Pet and Livestock Protection Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 951 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), 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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules met last night and reported a rule, House Resolution 951, providing for consideration of six measures.

The rule provides for H.R. 4776, the SPEED Act, to be considered under a structured rule, making in order six amendments. Additionally, it provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources, or their respective designees, and it provides for one motion to recommit.

Further, H.R. 1366, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, and H.R. 845, the Pet and Livestock Protection Act, will be considered under closed rules, with 1 hour of debate, each equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources, or their respective designees, and provides each with one motion to recommit.

Additionally, H.R. 3616, the Reliable Power Act, and H.R. 3632, the Power Plant Reliability Act of 2025, will each be considered under closed rules, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, or their respective designees, with one motion to recommit.

Finally, H.R. 4371, the Kayla Hamilton Act, will be considered under a closed rule, with 1 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 provides one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation.

The rule before us gives this House an opportunity to finally begin undoing the damage caused by years of reckless regulatory overreach and economic mismanagement driven by Democrats' failed policies.

Joe Biden may no longer be in the White House, but American families are still paying the price for his administration's failures. Under President Biden, this country experienced the worst inflation spike in 40 years, and we are still paying the price. Groceries costs were more, housing costs were more, transportation costs more, and working families were left wondering how much further their paychecks could stretch.

Mr. Speaker, that pressure didn't stop there. Under Democratic leadership, electricity prices surged by more than 20 percent in many parts of the country, including my own in New York.

Families opened their utility bills and asked a simple question: Why is this getting so expensive so quickly?

The answer is clear: Democrats chose ideology over affordability. They chose mandates over reliability, and they chose Washington control over simple, plain common sense.

Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4776, the SPEED Act. For years, Democrats have taken the well-intentioned National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, and twisted it far beyond its original purpose.

NEPA was meant to be a commonsense safeguard for our environment, not a tool to block projects indefinitely, but that is exactly how it is being abused today. NEPA is now one of the most litigated statutes in Federal law, not because projects fail environmental standards but because a small group of activist organizations exploit the process itself. They file endless lawsuits to stall infrastructure, energy, and conservation projects for years and years, sometimes decades, with little regard to the real-world consequences for workers, families, communities, and progress.

Those consequences are real. Projects get shelved. Costs skyrocket. Jobs disappear, and families pay more for energy, housing, and basic infrastructure.

We see this broken system clearly in upstate New York. Take Micron, a company and a project too big to fail. This historic investment to bring advanced semiconductor manufacturing back to the United States is critical for our country, for our national security, and for the upstate economy. This project means thousands of good-paying jobs and a stronger domestic supply chain. Yet despite meeting some of the most stringent environmental review requirements in the country under New York law, Micron is still being forced through duplicative Federal reviews that reach the very same conclusions as the State reviews.

As a result, Micron is the only semiconductor project in the country held up, pending a full environmental impact statement, not because of environmental risk, but because of bureaucratic delay and regulatory duplication.

This is not environmental protection. This is regulatory paralysis, and it is costing us jobs and a brighter economic future.

Time and again, Democrats defend this broken system because it gives Washington more control and activist groups more leverage. Because of this process, the result is gridlock. Nothing gets built. Nothing gets fixed. Nothing gets cheaper.

The SPEED Act restores balance. It reins in duplicative reviews. It requires the Federal Government to make timely decisions and stop endless delay from becoming the official policy of the government.

If Democrats are serious about infrastructure, clean energy, and environmental progress, they should support fixing the permitting system that they helped break. They should have no problem supporting things like the SPEED Act.

Mr. Speaker, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 3632, the Power Plant Reliability Act.

Years of Democratic energy policy have put our electric grid under real, significant strain, and Americans are feeling the consequences in real time.

Demand is rising rapidly. Manufacturing growth and electrification are pushing this system harder and harder every single year. At the same time, Democrats are forcing reliable baseload generation offline, without a serious plan to replace it. Instead of coordinating policy, they regulate in silos. Instead of planning for reliability, they react after the fact.

The Power Plant Reliability Act forces accountability. It ensures regulators cannot quietly retire critical power plants without fully understanding the reliability consequences on our Nation.

Americans don't need a white paper to understand what happens when reliability is ignored. They see it when the power goes out. They feel it when their energy bills spike. They pay the price when Washington refuses to plan for real-world demand.

Keeping the lights on should not be controversial. It should be something we should be able to get 435 votes on, but Democrats chose politics over reliability. The families in this country are the ones paying the price right now. Premature plant retirements are only part of the problem.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 3616, the Reliable Power Act.

This bill addresses another uncomfortable truth that Democrats don't want to admit. Federal agencies are finalizing regulations that directly threaten grid stability without fully accounting for the consequences, and it is just purely reckless.

