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. COLE. Madam Speaker, I thank my very good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, today's rule covers several major items. The first that I will discuss, H.R. 7900, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2023, is of the greatest importance to the Nation and to the world.

For 61 years in a row the NDAA has become law. As I reminded my colleagues in the Rules Committee yesterday, this record of achievement has only been possible because of the immense cooperation from both sides of the aisle and is a testament to what we can accomplish when we focus on our shared goals as a Nation.

Working together, Democrats and Republicans on the Armed Services Committee produced a bipartisan product. I applaud Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Rogers, and all the members of the Armed Services Committee for their efforts.

Madam Speaker, it is no secret that the world has become a more dangerous place in recent years. Last year saw the Taliban--a corrupt and militant organization known for supporting and providing sanctuary to terrorists--complete its takeover of Afghanistan.

Earlier this year, the world was shocked by Vladimir Putin's brazen, unprovoked, and indeed outright criminal invasion of Ukraine, Russia's democratic neighbor to the west.

Communist China continues its history of aggression in Asia and the Pacific Rim, including increasingly aggressive acts toward Taiwan.

North Korea has continued an aggressive posturing toward the United States and our democratic allies in Asia.

Iran continues its long march toward becoming a nuclear state.

It is more important than ever that Congress speaks with one voice when it comes to setting our national defense policy and funding priorities each year so that we can ensure we counter aggressive actors and offer our allies the support they need to protect themselves.

One of the most important things accomplished in this year's NDAA is actually what it did not do. For the second year in a row, the Armed Services Committee rejected President Biden's proposed defense budget number and authorized a better, higher number to ensure that our national defense is properly funded.

Indeed, President Biden's first two budget proposals looked set to continue the chronic underfunding of the Obama-Biden years, during which time our military readiness declined and our rivals on the international stage were empowered.

The increased funding in this bill will go a long way toward ensuring that America's military is ready to confront any challenge. It will ensure that our armed services personnel receive a 4.6 percent pay raise, the largest in history, with additional pay bonuses to personnel who make the least to offset the inflation caused by this administration's policies.

On the whole, I am proud to support this legislation and I encourage the entire House to support this measure and send it on to the Senate.

Madam Speaker, our second item in the House is S. 3373, the Honoring our PACT Act. While this bill has gone through a frustratingly long process to get to this point, I believe we have failed to provide our Nation's toxic-exposed veterans with the care that they need for far too long.

I will be the first to admit that this bill is not perfect. I share the concerns of many about the use of mandatory spending in this bill. Given the importance of this issue to veterans nationwide, and to those in my district, I cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Imperfect though it is, this bill does take important strides forward, and I plan to support it on final passage.

Unfortunately, two other bills contained in this rule are partisan and stand no chance of becoming law. The Democratic majority is attempting to insert a right to an abortion into Federal law, preempting every State law that seeks to protect life.

They want to require all States to permit abortion on demand at any time up to the point of birth. They want to outlaw commonsense restrictions, like 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H. Res. 11 for immediate consideration. This resolution proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require that the Supreme Court of the United States be composed of nine Justices.

Madam Speaker, the Supreme Court has been set at nine Justices for 153 years. Fundamentally changing the composition of the Court to satisfy the demands of one political party would permanently erode the independence of the judicial branch and forever alter the separation of powers, which is the very foundation our Constitution and our Nation were built upon.

The independence of the judicial branch is too sacred to subject it to the political issue of the day. The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is not a popularity contest, and the Court's decisions should not be based on polls. The Supreme Court's duty is to the Constitution and ensuring that adherence to the laws of the land.

To further explain the amendment, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), who is my very good friend and the author of the resolution.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I thank leadership for making my bill a priority on the floor today.

We have heard from a number of earlier speakers that recent Supreme Court decisions have upset the majority. These are decisions that they disagree with.

Now, these are judicial decisions that were rendered under rules that have been in place for more than 150 years. But there seems to be a growing force of people who want to change the rules, that if we didn't get the decision we wanted under the rules that have been in place since 1869, then let's go ahead and change the rules. Let's go ahead and pack the Court.

If nine Justices doesn't get what we want, then let's add two. Well, if maybe two more Justices doesn't get us what we want, then let's add four. Maybe we can get with four Justices the kinds of decisions we want.

Madam Speaker, this is not a hypothetical boogieman. This is an actual pending legislation introduced by none other than the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. It is an active attempt to pack the Court with 13 Justices.

