Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the conference report on partial-birth abortion. This legislation injects government into the private medical decisions made by a woman, her family, and her doctor; and in so doing, this bill violates a fundamental principle at the heart of the doctor-patient relationship, that the doctor in consultation with the patient and based on that patient's individual circumstances must choose the most appropriate method of care for the patient.

I would like to remind my colleagues that with a very small handful of exceptions, we are not trained physicians. We have no business interfering with a woman's medical privacy. Additionally, this bill is unconstitutional because it does not contain an exception to protect the health of the mother. Simple humanity alone should be sufficient to justify a health exception. But if my colleagues need more, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Stenberg v. Carhart that the Nebraska ban was unconstitutional because there was no health exception for the mother.

Mr. Speaker, why would we pass something that is already known to be unconstitutional? Simply put, this bill prevents doctors from doing their jobs and will prevent physicians from providing the best and safest care for their patients. I urge my colleagues to reject the conference report before us.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening on a very important topic, the Head Start Program.

During the August recess, I had three opportunities to visit with Head Start workers at the Dane County Parent Council, a nonprofit agency that runs 13 Head Start sites. What I learned during those visits shocked and worried me, and I believe it will shock you also.

Thirty percent of these Dane County, Wisconsin, Head Start workers have faced or experienced an eviction from their housing. Fifty-five percent have had phones or other utilities shut off. Forty-five percent have used a food bank. Sixty-two percent make so little money that their own children are Head Start-eligible.

These figures are stunning. Head Start is a program designed to break the cycle of poverty. Instead, it has become a program that guarantees poverty to some of its front-line workers.

Workers and the management at the Dane County Parent Council are currently engaged in tense contract negotiations. Their most recent contract expired last night. At the center of these contentious negotiations are the extremely low salaries paid to these front-line Head Start workers.

So why do these Head Start workers put up with low wages and face the daily challenges that accompany poverty and near poverty? Because they are dedicated to the Head Start Program and the good that it does for so many children and families, oftentimes their own families.

One woman recounted for me how her own son had been a Head Start student. As a child, he had delayed speech development, but today he is a 15-year-old honor roll student. His mother, now a Head Start worker herself, knows firsthand of the good that the Head Start Program does. So despite the low wages and challenges that she faces in making sure her family's basic needs get met, she remains committed to being a part of Head Start.

This level of commitment is admirable, and it is the sort of commitment that we as Members of Congress should show to the Head Start Program as well.

I was sad to report to these struggling Head Start workers that the House-passed Head Start bill is not going to help their situation. In fact, the House-passed bill gives Head Start teachers a meager 0.4 percent raise. This is insulting, not to mention unconscionable. This is not going to help the workers that I met with who are constantly faced with the challenge of making ends meet. For these families the ends do not meet. They do not even come close.

In Congress we pass bills that authorize a lot of spending. Our appropriation bills authorize billions upon billions of dollars. But I urge my colleagues to stop for a moment and remember that it would take just a small amount of money, a drop in the bucket really, to do right by these devoted workers who do so much to bring hope to the next generation of youngsters.

A teacher's assistant or a bus driver should be focused on their precious students, not how they are going to keep the electricity on at home or clothe a growing child or stave off an army of bill collectors.

I remain hopeful that our colleagues in the other body will reward the dedication of Head Start teachers by adequately funding the Head Start Program. I also remain hopeful that the Dane County Parent Council will recognize the value of their workers through expeditious resolution of the remaining economic and noneconomic disputes in their contract.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 456, final passage of H.R. 2861, the FY04 VA-HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill, I was recorded as voting ``yea.'' I oppose this bill and intended to vote ``nay.'' This bill significantly underfunds veterans' health care. Our veterans' health care system is in crisis with an average of 200,000 veterans waiting six months or more for an appointment at Veterans Administration hospitals. The funding in this bill is clearly inadequate to meet the needs of our veterans. We must deliver the quality health care that was promised to those who have served to protect American security around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the accomplishments of the SBC/Ameritech employee group SPECTRUM, which holds its annual dinner August 3 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

SPECTRUM has been successful in achieving its goals to provide a supportive, diverse, accepting, and respectful work environment for all employees regardless of sexual orientation. Their work both within and outside of their company has served to improve the perception of SBC within the LGBT community and the community as a whole. SPECTRUM has successfully been able to secure company benefits for domestic partnerships. The group should be commended for its perseverance and ability to work with SBC to come closer to achieving SBC's Diversity Vision.