The Reliable Power Act requires a long-term reliability assessment that ensures that when serious risks are identified, regulators cannot simply ignore them and press ahead anyway.

Quite simply, this legislation is about ending, once and for all, the implementation of asinine regulations that only harm our grid's reliability. Reliable electricity underpins everything: public safety, economic growth, hospitals, schools, and national security. Republicans are treating that responsibility seriously, and that is why we are bringing this legislation forward today. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not.

Mr. Speaker, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1366, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act.

Democrats talk endlessly about supply chains and national security, but their policies undermine both. Domestic mining projects are stalled, not because they fail environmental standards, but because Democrats have once again allowed endless regulation and regulatory ambiguity to choke them off.

That means fewer American jobs. It means greater dependence on foreign adversaries that are getting rich in the process. It means higher costs across our economy.

If Democrats want secure supply chains and fewer imports from hostile foreign powers, this is exactly the kind of bill that they should support.

Mr. Speaker, the rule also includes consideration of H.R. 845, the Pet and Livestock Protection Act.

It is impossible to deny that the recovery of the gray wolf is a success story. Population goals were met years and years ago, yet Democrats refuse to trust the science and acknowledge the clear success of saving the gray wolf population in this country. Why? Because it would mean betraying the radical environmental groups that want to see laws like the Endangered Species Act weaponized rather than work as intended, to save these animals.

Instead, bowing to their base and ignoring the science, Democrats have kept the future of gray wolf management trapped in endless litigation, leaving farmers and ranchers to deal with the real consequences that they face on their ranches and farms every single day.

What are those consequences? Livestock are attacked, and livelihoods across rural America are threatened, all to satisfy the whims of a radical left activist base that thinks their food comes from the grocery store and their energy comes from a socket in the wall when you plug something in.

The Pet and Livestock Protection Act puts an end to this endless litigation and weaponization of the ESA. It recognizes science, acknowledges success, and restores balance, something our colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem unwilling to do.

Mr. Speaker, finally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4371, the Kayla Hamilton Act.

The bill exists because of a tragic failure, one that my Democratic colleagues, who supported the last administration for 4 long years of open borders, would rather continue to ignore. As the first Trump administration recognized, the Unaccompanied Alien Children Program has been exploited by criminals, including gang members, who come to this country as wolves in sheep's clothing. These individuals use the UAC system not for protection but to recruit and traffic new members and to wreak havoc on American communities.

Under the Biden administration open-border, no-consequences policies, policies my Democratic colleagues wholeheartedly supported, that exploitation exploded. During the Biden years, approximately 465,000 unaccompanied alien children were released to unvetted sponsors. The program lacked basic safeguards to prevent illegal aliens from serving as sponsors.

According to Health and Human Services, roughly 85 percent of UAC sponsors lack lawful immigration status. Thanks to the Biden administration's own policies supported by Democrats for 4 years, countless smugglers, cartels, and bad actors profited from nothing less than the exploitation of children and human trafficking.

Instead of tightening safeguards as encounters surged, Democrats chose to roll back background checks and sponsor reviews, moving children out of law enforcement custody faster, regardless of risk. The consequences to innocent children harmed from years of this horrific policy choice have yet to be fully reckoned with and will certainly haunt generations of innocent victims for years to come.

What we do know is that in May 2024, the Biden administration had lost track of more than 320,000 unaccompanied alien children, placing them at heightened risk of sex trafficking, forced labor, and abuse.

Mr. Speaker, this is not compassion. This is pure negligence.

Picking up the pieces from the wreckage of the Biden-Harris immigration policies, the Trump administration has committed to locating these children and to saving lives, something that eluded Democrats for 4 long years. So far, more than 22,600 unaccompanied children have been located, and over 400 sponsors have been arrested. Tragically, 27 minors have been found dead, victims of murder, victims of suicide, victims of drug overdose. Those are not statistics. Those are lives that are forever lost to tragedy.

The Kayla Hamilton Act restores basic safeguards. It requires background checks. It seeks criminal records from home countries. It puts public safety first.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule. I urge my colleagues to support the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I think we are now approaching about year 9 of Democrats suffering from Trump derangement syndrome. No matter what is before this House, no matter what the rule before us today actually contains, my colleagues across the aisle find a way to make this about President Trump, not the substance of the legislation, not the issues before the American people, not the suffering the last 4 years have brought on them, not the costs facing families, not the failures of their own record. It is just about Trump to them.

While they are fixated on that, the American people have paid the price. In 2022, while Democrats were consumed by their latest Trump obsession, families were being crushed by the worst inflation spikes in 40 years after trillions upon trillions in Democratic spending overheated the economy.

