Providing for Consideration of H.R. Liberty in Laundry Act; Providing for Consideration of S. Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved Act of and Providing for Consideration of Senate Amendment to H.R. Wildlife Innovation and Longevity Driver Reauthorization Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to a rule that demonstrates much of what is wrong with the 118th Congress under this Republican majority, primarily a failure to do the people's business in a timely and serious manner.

This rule has three bills. First, there is S. 4199, which addresses serious understaffing in our Federal courts, which impedes access to justice for all Americans. This carefully negotiated, bipartisan bill should have passed months ago, but it has been delayed in the House to seek partisan political advantage in the staffing of those new positions.

Next, we have the Liberty in Laundry Act, part of the House Republican spin cycle to undermine energy efficiency standards for common household appliances. Like the companion bills that have been offered throughout this term, it would hamper the process of setting energy efficiency standards upon which consumers rely to save money and operate their homes more efficiently.

Finally, and most distressingly, this rule puts forward a politicized version of the National Defense Authorization Act. For 60 years, Congress has worked in a bipartisan manner to draft the NDAA, coming together to put our troops, veterans, and national security above political considerations. The FY25 NDAA breaks from this tradition.

I am deeply opposed to a provision in this NDAA that will prohibit the children of U.S. servicemembers from receiving medical treatment if they are diagnosed with gender dysphoria. This provision has no business being in an NDAA. At a time when we are struggling to recruit and retain soldiers, ensuring access to medical care for servicemembers and their families is more important than ever, but this bill, as written, will take away medically necessary care.

The evidence is clear. Gender-affirming care of various types is life-changing and lifesaving for the children who need it. Our soldiers need to be able to focus on their missions, not worrying whether their children are able to get the medical treatment that they need.

In order to illustrate the impact of this political attack, I would like to share the following story from a military spouse whose family would be harmed by this provision of the NDAA. They write:

My spouse has proudly served in the U.S. Air Force for 22 years, dedicating their life to protecting our country. Over the years, our family has moved across the Nation and the world, embracing the challenges and opportunities that military life brings.

One of the greatest blessings of this life has been the assurance of quality healthcare for our family. It has been a cornerstone of our stability and a key reason why my spouse continues to serve. Knowing we could depend on the military healthcare system gave us the peace of mind to focus on the sacrifices required of us as a military family.

However, I am now writing to you with great concern and a heavy heart. Recent legislative efforts to restrict or eliminate access to gender-affirming care threaten not only the well-being of my trans child but also the very values of dignity and respect that our military stands for.

This care has been transformative for my child, giving them confidence, joy, and a sense of self that we had only glimpsed before. To have this vital care stripped away feels cruel and unjust. For lawmakers to target military families, families who already sacrifice so much for this Nation, only compounds the pain.

My spouse has given 22 years to the service of this country, and now it feels as though the country is turning its back on us.

I am thankful to this military family for sharing their story.

The ability to obtain medical care for one's child, including gender- affirming care, should be between a parent, a child, and their doctor, and politicians should stay the hell out of it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, for all of these reasons, I oppose today's rule.

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, again, as long as that treatment did not result in the sterilization of a child under the age of 18, then there is not a provision in this legislation that should be a problem.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source