Providing for Consideration of H.R. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year Providing for Consideration of S. Protecting Our Gold Star Families Education Act; Providing for Consideration of H.R. Women's Health Protection Act of Providing for Consideration of H.R. Ensuring Access to Abortion Act of Providing for Consideration of H.R. Active Shooter Alert Act of and for Other Purposes
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1224 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 1224
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 7900) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2023 for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 117-54 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services or their respective designees; (2) the further amendments described in section 2 of this resolution; (3) the amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution; and (4) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. After debate pursuant to the first section of this resolution, each further amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution not earlier considered as part of amendments en bloc pursuant to section 3 of this resolution shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn by the proponent at any time before the question is put thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time after debate pursuant to the first section of this resolution for the chair of the Committee on Armed Services or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services or their respective designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
Sec. 4. All points of order against the further amendments printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules or amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution are waived.
Sec. 5. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (S. 3373) to improve the Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant and the Children of Fallen Heroes Grant. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. An amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 117-56 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to commit.
Sec. 6. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 8296) to protect a person's ability to determine whether to continue or end a pregnancy, and to protect a health care provider's ability to provide abortion services. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 7. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 8297) to prohibit the interference, under color of State law, with the provision of interstate abortion services, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 8. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6538) to create an Active Shooter Alert Communications Network, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 9. (a) At any time through the legislative day of Friday, July 15, 2022, the Speaker may entertain motions offered by the Majority Leader or a designee that the House suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule XV with respect to multiple measures described in subsection (b), and the Chair shall put the question on any such motion without debate or intervening motion.
(b) A measure referred to in subsection (a) includes any measure that was the object of a motion to suspend the rules on the legislative day of June 21, 2022, or July 12, 2022, in the form as so offered, on which the yeas and nays were ordered and further proceedings postponed pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX.
(c) Upon the offering of a motion pursuant to subsection (a) concerning multiple measures, the ordering of the yeas and nays on postponed motions to suspend the rules with respect to such measures is vacated to the end that all such motions are considered as withdrawn.
Sec. 10. House Resolution 188, agreed to March 8, 2021 (as most recently amended by House Resolution 1191, agreed to June 22, 2022), is amended by striking ``July 13, 2022'' each place it appears and inserting (in each instance) ``July 19, 2022''.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1224, for five measures.
First, it provides for consideration of H.R. 7900 under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services, makes in order a record 650 amendments, and provides en bloc authority and one motion to recommit.
The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 8296 and H.R. 8297 under closed rules. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate for each bill equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, provides one motion to recommit for each bill, and self-executes a manager's amendment on H.R. 8297.
The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 6538 under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary and provides one motion to recommit.
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will make a couple of points on what I think is one of the most important issues that we will face in this Congress and in the future years.
Abortion access in America changed overnight after the Supreme Court took away a woman's constitutional right to make her own reproductive health decisions. Nearly 34 million people of reproductive age now live in a State where abortion is banned or severely restricted--one of the only times that I know of that the Supreme Court of the United States in our history took away a fundamental constitutional right to more than half of America. My 86-year-old mother who is a grandmother and great-grandmother will have had more right over her body and more decision-making under this decision than her granddaughters and great- granddaughters.
It is unconscionable, and the impact of this decision will have horrific consequences for millions of people, particularly people with the greatest burden: low-income individuals, people of color, and victims of incest and abuse. I am genuinely concerned, as are millions of people, for women's rights in this country. We refuse to be complacent, and we refuse to stand silent. We will keep fighting every single day however I can and however we can. Today that means supporting the advancement of the Women's Health Protection Act.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), who is a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
While this is not on the agenda, and I will remind people that we have a rule that stipulates which bills are in front of us, I note with alarm the suggestion that we ought to change the Constitution when it comes to the Supreme Court, and for fear that we are undermining the confidence of the Court, frankly, I am astonished.
How about following the current Constitution?
Forget about amending it.
How about following the one that we have?
I just note that when Merrick Garland was nominated by President Obama in March of 2016, 293 days his nomination went without any action in the United States Senate. Amy Coney Barrett was nominated September 26, a mere 6 weeks, 5 weeks before election day. Senator McConnell and the Senate didn't follow the Constitution which says advise and consent on nominations sent by the President. They did absolutely nothing with the nominee Garland. They didn't seek to do anything. In fact, Mitch McConnell talked about the politics of it.
Talk about undermining the confidence of the American public in the Supreme Court?
How about that?
Yet when President Trump just 5 weeks before a Presidential election made a nomination, it was swiftly pushed through.
Undermining confidence in the Supreme Court?
How about confirmation proceedings where Brett Kavanaugh or Neil Gorsuch both said that Roe is settled law; a precedent for 50 years?
They said it in confirmation hearings. They have said it as Senator Collins has indicated her vote hung on those words. Yet they had no intention of following those words. They misled the American public.
Undermining confidence in the Supreme Court?
I am astonished that anyone would even say it.
Frankly, when we talk about this, we know what the agenda here is. Justice Thomas gave us a clear roadmap of where this is all headed.
Undermining confidence in the Supreme Court?
Justice Thomas urged the Court to reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedence, including the right to contraception, the right to private consensual acts, and the right to same-sex marriage, characterizing the entire legal doctrine as particularly dangerous.
Undermining the confidence of the Supreme Court of the United States?