Groceries, gas, and rent all skyrocketed. You didn't hear a peep on the other side of the aisle. Democrats didn't fix it. They didn't even acknowledge it. Then they doubled down on it and made it worse.

In 2024, with the border wide open and millions of illegal aliens pouring into our communities across the country, Democrats once again ignored the top concerns of American families.

Instead of securing the border or addressing affordability, they doubled down on the same, tired narrative claiming that President Trump was a threat to democracy. You will hear more of it today, Mr. Speaker.

The voters rejected it. They lost the electoral college, they lost the popular vote, and they lost every swing State on the table. Since then, Democrats haven't learned a thing. They have spent their time defending wasteful programs, failed policies, and bureaucratic overreach all while opposing every serious effort by President Trump and House Republicans to clean up the mess that they left behind.

Yet here we are today hearing the same hysterics. The American people have tuned it out. They know what actually matters: trying to lower costs, keeping communities safe, securing reliable energy, and restoring accountability in Washington. That is exactly what the bills under this rule are about.

While Democrats rehash old grievances and relive the same political fixation for the ninth year in a row, Republicans are focused on delivering results for working families. After 4 years of the economic mismanagement under Democratic leadership, Democrats are suddenly pretending to care about trade, tariffs, and the American economy. It is quite a performance. The American people see right through it.

For 4 years, Democrats told families not to believe their own eyes as inflation hit 40-year highs, as their grocery bills exploded, and as their energy costs soared. They brushed off concerns from workers and manufacturers who were watching their jobs disappear overseas and while Washington signed one bad trade deal after another.

They told Americans that surrendering leverage was smart trade policy even as foreign countries flooded our markets and shut their own doors for American producers.

Now President Trump is back in office and trying to right the ship. He is delivering results, and Democrats are scrambling to rewrite history.

Under President Trump's America First trade agenda, the trade deficit has narrowed to its smallest level since the mid-2020 year, down more than 35 percent over last year alone. Exports are up 6 percent year- over-year, reaching their second highest level on record. Inflation- adjusted exports of consumer goods are the largest ever. The trade deficit with China has narrowed to its second smallest since 2009. In the third quarter of 2025, real exports grew 4.1 percent annual rate while imports fell 5 percent, adding roughly 1 full percentage point to real GDP growth.

In November alone, the trade deficit was cut by more than one-half compared to last year, driven by rising tariff revenues as President Trump secured better terms for American workers, farmers, and manufacturers.

This didn't happen by accident. For decades, weak trade policies allowed foreign governments to exploit American openness while protecting their own industries.

President Trump ended that arrangement by using tariffs as leverage. He forced countries to come to the table. They have, and they are continuing to.

Since announcing his trade agenda in April, President Trump has secured new and improved trade deals with major partners covering more than one-half of the global GDP, spanning Europe, Asia, and the Americas. At the same time, companies are responding by committing trillions of dollars in new investment, bringing jobs back here at home, rebuilding supply chains, and putting American workers first again.

Mr. Speaker, shouldn't that be what we are working on here?

I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker, but today's debate is not about relitigating trade policy or listening to Democrats pretend to suddenly discover economic responsibility. Today we are focused on the six bills under this rule, bills that reflect the same commonsense approach that President Trump has applied to trade, strengthening domestic production, lowering costs, restoring reliability, and undoing the damage of the Biden years. That is the work before us today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to open up the text of the rule before us today, and for good measure the underlying legislation as well, and hit ``control F'' on the words Affordable Care Act. They will quickly see that despite their fixation on making everything about the topic, nowhere in this rule or the underlying legislation is the Affordable Care Act, ACA subsidies, or marketplace coverage mentioned.

However, the policies that they are working, and hopefully there will be further bipartisan discussions about, were set to expire by their own hand at the end of a 5-year window because it was COVID emergency spending. I don't think I am breaking any news here, but COVID is over. Something that Democrats don't seem to want to ever end is an unlimited spigot of public money devoted to an issue.

We have to get to the core reasons why health insurance for all, not just those that are on Affordable Care Act plans, but for people in private insurance, all the public expenditures through our Medicare and Medicaid programs, why is healthcare an explosive cost year over year?

That is going to take bipartisanship and working together and putting some of these petty fights aside, because even if we extended these credits for 3 years, as they would like, it doesn't solve the problem for the millions upon millions and tens of millions of Americans who are on private pay insurance.

We have to really get serious about affordability, health insurance affordability, and the cost of delivering our healthcare in this country. Their remedy to this problem is putting a Band-Aid on a bullet hole. It is an expiration that is by their own hand and own design because it was designed for COVID-era emergency spending.

As a reminder, the measures in this rule are straightforward and common sense: strengthening energy reliability and tackling affordability in this area, streamlining permitting so that infrastructure can actually get built, restoring certainty to domestic supply chains, trusting science over ideology in wildlife management, and advancing public safety measures that protect our communities.

