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. BALINT. Mr. Speaker, this is a message to all of my colleagues voting on the NDAA and to Americans who might be watching: You are being misled.

Our most cynical Republican colleagues are telling you that Democrats are pushing for sterilization and surgery for kids in military families. Let me be absolutely clear: This is not true. That is not what is going on here.

Here is what is true: TRICARE currently covers appropriate gender- affirming hormone therapy for all military dependents, period, the kind of care that millions of doctors support as safe and effective.

Now, Republicans want to restrict this, but only for trans kids. They are targeting trans kids and their families and saying what kind of healthcare is appropriate for them. This is a very tiny percentage of the population, and they are using this opportunity to scapegoat them.

We know that appropriate and medically recommended care saves lives. We know this. It is well documented. Why wouldn't we want to do everything that we can to save the lives of children?

I am a member of a military family. I was born on an Army base in Germany when my dad served in the military. Military families carry the weight of the world on their shoulders. They shouldn't have to worry whether their kids can receive the lifesaving care that they need.

Our servicemembers have enough to worry about. Why do Republicans want to make it even more complicated for them by limiting healthcare options for their families?

I am here to say it absolutely loud and clear: Military families deserve the healthcare that they need. This includes gender-affirming care options for their children.

Servicemembers across this country and across the world deserve so much better than what they are getting from House Republicans.

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, once again, I will read the provision word for word: ``Medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization may not be provided to a child under the age of 18.'' That is word for word the language in the bill.

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from my Democratic colleagues as we have raised our voices in opposition to this rule. We have raised our voices in opposition to this rule for numerous reasons.

One is that it is not really taking care of the people's business, of their most pressing concerns--liberty and laundry, really?--when we could be addressing key things like funding the government, protecting Social Security, passing the farm bill, and making sure that we have the nutrition programs so children do not go to school hungry and stay hungry.

We need to protect education. We need to do all of these things that the American people are asking for, and what do we get instead? We get their bills for liberty and laundry.

This is a continuation of their other bills, you know, stoves, refrigerators, all kinds of things that mean nothing to the American people but that mean a lot to those big corporations and those billionaires.

Time and time again, Republicans have come to this floor and told us who they stand with. They stand with the richest Americans. They stand with the billionaires. They stand with the wealthy corporations who do not want any regulation.

When they say no regulation, what they are saying is don't pass the kinds of regulations that save lives, don't pass the kinds of regulations that make sure that we save money. That is when we will constantly point out every time they do it: Who are you standing with? The wealthiest, the billionaires.

We are standing with working families.

Then, we have the NDAA, something that is usually and almost always bipartisan. You do not hear the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee come before the committee and describe how these kinds of provisions are poison pills, how they are a stain on bipartisanship.

My colleague across the aisle keeps getting up and pointing out one provision, but that provision fails to acknowledge that the lack of care leads to death, leads to suicide. You are standing in between a father, a mother, and their child. You are standing in between the parents, the doctors, and their child.

I think that Americans deserve more. We deserve American families, especially those who, as the story from the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon) said, have sacrificed so much for our Nation, who go and travel from one base to another base to another base knowing they can get care for their children.

Members on the other side say: No, no, no, we know better than you. We know better than the parent and the doctor as to what care your child should get.

That is insulting to our marines, to those who serve in our Navy, to those who are deployed overseas and on our bases around our own country. They deserve better.

That is why we are calling out that provision, because it interferes with a family's ability to get care for their children. Because of these tragic problems and the fact that you don't let us debate anything--all those amendments that were offered, no, we never get to debate any of those, so the American people don't know. They can't hear us talk about these things. This is one of the only times we get to come to talk about these things.

For these reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I think every American knows that when agencies pass rules and regulations just for the sake of passing rules and regulations, those rules and regulations increase the costs of consumer goods. It doesn't hurt the billionaire. It hurts the working Americans.

This week, we have the ability to advance significant legislation in the House of Representatives. In fiscal year 2025, the National Defense Authorization Act fully authorizes our national defense and improves efficiency while eliminating wasteful spending and harmful programs.

Mr. Speaker, it strengthens our military and takes important steps to address the security threats Americans face from our adversaries including China, Iran, and foreign terrorist organizations.

It improves our military readiness, provides robust support to our ally, Israel, and supports law enforcement operations at our southern border.

Critically, Mr. Speaker, it focuses on improving the quality of life of our servicemembers and their families who sacrifice so much to defend us. This NDAA provides a 14.5 percent pay raise for our junior enlisted servicemembers and a 4.5 percent pay raise for all other servicemembers.

The NDAA has been enacted into law every year for 63 years, and I encourage all Members to do what is best for our military and national security and support this legislation.

Additionally, H.R. 7673, the Liberty in Laundry Act, pushes back on executive overreach that is increasing the costs of appliances and diminishing their quality.

Again, H.R. 7673 clarifies the intent of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act by prohibiting the Secretary of Energy from imposing new efficiency mandates or enforcing existing standards for washing machines, unless they are cost effective and technologically feasible, not likely to result in any additional costs to Americans, and save a significant amount of energy.

Again, passing additional rules and regulations that increase the cost of people's appliances doesn't matter to the billionaire. It does matter to the working American.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this bill which supports energy efficiency standards. As long as the technology exists to meet them, they don't take more money out of the pockets of hardworking Americans, and they actually save energy.

Finally, S. 4199, the JUDGES Act of 2024, adds 66 judgeships over three different Presidential terms. It fairly works to address the workload demands in our courts. I call on my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I urge on my colleagues to support this legislation which passed out of the Senate unanimously.

The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as follows:

The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 1612 Offered by Ms. Leger Fernandez of New Mexico

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 5. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the bill (H.R. 9643) to protect and expand nationwide access to fertility treatment, including in vitro fertilization. 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. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 9643.

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source