as we face the Court decision but, over time, his chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee in terms of health in general, women's health in particular, reproductive health as we gather today. I thank members of the committee, and I thank the authors of this legislation as I proceed.

I rise on this momentous day as our pro-choice, pro-women Democratic majority proudly takes further action to defend the fundamental right of health freedom.

As extremist Republicans continue their assault on reproductive rights, our Ensuring Women's Right to Reproductive Freedom Act will ensure that the fundamental right to travel and obtain needed healthcare remains in the hands of the American people.

Our Women's Health Protection Act will once again make the protections of Roe v. Wade the law of the land.

Let us salute the patriotic and persistent leadership not only of our distinguished chairman, Mr. Pallone, but also Congresswoman Lizzie Fletcher and Congresswoman Marilyn Strickland, who are leading the charge on the right-to-travel bill, working with Jamie Raskin, who is a member of the Judiciary Committee and who has been part of this.

I also salute Congresswoman Judy Chu, who will have now twice secured House passage of the Women's Health Protection Act; Pro-Choice Caucus co-chairs Diana DeGette and Barbara Lee; and Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone.

Three weeks ago, the Republican Party finally achieved its dark, dangerous, long-held goal to rip away a woman's freedom over her most fundamental decisions about her body, her health, and her life.

Since the Republican-captured Supreme Court eviscerated Roe v. Wade, at least nine Republican-controlled States have already banned abortion. More have enacted draconian restrictions so that exercising this fundamental right is practically impossible.

In doing so, these extreme measures have forced countless women to seek reproductive care in nearby States. But now, Republican lawmakers across the country are advancing proposals to block women from crossing State lines to get the care they need and punish those who, in their words, ``aid or abet'' them.

Is this the United States of America, where Republicans in these States can say to women, ``You cannot cross State lines for your own good health?''

This has been especially devastating for women who do not have the means to access care, often women of color and women from low-income communities.

This reality is sickening. It is despicable. It demands action.

With our Ensuring Women's Right to Reproductive Freedom Act, we will prevent Republicans from punishing women for exercising their right to travel and receive the healthcare they need, and it will protect healthcare providers who deliver reproductive services and all those who help women make the journey to receive those services. This means no criminal charges, no lawsuits, no fees or fines, no threats of retaliation.

Importantly, this legislation also reaffirms the right to travel, a freedom we often take for granted but is fundamental to liberty and privacy.

Republicans supposedly once stood for these values, but today, they are seeking to restrict where you can go and who you can see and to stand between you, your family, your doctor, and your God in making intimate health decisions.

This is not only anti-women; it is anti-American. House Democrats are fighting back.

Madam Speaker, today, our majority will also pass the Women's Health Protection Act, which protects the right to an abortion found in Roe v. Wade, ensuring the Federal right of healthcare providers to provide reproductive care and the Federal right for patients to receive that care.

By passing this legislation, we will preempt and prevent State-level bans and restrictions put forth by extremist, anti-women State legislators.

We will ensure that all Americans enjoy the same fundamental rights to reproductive care--regardless of background or ZIP Code.

We offer help to the American people who treasure our freedoms and who are overwhelmingly with us in our mission to defend them.

What do Republicans have in store next?

You can't travel to buy a book?

You can't travel to see a concert or a play--if it doesn't meet their, shall we say--I wouldn't use the word standards--their what?

Today, we must pass this legislation for a second time. We first passed this bill last September after Texas severely restricted the ability of women to access reproductive care with SB8, an outrageous bounty hunter bill. We do so again today, in the wake of the outrageous Supreme Court ruling that erased the vital protections of Roe v. Wade.

The Court's disgraceful decision has already unleashed catastrophe: women denied care after experiencing the heartbreak of miscarriage; survivors of sexual assault facing the possibility of forced birth; doctors under threat of persecution for offering reproductive services.

Many of these situations are well-known and are publicized--they are in the public domain. There are many more than are just in the public domain. Make no mistake, eviscerating the protections of Roe was only the opening act of the cruel Republican crusade to criminalize women.

In recent days, we have heard again of the tragic story of a young girl who was a survivor of sexual assault and had to travel to a neighboring State to receive the reproductive healthcare she needed. Now, the State attorney general--a Republican who served here in the House--is now investigating the doctor who legally provided her services. She is 10 years old. This move is intended to intimidate healthcare providers and produce a chilling effect on access to reproductive care.

The Republican agenda is not just a threat to families in red States. House Republicans' overwhelming opposition to our legislation make clear that they do not want anyone to access reproductive care anywhere. Indeed, their endgame is a barbaric ban on abortion in all 50 States.

As the Associate Justice Clarence Thomas said, they have only just begun in terms of their restrictions in terms of contraception and the rest. They will not stop there. These extremists are even threatening to criminalize birth control, in vitro fertilization, and post- miscarriage care.

Democrats will never stop fighting back against this extreme assault because we know that every woman everywhere has the basic right to reproductive healthcare.

Right now, the rights of women and every American are on the line, Madam Speaker.

House Democrats are ferociously defending freedom with these two important bills. We need two more Democratic pro-choice Senators so that we can eliminate the filibuster and make this legislation the law of the land.

Madam Speaker, as the radical Republican Party seeks to wind back the clock of 50 years of hard-fought progress, I am reminded of an extemporaneous debate in which I participated as a high school student.

A young woman, a friend of mine, drew a question from a bowl on a slip of paper that read: Do women think?

Today, it seems that some wish to debate that same question: the extremist Republican assault on women's rights harkens back to this darker time.

Do women think?

Indeed, because of Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, and a radical rightwing Republican Party, and their supermajority in the Supreme Court, right now American women have less freedom than their mothers.

By passing this legislation, the Democratic House is standing on the side of freedom for women and for every American.

The young lady who drew the insulting question answered that question with grace and strength, and she won the debate.

Just as Democrats intend to win on the question of women's health and freedom, not only here in the Halls of Congress, but with the American people in November.

Madam Speaker, I urge a very strong vote for the Women's Health Protection Act and the Ensuring Women's Right to Reproductive Freedom Act. I hope we have a strong vote and I hope a bipartisan vote.