These bills are about lowering costs, keeping the lights on, and restoring accountability. That is the agenda before us in this rule today. That is an important agenda to the American people and the affordability issues that stand before us and our future prosperity.

Democrats want to lecture us about being serious on energy, but the American people remember exactly what 4 years of Democratic energy policy delivered. Under President Biden, Democrats drove up costs, weakened our electrical grid, and forced the premature retirement of reliable baseload power. They flooded the market with mandates and subsidies picked by Washington, not by engineers, and then acted surprised when electricity prices spiked and grid operators started warning about blackouts.

When those prices spiked, the price of everything spiked because increased electricity and energy costs drive up the price of all goods and services. Families paid more, reliability got worse, and Democrats told Americans that somehow it was all worth it.

Now that President Trump is back in office and reversing that damage, Democrats suddenly claim that these

bills are partisan not because they are extreme, but because they expose how reckless the last administration was.

President Trump and House Republicans are doing what Democrats refused to do: streamlining permitting so that projects can actually get built, restoring common sense to environmental review, and prioritizing dispatchable power sources that actually keep the lights and the heat on in this country.

The truth is, Democrats don't have a serious answer to rising energy demand, grid reliability, or affordability. Their answer is just throw up a few more windmills and all will be well with the world. We can shutter every other power plant that has proven baseline power, and the windmills and solar panels will solve all the problems.

Their solution is always the same: more mandates, more subsidies, more regulation, and hope that the grid holds together by wishes and dreams, not by science and practicality.

Republicans are offering something different: policies grounded in reliability, affordability, and domestic American production so American families aren't left paying more while China builds coal plant after coal plant month after month and laughs all the way to the bank.

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what this rule advances. The energy bills before us are commonsense measures to strengthen reliability, streamline approvals, and support American jobs as well as ensure that American families have access to affordable American power, not slogans, not lectures, not dreams and wishful thinking.

If my colleagues across the aisle are truly serious about lowering costs and securing Americans' energy future, they should stop posturing and support this rule because Americans don't need more talking points. They need the lights to stay on.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the aisle wants to paint these bills as giveaways, which is wild considering what Democrats themselves have already done.

Democrats passed a so-called Inflation Reduction Act, the most poorly named bill in the history of the Congress because it did nothing but skyrocket inflation. Everyone has the proof of that in their weekly grocery bills and their utility costs.

It happened on their watch. They dumped massive new spending on an overheated economy and helped drive the worst inflation in 40 years. That is just fact. That is indisputable. Despite the title, it didn't reduce any inflation, not even close.

What it did was create a massive subsidy pipeline for green energy companies, all tied to the People's Republic of China. Chinese firms, ultimately answerable to the Chinese Communist Party, rushed in to take advantage of all these credits and the programs that Democrats set up. Apparently, that part has slipped their memory.

When House Republicans tried to add basic guardrails to stop those subsidies from flowing overseas to China, Democrats objected. They objected loudly, not quietly.

When Democrats are throwing around the word ``giveaway,'' it is fair to wonder whether they have forgotten their own record or are just hoping that everyone else is focused on something else.

Democrats are perfectly willing to outsource Americans' energy future and our national security to foreign adversaries to pursue their agenda.

Republicans are doing the opposite. We are strengthening domestic production. We are securing supply chains here at home in the United States and reducing our dependence on China.

That brings us back to the rule before us today. The six bills in this rule are focusing on restoring reliability, supporting domestic production, and streamlining permitting so that projects can actually move forward and lower costs for American taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, that is the work before the House today, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the rule before us reflects a clear choice. After years of regulatory overreach, misplaced priorities, and Washington-knows- best policymaking, this House is taking steps to restore balance, accountability, and common sense.

The legislation considered under this rule addresses real problems Americans are facing: higher energy costs, delayed infrastructure, weakened supply chains, threats to grid reliability, and failures that put public safety at risk.

These bills do not eliminate environmental protections or public input. They simply require the Federal Government to act responsibly, plan for real-world consequences, and stop using endless process as an excuse for inaction.

Republicans are focused on getting things built, keeping the lights on for Americans, keeping the heat on, protecting communities, and strengthening America's economic and national security. That is what the American people expect, and that is what this rule and the underlying legislation advances. I strongly support the rule before us today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to have sponsored this legislation and have fought this battle for many years.

I think we could actually get it done this time. I am not sure that my colleagues even believe what they are saying. I think they know that their constituents don't believe it.

Let's not forget that, in the 1930s, the medical community believed that lobotomies could cure psychosis. They also believed that electroshock therapy could do the same. They even gave the lobotomy inventor a Nobel Prize in 1949. Then the science caught up with the ideology, and medicine was changed for the better.