SPECTRUM has done a fine job of celebrating diversity as well as ensuring that rights and benefits in the workplace are applied equally and without discrimination. Groups that promote diversity and equal rights in the workplace are an important part of promoting tolerance and awareness. Organizations such as SPECTRUM have gone to great lengths to secure equal and fair treatment of employees through equal benefits and fair opportunities regardless of factors such as sexual orientation. Although much more work still needs to be done, SPECTRUM has led the way by working with SBC and its employees to set a wonderful example of what should be accomplished in all workplaces and throughout the entire United States.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Donald Schneider, who served as the Chief Clerk of the Wisconsin State Senate for 26 years.

As the longest-serving Chief Clerk in Wisconsin's history, Don Schneider worked under three Democrat and three Republican majorities. Although it is impossible to quantify his rich legacy, I honor him most for three reasons: his dedication to bring cutting edge technology to the Senate, his expertise in legislative organization, and his non- partisan cooperation in serving the body.

During his tenure, Schneider was instrumental in the modernization and automation of the Senate. The Senate's increased technology allowed for increased efficiency and increased public accessibility. In a world of ever-advancing technology, Schneider's commitment of keeping the Senate technologically current was crucial to the performance of its function.

Secondly, Schneider is recognized both within Wisconsin borders and beyond for his authority in the fields of legislative organization and legislative institution development. This reputation extends nationally and internationally, culminating in his acceptance of the Joseph A. Beek Distinguished Service Award from the American Society of Legislative Clerks and Secretaries in 1998.

Perhaps most importantly, Schneider is honored for his professionalism and nonpartisanship. His collaboration with both sides of the aisle induced the respect that Republicans and Democrats alike feel for him, translating into his lengthy tenure under both majorities. Mr. Schneider's character served to advance and facilitate the legislative function of the Senate both on the floor and behind the scenes.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2210 will dismantle Head Start, leaving thousands of children without the comprehensive tools that have been a proven success for decades.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2210.

While traveling through Wisconsin, I have seen first-hand how important this program is for our children. Its comprehensive approach to child development--through health, social and learning skills--has been proven success for over 19 million children since 1965.

The simple fact is that Head Start works. Head Start kids arrive at school more ready to learn and do better in school than low income children who don't participate in Head Start. In addition, Head Start narrows the readiness gap between Head Start kids and their more affluent peers.

I have also heard countless personal stories about how Head Start has strengthened entire families. Parents who may have limited resources to provide for their children in other ways are overjoyed to enroll their children in Head Start. They know it is an investment in their child's future--something that they can do now to benefit their children for their entire lives.

Why then, I ask, has such a successful and important program become the focus of an unnecessary political battle? Why has this reauthorization been the only contentious reauthorization in Head Start's 38 year history?

Because instead of strengthening Head Start by providing full funding and expanding Early Head Start, the bill's sponsor has chosen to alter the Head Start program in such a fundamental way that if these provisions are passed into law, head Start as we known it will cease to exist.

This bill starts down the slippery slope of turning Head Start into a block grant program. The eight states that participate in the block grant demonstration program would only have to meet four weak eligibility criteria. The states can then spend the block grant funds as they please with no Federal guidelines on what should constitute a Head Start program. This block grant scheme actually weakens educational standards for Head Start!

In addition, this bill allows religious institutions who participate in the Head Start program to hire and fire based on religious beliefs. I have serious concerns about direct government funding of religious organizations engaging in religious discrimination as proposed in this legislation. Under this bill, a church could refuse to hire a person who is Jewish to work as a janitor in their day care, or a Muslim soup kitchen could refuse to hire a Baptist. But not only that, a church could refuse to hire a person who is divorced if divorce is against that church's tenets and teachings, even though the position is for a secular activity. In addition to expanding religious discrimination, the bill also preempts all State and local laws against discrimination. The religious community has been an integral part of Head Start's success. They have helped millions and millions of children from all parts of the country. They have not asked for this provision.