Now, you might ask, Madam Speaker, is 13 the right number?

Does 13 come about because there has been some report or some analysis that 13 Justices would make the work of the Court more productive?

Or perhaps the Supreme Court itself, the Justices, have indicated that they would do a better job with 13?

No. No. It does not come about because of any independent analysis or request by the Court. This attempt to pack the Court is all about power. It is all about power. It is all about getting the kinds of decisions that the House majority wants.

Madam Speaker, I would submit that when Washington changes the rules only to acquire power or only to maintain power, then it undermines public trust in these institutions that bind Americans together. We don't need yet a further undermining of these institutions.

Frankly, where does it end?

Once this body establishes that the size of the Court can grow only so that we can secure the preferred judicial decisions of the House majority, where does it end?

You take it to 13. A few years later we take it to 15. You can take it to 17 after that.

Again, this is not a hypothetical boogieman. We have seen this happen in other countries.

Madam Speaker, this leads to madness. This is no way to run a judiciary.

Now, you don't need to take my word for it. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg before her death made it clear that packing the Court would undermine and erode public trust in the Supreme Court. She was stridently opposed to it. Retiring Justice Stephen Breyer feels the same and has publicly been opposed to packing the Court.

This is not something that only Republicans oppose. It is something that reasonable and like-minded people who care about the independence and the public trust of the Court have opposed, as well.

So that is what my resolution would do. It would simply put into the Constitution what has already been the case since 1869, and that is nine Justices on the Supreme Court.

I guarantee you, Madam Speaker, that we will still find plenty of political screws to turn and leverage points for us to be able to fight and advance our political causes. But if we can just put into the Constitution this one thing, to keep the nine, we will be able to, at least somehow, insulate the Court from the most corrosive political maneuvering that we know this body is capable of.

Now, I make it clear, a ``no'' vote on the previous question which I am urging does not submit this constitutional amendment to the States. All it does is allow this body 1 hour to debate the merits of keeping the nine.

What possible argument could there be against taking that 1 hour for us to discuss together what the right size of the Court is and how do we best maintain public trust in the Court going forward?

So, Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to heed the words of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Joe Biden, and so many of us on this side of the aisle to consider keeping the nine.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong), my very good friend.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my very good friend and a distinguished member of the Rules Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice), my very good friend and a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for the time, and frankly, for the thoughtful and wide-ranging debate. It is not a surprise that a rule that covers five very different pieces of legislation would provoke that kind of discussion.

I want to begin in the areas we agree. There are actually three areas in this bill that I will be voting for. Most importantly, quite frankly, is the National Defense Authorization Act.

There is going to be some opposition to that. It was a give-and-take bill, but I remind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that it actually came out of committee on a 57 to 1 vote; 57 to 1. That says a lot of wonderful things about the leadership of Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Rogers on that committee and its ability, after considering over 600 or 700 amendments itself, to find common ground and move forward.

For my colleagues that vote no, that is fine. Again, there is always something in a bill this size you can find to disagree with, but I will remind my friends on my side of the aisle that every single Republican on the committee voted for the bill. So I think it is going to pass and pass quite easily.

I also want to associate myself with my friend's support of the toxic burn pit bill. It is a bill that I have some serious problems with, such as the manner in which it was funded and some of the procedures by which it moved, but it is a much better bill than we have seen before. It is a step in the right direction.

There is no question my friend is correct when he talks about our obligation as a Congress to look after the men and women who have put their lives on the line for us and suffered egregious harm.

I hope we can do better in the future. I hope we can even revisit some of the financing measures here, but it is important that it get done and that it passes, and I look forward to working with my friend to do that.

I agree with him on the AMBER Alert bill as well, and I will be supporting it. There are some concerns on my side of the aisle about that, and I understand those concerns. Again, I think this is a commonsense measure.

The area that I will not be able to join my friend on does deal with the fundamental protection of human life and the effort of this body to pass legislation that it knows will go nowhere in the Senate simply to make a point.

We ought to be working to find common ground, not to dig down the divisions that we have even more deeply. So I will oppose the rule partly because I oppose some of the measures in the rule; also, because I certainly would like the previous question to be considered.

I thought both of my friends from North and South Dakota made some excellent points on the need to codify the number nine or at least have a discussion about that in this body, and obviously, if we defeat the previous question, we intend to do that.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source