Today's great sin in medicine is perhaps one of the worst that we have seen in human history. It is a sick and twisted ideology paired with a social media-fueled social contagion that has actually normalized the ultimate lie, which is that biological gender does not matter and can even be changed. Here is the greatest sin: that this lie also applies to children.

There are some very simple, fundamental truths in life: Men are men, women are women, and children are innocent. They can't be told that they are in the wrong body.

Mutilating children is wrong. Irreversible treatments on children who need therapy is wrong. These truths are very obvious to the vast majority of Americans, and it takes an incredible amount of propaganda and institutional coercion to get an entire society to even question these truths. Yet that is exactly what has happened.

Mr. Speaker, polls indicate that more than 70 percent of Americans support a full ban on puberty blockers for minors. That is from places like The Washington Post.

Imagine if the question had been asked differently. That is just about puberty blockers. What if they had been asked about double mastectomies on 12-year-old girls. I think the number would be probably approximately 90 percent, maybe higher.

Mr. Speaker, I am not arguing with my colleagues. I am pleading with Members to understand this. Their constituents don't want children to undergo gender transformations. They don't.

Their constituents know that kids are too young to understand the consequences of permanent physiological changes. I think my colleagues know it, too.

Even if my colleagues are uncertain about that, I think they can be rest assured that they definitely don't want their tax dollars to pay for it, which is all this bill does.

This debate is so often buried under euphemisms. There is gender- affirming care. There is a medical consensus. There is a standard of care.

Strip away the language. Here is the reality: Healthy children are being placed on drugs that halt normal development, sterilize them, permanently alter their bodies before they are even old enough to vote or drink or get a tattoo.

These are kids suffering from teenage angst, and I don't deny the existence of gender dysphoria. However, psychotherapy is the answer to that, not permanent hormonal changes or surgical mutilations. That is not compassion. That is not medicine. That is an abomination.

We are told that questioning this practice puts children at risk and that if we don't medicalize a child's distress, they will take their own life. That claim has been debunked. It is not supported by science. Studies from all over the world have proven it false, and those who continue to promulgate it should be ashamed.

The highest quality medical reviews have consistently found no clear evidence that puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or surgeries reduce suicide risk in minors--none. Yet we are told to suspend our moral judgment, suspend scientific skepticism, and accept irreversible harm as the default response to childhood stress. That is not how responsible medicine works.

Puberty blockers are not approved by the FDA for treating gender dysphoria. They were never designed to interrupt normal puberty in otherwise healthy children. Cross-sex hormones can permanently compromise fertility. Surgeries irreversibly alter healthy organs. These are not neutral acts.

These are life-altering decisions imposed on minors whose brains, identities, and bodies are still developing.

We are told that treatments are reversible. That claim is very false. International health authorities have concluded that suppressing puberty often locks children into a pathway toward permanent medical transition. Nearly every child placed on puberty blockers proceeds with the cross-sex hormones. The so-called pause button that almost always leads to irreversible outcomes is not a pause. It is a trap.

While activists insist this is settled science, the rest of the world is pulling the emergency brake. The United Kingdom now limits puberty blockers. Sweden and Finland have sharply restricted their use. France's medical authorities warn of serious risks to bone development and fertility. Those lying, depraved activists reviewed the same evidence and said, No, we are good with it.

Children suffering from gender dysphoria deserve care,

dignity, and clinical compassion, but that compassion does not mean pushing them on a medical pathway that leads to irreversible physical harm.

The answer is in evidence-based psychotherapy care, therapy, family support, and clinical monitoring over time.

What does this bill even do? The Do No Harm in Medicaid Act draws a very clear moral line that the government will not participate in, endorse, or normalize irreversible gender surgeries and chemical interventions on minors.

It is codifying President Trump's agenda to protect our children and keep them healthy. It says he won't be complicit.

Medicaid won't fund this abomination, but contrary to what many of the claims are, it preserves narrow exceptions for genuine medical conditions, like early onset puberty, disorders of sex development, and treatment of complications.

This was a very carefully crafted bill that addresses all the concerns that have been raised. It is not about hate. It is not about politics. It is about protecting kids when adults fail them. It is an easy vote.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Do No Harm in Medicaid Act, please.

Mr. Speaker, I don't need much time.

The question was asked if we had ever bothered speaking to trans kids. The answer is absolutely yes. Maybe that is why I am so passionate about this. It turns out there are hundreds and hundreds, thousands perhaps, of trans kids who were coerced by radicalized doctors. Their parents were lied to.