Finally, this bill actually cuts funds for teacher training, while increasing educational requirements for Head Start teachers. This is insulting to both the teachers who would like to further their education and to the children and families who benefit from Head Start.

Instead of attacking the Head Start program, its participants, and its teachers, we should be having a real discussion of how to improve the program. Only 60 percent of eligible preschoolers participate in Head Start due to a lack of funding. And only 3 percent of eligible children participate in Early Head Start. Instead of dismantling a successful program, we should provide additional funding to expand opportunities for all children in our country.

I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 2210.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Bob Lyons as he enters retirement. For nearly 33 years, he has worked tirelessly to improve the lives and working conditions of Wisconsin workers.

As the Executive Director of AFSCME Council 40, through good times and challenging times, Bob Lyons has been a wise and stabilizing force in the Wisconsin labor movement. An active union leader, Bob worked to strengthen unions, standing firm against those who sought to weaken them. Bob has also been passionate in his protection of worker benefits and in his opposition to any limitation of worker rights. In recognition of his intellect and integrity, Bob was appointed as one of nine members on the AFSCME international judicial panel.

Bob did not limit himself to working on labor issues. He has also worked for greater consumer and community protection and fought the reduction of state services--services that are essential to the survival and well being of Wisconsin families.

Today, I join AFSCME Council 40 and other well-wishers in Wisconsin in recognizing the service that Bob Lyons has provided to the members of AFSCME Council 40, and to the people of Wisconsin. He has been an outstanding leader. Bob Lyons is one of Wisconsin's best and we are proud to congratulate him as he retires this summer.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill which fails to provide women with the affordable and reliable Medicare prescription drug coverage that they desperately need and deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this sham of a bill. It seeks to privatize Medicare and does not provide a real, guaranteed, affordable drug benefit that our seniors desperately need.

When I am home in Wisconsin, one of the issues I hear most about, in the grocery store, on the street, at the airport baggage claim, or in meetings from Monroe to Baraboo, is that seniors cannot afford to pay their prescription drug coverage. Seniors send me receipts for their drug bills and ask me how they are supposed to afford their rising drug costs on a fixed budget.

The Republican drug bill on the floor today is not going to provide seniors with the relief they deserve. Instead of providing a real, affordable prescription drug benefit, this bill seeks to privatize the Medicare program. It is my belief that privatization of Medicare is unwarranted. Medicare has been a vital component of our Nation's health care system since its creation in 1965. In fact, Medicare was originally created because private insurance plans were simply not providing health insurance to seniors and people with disabilities. For nearly 40 years, Medicare has done the job that private insurers would not--or could not--do.

Why then, would we rely on private insurers to provide a Medicare prescription drug benefit to our Nation's seniors? This bill relies on private insurers to provide a prescription drug benefit. Seniors would have to join HMOs and private insurance plans to get the benefit. The prices and benefits under this private coverage would vary from region to region, so that a senior in Wisconsin would have to pay a different premium than a senior in Florida. These geographic disparities are simply unacceptable.

There are no assurances in this bill that prescription drugs would be affordable. In fact, this bill takes no steps to stop or slow the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs. Instead, this bill provides partial coverage of drug spending until $2,000 and then leaves seniors high and dry. There is a huge gap in coverage where seniors may pay 100 percent out of pocket and continue paying premiums, until they reach a high out-of-pocket cap. Half of all seniors will fall into this gaping hole. I believe seniors deserve affordable drug coverage, and we should not help some seniors cover their drug costs while leaving others out in the cold.

Lastly, the Republican drug plan does not offer the same benefit to everyone on Medicare. This plan calls for ``means-testing'' for Medicare benefits, meaning seniors with higher incomes would have to pay more money out-of-pocket before they reach the catastrophic limit. This provision would fundamentally change the Medicare program. Since its inception in 1965, the central promise of Medicare was that it would provide a consistent benefit for everyone, and means-testing would violate this promise.