Now, Justice Kavanaugh, I will say to his credit in his concurrence, said that the Court won't go that far. But we have heard these same assurances from Justice Kavanaugh before, and I think they aren't worth the words on the paper that this is printed.
We should be very, very concerned. We should be concerned that the American public has lost confidence in the Supreme Court, but not because of the actions of anyone here or the suggestions here.
How about because of the actions of the United States Senate and the actions of the Supreme Court itself?
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Allred).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the distinguished gentleman and his comments. I note, just in passing, that Article I authority given to us by the Framers actually gave us the authority to identify the size of the Supreme Court.
Constitutional amendments are not Article I. They are an extensive process that involves ratification. Article I authority, actually--I think he would make my argument--Article I authority would be the Congress making the decision on the size of the Supreme Court, which has been changed many times, from as few as six to as many as nine judges.
But having said that, and just making that point, let's talk about some of the real issues that need addressing that, frankly, are before us, because the size of the Supreme Court is not before us, as interesting as that conversation might be. Let's talk, instead, about issues that real Americans face.
While bravely serving our country, many veterans were exposed to hazards, from burn pits, PFAS, and radiation, toxic exposures that have caused cancers, infertility, respiratory conditions, and unexplained chronic illnesses. As many as 3.5 million servicemembers have been exposed to dangerous toxic fumes.
The cost of war goes far beyond the battlefield, and we have a duty to uphold our promises to toxic-exposed veterans by investing in the healthcare they need and so richly deserve.
In their time of need, veterans should be receiving high-quality care. Instead, they are being burdened with proving that their illness is connected to their service.
I have had the privilege of meeting with many veterans in my community, and the families of veterans who have been lost because of exposure, while they continue the work of having to prove that their illness is a result of exposure to toxic chemicals, to carcinogens, to burn pits.
The Honoring our PACT Act is included in this rule, and this legislation will address the wide range of issues impacting toxic- exposed veterans and their access to earned benefits and care. You can bet I am voting ``yes.''
That is one of the bills being discussed before us today, and I think people watching us on television, people watching this later, seeing clips, would be curious as to why suddenly we are talking about an issue not on the floor, not before us. But this is, the Honoring our PACT Act, before us today.
We can all do something to safeguard those who have served in our Armed Forces and their families by doing the right thing, passing this rule, and passing the underlying legislation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the comments from my distinguished colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Burgess. But what he points out, in my mind, reminds me how deeply personal this decision is for women involving their body and their healthcare.
I would certainly never question his credentials as a doctor or as a professional, but I have heard from a number of obstetricians and gynecologists who raise, I think, what are really important questions.
For instance, in some States, the health of the mother is the only consideration to be given when it comes to an abortion or reproductive services. Some have raised the question: How long do you wait before you can make the judgment that that is the only determination that can be made? If you wait too long, do you actually jeopardize the health of the mother by waiting so long for fear of violating a State law that restricts the right of a woman to an abortion?
Then there is the question of miscarriages. Many, many women have miscarriages. And concerns have been expressed by their doctors of when we provide care after the fact or during a miscarriage, will there be questions raised about whether or not that was actually an abortion instead of a miscarriage? Will we be jeopardizing our careers? Will we be putting our professional license into question?
These are very difficult questions to answer. I am certainly no expert in them, but they raise, to me, significant questions.
As many have pointed out, there will be abortions in the United States. There will be abortions in Texas. There will be abortions in Mississippi. There will be abortions in every State in this country.
The question is: Are they going to be safe? Are women going to suffer unduly? Are there going to be deaths of women because they weren't given access to safe, reproductive care that is ultimately, as I said, so deeply personal, so deeply involved in their autonomy?
Those are the questions before us. They are deep-seated questions. They are important questions. But, ultimately, we side with the right of a woman to make the decision for herself.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I want to talk about another important piece embodied in the rule, and it is related to the question of alerts and the Active Shooter Alert Act.
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.''
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I begin by thanking the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma. We have the great privilege of serving together on the Rules Committee. We spend many hours together, and I almost always--almost always--find myself in agreement with him.
He is thoughtful. He is dedicated to this institution, committed to the important principles of our democracy and the Constitution, and I consider it a privilege to be able to serve with him and to learn from him, and I appreciate his thoughtfulness in this debate as well.
I also thank my colleagues for their words in support of the rule before us today. A vote in favor of the rule today, in my view, says volumes about what we value. Support for this rule shows we value our servicemembers who put their lives on the line for this country each and every day. When they come home, we will be here to take care of them.
A ``yes'' vote shows we value our defense preparedness and ensures our Nation is ready to face the very real and serious global challenges threatening our security. It also demonstrates a willingness to do the bare minimum to address gun violence by ensuring our communities can effectively be able to alert people when an active shooter is in the area.
Last, but certainly not least, a vote in favor tells women in this country that we value and respect them. We support their right to manage their own healthcare.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle can attempt to misdirect and confuse the issues at hand all they want, but the reality is we are presenting concrete proposals to address real issues facing our Nation when it comes to national defense, and I appreciate the bipartisan support for that, the NDAA, gun reform, women's rights, support for veterans. I choose to be on the right side of history on these issues. I am voting ``yes.''
Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Cole is as follows: Amendment to House Resolution 1224
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 11. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 11) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require that the Supreme Court of the United States be composed of nine justices. All points of order against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 12. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of House Joint Resolution 11.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source