Their parents were given studies that said there is a 1 percent remorse rate. These studies are based on nonsense. They are not even based on a pool of participants that are minors. They were told that these things are just a pause button, that it is reversible, that this is just a standard of care. Standard of care based on what? Based on junk science. We cannot base standards of care on junk science.

Now, the science has caught up: the Cass Review study, the systematic review, which is the gold standard of any kind of study because it looks at all the different studies methodically, and then the 300-page review that HHS just did.

I have had them on my podcast twice to talk about their experiences. Chloe Cole spoke at the Department of Health and Human Services just now, about an hour ago. Chloe Cole, at 12 years old, was going through what a lot of 12-year-olds are going through. She is a tomboy. She has older brothers. She likes sports. She is confused. Doctors tell her that she is a boy. They convinced her parents of the same. She is put on puberty blockers and soon on high levels of testosterone. By age 15, she has a double mastectomy. She is not sure if she can ever have kids, and she definitely can't feed her children normally.

Yes, we have talked to them. Maybe my colleagues on the other side should, too.

Mr. Speaker, I will not be long. I will just ask a simple question, because the statement was made that all the science suggests that these procedures are medically necessary.

Can they cite their sources? Show me the studies. I cited mine. Cite their sources.

Mr. Speaker, again, it has been stated that these so- called treatments are safe and effective and save lives. I ask the gentlewoman again: Cite your sources. Cite your sources.

You won't. That is because you know that I know all of the sources that you are going to cite. You know what I am going to say about them: about the problems with their methodology; about the pool of participants they use; about how short those studies were; and about how most of them didn't even apply to minors.

You know what I am going to say, and so you won't cite your sources.

Mr. Speaker, I will cite mine. We have systematic reviews that have been published and accepted throughout the scientific community. That is why the rest of the Western world is reversing their stance on this, and the United States needs to also.

That is because I couldn't tell if that speech about harming kids was about our bill or about the act of conducting irreversible physiological changes on children who are going through gender dysphoria.

Yes, we are trying to protect kids. We are trying to love our kids.

Mr. Speaker, this claim is made over and over, that allowing gender-affirming care, as they call it, is saving lives. The problem with that claim is that there is no evidence to suggest that.

All of the reviews, all of the studies, all of the systematic reviews--a systematic review means a systematic review of all of the studies--show that there can be no clear line drawn between suicide rates and doing this kind of care.

A paper published in the British Medical Journal examined the landscape. Mr. Speaker, 61 systematic studies concluded there is great uncertainty about the effects of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries in young people.

On suicide risk, there is no clear evidence that these medical interventions prevent suicide. A 2020 study analyzing trans-identifying patients of all ages over 40-plus years found that suicides occur at every stage of medical transition.

A 2021 systematic review concluded that based on available data, no conclusions can be drawn about whether hormones, puberty blockers, or surgeries reduced suicide risk.

Again, in 2024, another independent review found that Britain's post- 2020 restriction of puberty blockers did not cause a rise in suicides despite many of the lies told on social media by activists.

They keep saying that every medical society supports this--and, so, okay, then, we have to listen to them. Well, that is true. It is because of ideological pressure rather than scientific evidence. We know that these studies that they are citing are based on low-quality evidence, small sample sizes, and very high risk of bias.

A Johns Hopkins systematic review found that the evidence supporting claims that hormonal treatments may improve quality of life, depression, and anxiety among transgender patients was ``low.'' The study called for more research, particularly on adolescents.

The same review concluded that it was about impossible--this is Johns Hopkins--it was about impossible to draw conclusions about the effects of hormone therapy on suicide risk.

Even a review published by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which institutionally has supported gender transition, admits that ``evidence regarding the psychosocial and cognitive impact of hormonal treatments for transgender adolescents is generally lacking.''

I could keep going. The point here, Mr. Speaker, is you have got a problem, and it is a gender dysphoric problem. We know that a kid is going through something hard. And you want to take the most extreme possible medical intervention to deal with that while the science says we have no idea whether that is a good idea or not.

That is what the actual scientific consensus says.

Now, if the argument was: Hey, give them more fruit or something, then that is not really harmful. That would be fine. We wouldn't be arguing about it, but the minority is talking about double mastectomies. They are talking about puberty blockers and hormonal therapies that permanently change the physiology of a young person before they are old enough to even understand what they might want in 20 years.

That is the most irresponsible type of policymaking one can imagine. It is the most irresponsible type of medicine that one can imagine.

Mr. Speaker, I love debunking lies in real time. It is one of my favorite things to do.

The chairman just did a great job debunking a lie. We were just told that this is the only bill we are doing this week. No, it is not. It is an important bill, but everything he just listed was also pretty important to lower people's healthcare costs. I don't know why there was no Democratic support for it.