I support the Democratic proposal that will be offered as an amendment today. This proposal would add a new Part D in Medicare to provide voluntary prescription drug coverage for all Medicare beneficiaries. This proposal would provide the same benefits, premiums, and cost sharing for all beneficiaries no matter where they live. It would guarantee fair drug prices by giving the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services the authority to use the collective bargaining clout of all 40 million Medicare beneficiaries to negotiate drug prices. The savings would then be passed on to seniors. In addition, the Democratic proposal makes drugs more affordable by allowing the safe reimportation of drugs from Canada and makes lower cost generic drugs available more quickly. Unlike the Republican bill, there are no gaps in coverage in the Democratic proposal. Coverage is provided for any drug a senior's doctor provides. Seniors would be able to choose where to fill their prescriptions and would not have to join an HMO or private insurance plan to get drug coverage. This is the proposal seniors have been asking for, not one full of complexities and gaps in coverage like the Republican plan we will vote on shortly.

Today we are voting on a bill that is a sham. It is a sad mockery of what seniors in our country deserve. Instead of providing a comprehensive Medicare prescription drug benefit for America's seniors, the Republicans have decided to make sure this bill suits the big drug companies and leads down the road of privatizing Medicare. This is just plain wrong for the retirees of the greatest generation, who worked hard, lived through the depression, won a war, and raised their families.

Seniors need a comprehensive prescription drug benefit that is affordable and dependable for all--with no gaps or gimmicks in coverage. The Republican proposal fails on all these counts, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It would prohibit funds from being used to enter into any contract to develop, lease or procure Coast Guard vessels in the National Security Cutter Class or Offshore Patrol Cutter Class of ships unless the main diesel engines are manufactured in the United States.

The Coast Guard's Deepwater program is a large acquisition effort to replace and modernize the aging fleet of the Coast Guard ships. I fully support this program. However, when procuring the most critical components of these ships, the main propulsion engines, I believe the Coast Guard should contract with American firms that make the engines here in the United States.

The Department of Defense in many instances already must contract with firms that produce their components here in America. Because the Coast Guard was previously under the Department of Transportation and is now under the Department of Homeland Security, it has not been subject to these domestic manufactured provisions for components. I believe our government should contract with American firms whenever possible. The Federal Government is one of the largest customers in the world. Using American labor can help get our economy back on track. But in particular, in matters of national security, we should ensure that American workers build what we need to keep America safe.

After September 11, we tragically learned that Americans were not as safe, even on our own soil, as we had once thought. The Coast Guard's mission has increased exponentially since that awful day. In this uncertain time and as we have experienced shifting global alliance, it makes no sense to allow foreign nations to build critical component for large Coast Guard vessels. After all, the Coast Guard is now in the Department of Homeland Security, and is not keeping capable, hard working Americans working the essence of homeland security?

I have a firm in my district that produces these engines. They were ready to start filling orders tomorrow. They competed in the first round of Deepwater engine contracts awarded earlier this year. Even though they can prove that their engines would cost less in total operating costs, the Coast Guard gave the contract to a German firm that will now build engines in their homeland. And so that Members understand that this is not strictly a local issue for me, there are several other firms in the United States that stand ready to compete for these contracts and are perfectly capable of producing quality American-made engines for the Coast Guard.

I have often visited the employees of the plant in my district. They are confused and frustrated. They do not understand why a branch of the Armed Services would choose to give a major contract to a foreign competitor. Although their plant is operational, there are many workers who are currently laid off. The workers that I talk to are not only worried for themselves and their families, they are desperately worried about their buddies who are waiting, waiting for the call that tells them to come back to work so they will be able to support their families once again.

Mr. Chairman, we are bleeding good-paying, family-supporting manufacturing jobs in this country. When manufacturing jobs go away, our history shows us that it is very hard to get

them back. My amendment is a small but needed change to the current Coast Guard procurement process.