I want to debunk some more lies. Again, on this idea that puberty

blockers for children are safe and effective, let me read some more facts. The Center for Investigative Reporting found that the FDA received over 10,000 adverse event reports from women who took Lupron, which is a common puberty blocker, off-label as children, to help them grow taller. Reported side effects included brittle bones and fractures, tooth enamel loss and cracked teeth, spinal disk degeneration and chronic joint pain, seizures, migraines, suicidal thoughts--so it is actually the opposite, isn't it?--cognitive issues, and fertility problems.

The FDA ordered the manufacturer to add a warning label, noting that children taking Lupron may develop new or worsened psychiatric symptoms. Trans-identifying minors are already three times more likely than the general population to experience anxiety, depression, and neurodevelopmental disorders.

Why make it worse? Stop talking about compassion. They are the ones doing the opposite of compassion by tricking these kids into thinking that this might be their answer. It is not. Therapy is.

There was another claim made that this tramples on States' rights, so I guess we need to have a quick civics lesson. We are talking about Federal funding, Medicaid funding provided by the Federal Government. The Federal Government can put restrictions on what that money is used for. It is not a trampling of States' rights. It is not a trampling of doctors' rights.

Let me ask something. My daughter picks up my fake eyes, and she goes: ``Eye, eye, eye.'' She is 2. She puts it on. Maybe when she is old enough to talk, she might identify as somebody with one eye. Should I take her to the doctor and say: Hey, will you enucleate her eyeball because, you know, she identifies as monocular just as I am, just like her daddy.

Mr. Speaker, you would say that is insane. You would call that absolutely insane, and it would be insane.

Here is the reality. The scary part about that analogy is that it is actually a lot less troubling to lose an eye than it is to completely change your gender. Completely changing your gender is a far more invasive procedure than losing an eye. Trust me, I know.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, let's just summarize what we have heard today.

We have heard that so-called gender-affirming care is necessary, effective, prevents suicides, and helps vulnerable children. No one can cite any sources for that claim. They can cite letters from certain associations that are ideologically driven.

I will again read the quote from the American Academy of Pediatrics when they did a review. On hormonal treatments for transgender adolescents, APA said: ``Evidence regarding their psychosocial and cognitive impact is generally lacking.'' I get that their leadership is saying one thing, but the scientists are all saying something else.

As responsible policymakers, we might want to take a pause before we just go on and assume that permanent physiological changes to children are a good idea because they are going through something tough, whether that is gender dysphoria, teenage angst, depression, or anxiety.

If you talk about compassion, I am talking about compassion, too. Compassion is being a responsible adult in the room for that child who doesn't know all of these things.

Compassion is not a doctor lying to a child's parents about junk science in studies that say they won't have any remorse, that they will be fine, that puberty blockers are like a pause button. No, they are not. There was a study in Britain that showed 96 or 98 percent move on to hormonal therapies. It is not a pause button at all.

Again, ask the thousands of trans kids who now vehemently regret their decisions. They are in lawsuits with the doctors who did this to them. That alone should tell us to take a pause here.

Let's just take a pause on this ideology because there is no evidence that it works, and there is plenty of evidence to show that it is extreme in nature because it is permanent.

They wouldn't do this for any other body part. You can't just identify as one-armed and ask the doctor to cut off your arm. The doctor won't do it, just like the doctor won't take out someone's eye because they want to identify like me. They are not going to do it because that would be malpractice and insane.

Tell me how this is any different. I have asked my colleagues to cite their sources many times, but no one has. I have cited all of them.

This is about very simple common sense. The vast majority of Americans agree that these treatments shouldn't even be done on minors.

Mr. Speaker, let me remind everyone that this bill doesn't even go that far. It simply says that your tax dollars won't allow this to be done on minors, just your Medicaid tax dollars. That is all it does.

To not vote for this is to truly vote against their own constituents, truly vote against the American people's wishes, and vote against common sense.

The science is settled on this. There is no benefit to what they are claiming. I don't know why they keep fighting this battle. It is a losing battle. I hope many of them will change their minds and come across the aisle to vote for this bill.

This really doesn't have to be a partisan issue at all. It should be an issue of common sense, science, and true compassion for children.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to today's rule.

While Americans are going into the holiday season struggling with rising prices and the high cost of living, with just days left before health insurance premiums are set to skyrocket for 22 million Americans, while the President is leading the country to war with Venezuela, and yet another mass shooting has claimed the lives of young Americans, Republicans are using the final legislative days of 2025 to prioritize six unserious, make-work bills.

They are using precious floor time and resources to put forward messaging bills with no chance of passing, bills that have nothing to do with the reality that most Americans are living

and the problems that they want Congress to solve.

But that is what this country has come to expect from House Republicans who have used their control of the House as a vehicle for PR stunts and to pick the pockets of working people in order to line the pockets of the wealthy and the well connected.