The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the subcommittee, has reserved a point of order against this amendment. The gentleman has a choice. He can insist and press on with his point of order and continue funneling good paying jobs overseas or he can allow this amendment to go forward as we just did a short while ago with the amendment presented by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes). I hope that he has the best interest of America's working families at heart.

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

Mr. Speaker, chapter 12 bankruptcy protection expires in 7 days. Once again, we are forced to approve a temporary extension of this vital protection.

Since I was first elected to Congress just 4\1/2\ years ago, we have passed seven temporary extensions of this bill. It is high time that we make this very noncontroversial program permanent. That is the bill we should be debating and passing today.

Mr. Speaker, chapter 12 provides an important backstop for our Nation's struggling family farmers by allowing them to reorganize their debts and keep their farms. What we do here in Washington directly affects the lives of real people facing real financial challenges.

I want to try to put a human face on this issue. In Wisconsin recently, a Columbus, Wisconsin farmer filed for chapter 12 bankruptcy. He works night and day to make his farm a success. Unfortunately, like many farmers, the weather and the market conspired to disrupt his cash flow. Filing chapter 12 gave his family time to negotiate with his creditors, while he switched from corn and soybean production to vegetable production, with local market sales. He sells his produce at farmers' markets in the Cities of Madison and Princeton. He is paying his debts. Under chapter 12, it was not only the Columbus farmer that benefited. His creditors got their money, and the people in my district can purchase his bounty.

Chapter 12 does not just provide a direct benefit to those using its protections. Many farmers who face possible bankruptcy never get to a court filing. The very existence of the option of filing for chapter 12 bankruptcy promotes negotiations between farmers and their creditors.

There is a great consensus that chapter 12 bankruptcy protections work well. It is for that reason that we have included a permanent authorization in the comprehensive bankruptcy reform bill for the past three sessions of Congress. In fact, it is considered so popular that it has been held hostage to the larger bill. Every time we come to the floor to extend chapter 12, we are told that permanent extension cannot be passed separately from the big bill because taking out a popular item might slow that bill's momentum. We were told we had to strip the permanent extension of chapter 12 from last year's farm bill because it would slow down the bankruptcy bill. Well, here we are again, passing yet another temporary extension, and still the permanent extension languishes with about as much momentum as the continental drift.

Mr. Speaker, the House should pass this bill today, and I urge my colleagues to do just that. But we should also be voting on making chapter 12 permanent. Let us end these uncertainties that the extension causes. Let us end this chapter 12 extension dance.

Since the current authorization will expire within a few days, farmers do need the immediate relief provided by this extension. With the current year's crops in the ground, farmers need to know that they can reorganize and keep their farming operations. This bill would provide the security that family farmers in financial crisis need to decide whether to stay in business for one more year.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Offered By: Ms. Baldwin

Amendment No. 6: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend congratulations to the Baraboo Public Library in Baraboo, Wisconsin for 100 years of service to the community. Constructed in 1903, this library has been an integral part of democratic society in Baraboo.

A public library serves as the cornerstone of democracy. A library fosters intellectual freedom and makes available to all citizens an extensive information network. In a local setting, citizens have access to global resources of information. The educational importance of a public library is immensely important in improving the community by providing access to higher learning. A library is a requirement for a cultivated democratic society.

A public library allows citizens to perform their civic duties placed upon them in our noble democratic Nation. It not only provides free worldwide access to information, but also is a place where residents can obtain information about their community, and where internet access, tax forms and voter registration forms are provided. The role of the public library is essential in supporting a democratic state. The Baraboo Public Library has gone beyond its civic duty in providing these services for the public.

Baraboo Public Library's vast success in the past 100 years has led it to develop a distinguished reputation within its community. It is evident that the library's dedication towards free information and democracy will allow the city of Baraboo to continue to foster higher education and diversity in society. I join Baraboo residents in celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Baraboo Public Library.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the annual Memorial Day Brat Fest of Madison.

This event, run by locally owned Metcalfe's Sentry Foods, started in 1983 as a modest customer appreciation luncheon and grew into the huge city wide charity event that it is today. Over this past Memorial Day weekend, an impressive $26,252 was raised for charity. Since the founding in 1983, the Brat Fest has raised over $220,000 for the local charities whose members volunteer at the stands each Memorial Day.

This year, Brat Fest reached two amazing milestones. The first was a new record high of 123,520 brats sold, setting a new world record. One of these brats was the millionth brat sold for charity since the birth of the festival.

Not only is the event to be recognized for its contributions to local charities, but also for its promotion of community spirit and vitality. This event brings people from all backgrounds in the community together in support of local organizations. Wisconsinites are given the chance to interact with ``celebrity'' cashiers. Every year as a cashier I truly enjoy gathering with my constituents at Brat Fest, serving up brats, and making sure no one leaves hungry.

This form of positive community building is commendable and deserves recognition. I look forward to future Memorial Day Brat Fests and the service that they provide for the community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend congratulations to Dr. Victor J. Connors from Middleton, WI. On June 21, 2003, in San Diego, CA, optometrists from around the Nation will elect my constituent, Dr. Connors, as the 82nd president of the American Optometric Association. Dr. Connors' enthusiasm and contributions to his profession have earned him this prominent recognition.

Dr. Connors has an impressive record in his profession at the local, State and national level demonstrating his leadership in the field of optometry. He served as president of the Wisconsin Optometric Association in 1987 and was recognized as our State's Optometrist of the Year in 1990. Dr. Connors has also served as the president of the North Central States Optometric Council and was elected to the American Optometric Association's board of trustees in 1997.

In addition to his extraordinary leadership in his profession, Dr. Connors has been an energetic leader in many civic organizations. He has served as president of the Middleton Optimist Club, chairman of the Middleton Park, Recreation and Forestry Commission, chairman of the Middleton Police Commission, president of the Middleton Area Development Corporation, president of the Middleton Chamber of Commerce, president of the Middleton Good Neighbor Festival and president of the church council at St. Andrew Lutheran Church in Middleton.

Dr. Victor J. Connors' vast achievements and commitment to public service have led him to develop a distinguished record of leadership in his profession and his community. It is evident that his dedication and motivation will allow him to have a successful term as president of the American Optometric Association. I join his many friends, colleagues and his wife, Becky, and children, Sara, Colleen and Colin in congratulating him and wishing well as the new president of the American Optometric Association.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer a motion to recommit that would provide an exemption to protect the health of the woman.

Women do face profound medical crises during pregnancy. Conditions like hypertension, heart defects, diabetes, and breast cancer can cause serious trauma to a pregnancy. These potential traumas demand a health exception.

The consequences of this sweeping ban are frightening. Women may face severe health consequences such as death, infertility, paralysis, coma, stroke, hemorrhage, brain damage, infection, liver damage, and kidney damage.

Mr. Speaker, the list of consequences becomes even more horrifying when we realize that the families faced with crisis pregnancies are real.

Allow me to tell my colleagues the story of a Wisconsin family, Kathy and her husband, Chris. Kathy was over 6 months into her pregnancy when doctors discovered through an ultrasound that their baby had no brain. There was a tumor in the baby's brain cavity, and the ultrasound revealed other factors that would complicate the delivery and jeopardize Kathy's health. Her doctor recommended that she have an abortion. After the procedure, Kathy was in tears for weeks suffering from depression. She felt alienated and shamed, even though she had done nothing wrong.

The women who face this terrible decision want nothing more than to have a child and are devastated to learn that their baby cannot survive outside the womb. In consultation with their doctors and families, they make this difficult decision to preserve their own health and in many cases to preserve their ability to have children in the future.

How can we look a woman like Kathy in the eye and tell her that she cannot have a safe procedure that would preserve her health and give her the best chance to have children in the future?

Simple humanity alone should be sufficient to justify a health exception; but if my colleagues need more, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that such an exception is legally required. In Stenberg v. Carhart, the Court held the Nebraska ban was unconstitutional because there was no health exception for the mother.

Language in this motion is taken directly from the Supreme Court ruling. Denying a health exception is wrong and unconstitutional. If this bill passes today without this motion, women who are already dealing with the tragic consequences of crisis pregnancies will have their health put in serious danger.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

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