Under Republican control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, 2025 has been a year of chaos, controversy, and corruption in which every day brings a new self-inflicted crisis.

While most of this chaos has originated from the White House, congressional Republicans are no less responsible, for they have aided and abetted this administration's agenda at every turn. How humiliating that in recent weeks, staff at the White House have openly mocked the subservience of House Republicans.

From day one of this term, Republicans in Washington have made clear they are here to serve their donors, to serve billionaires and big business, and not the American public. They spent the first half of the year ramming through their partisan big, ugly bill which gave permanent, budget-busting tax cuts to the rich while canceling Medicaid and SNAP for millions of Americans.

They continually prioritize big business and culture wars in legislation like the bills before us in today's rule, a series of bills that put their thumb on the scale for the oil and gas industry at the expense of Americans' health and the stewardship of the environment. Republicans are deliberately choosing to raise Americans' healthcare costs because they refuse to extend the ACA tax credits.

Americans everywhere are pleading with Congress to lower the cost of living as families struggle to afford housing, healthcare, childcare, and even groceries. Trump campaigned on a promise that he would lower prices on day one, but once in office, he has put tariffs on almost every good coming into the U.S., directly raising the prices for nearly everything we buy.

Whether it is food at the grocery store, home appliances, a new car, Trump's trade wars and tariffs have made everything more expensive. These trade wars have undermined key portions of our economy. The tariffs have already cost us nearly 50,000 manufacturing jobs, and our tourism industry is suffering greatly.

Making matters worse, Congress could end the tariffs today. The House could vote today on any number of Senate-passed resolutions that would end the Trump tariffs, but Speaker Johnson has blocked every one of those bills. House Republicans have now voted on four separate occasions to block legislation that would end the Trump tariffs. They have repeatedly doubled down on that decision to keep your prices high.

But it is not just the tariffs. Just last week, House Republicans blocked bipartisan legislation that could have become law, that would have built new homes all over America, lowered rents, and made mortgages more affordable.

With healthcare, Americans are seeing the biggest increase in health insurance costs in 15 years, yet the Republican majority is actively opposing extension of the ACA tax credits that lower premiums for 22 million Americans.

While Republicans fail to act on affordability, they are also conspicuously silent on the near daily corruption emanating from this White House. Trump has pardoned hundreds of criminals convicted of serious offenses, including drug traffickers, money launderers, and fraudsters, depriving Americans of justice and restitution and enabling at least some of those pardoned to commit further crimes.

In many of these pardons, they have come at a price. Trump pardoned Juan Orlando Hernandez, who is convicted of trafficking 400 tons of cocaine into the United States. Ostensibly, this pardon will influence a Presidential election in Honduras.

Trump pardoned the CEO of Binance after he made a $2 billion investment in the President's company, World Liberty Financial. Nearly a dozen well-connected individuals, many of them donors to the President's campaign or investors in his companies, have also received pardons.

Trump has also shown a curious leniency to major criminals. He pardoned Ross Ulbricht, who ran one of the biggest drug-trafficking and money-laundering operations on the deep web.

The President also dropped criminal charges against multiple MS-13 gang leaders in order to help cover up a corruption scandal for his ally, Salvadoran President Bukele.

He has directed Federal prosecutors and law enforcement officers to drop investigations of serious crimes, including drug and human trafficking, in order to focus on immigration enforcement, letting countless criminals off the hook.

Of course, we can't forget the yearslong coverup of the Epstein files. On the campaign trail, Trump and his allies swore they would release the Epstein files, but once in office, they have blocked the release for 11 months. Ultimately, it has taken an act of Congress to force the President to release those files. The deadline to release the Epstein files is this Friday, but we still haven't seen a single document from the White House or the Department of Justice. Again, all of this begs the question: What exactly is this White House trying to hide?

All this time, while Trump is pardoning drug traffickers and dropping charges against gang members and violent insurrectionists who assaulted cops, congressional Republicans have been silent. If you ask Speaker Johnson about it, as the press has, he will tell you he has no idea what you are talking about.

Republicans are silent as Trump and his White House cause crisis after crisis. Trump and Hegseth are leading us into another forever war in Venezuela. The President has called for the execution of Democratic Members of Congress. The administration has withheld FEMA funding for disaster victims but gave a $40 billion bailout to Argentinean hedge funds.

Administration officials are wasting taxpayer dollars to fly around the country for personal business and photo ops. ICE and Border Patrol have detained more than 170 American citizens, including nearly 20 children, and that total is growing by the day.

The national debt is over $2 trillion higher in just this year alone. It is all so insulting to you, to me, to every American, to see this flagrant corruption and shameful mismanagement on a daily basis. House Republicans seem to have priorities so completely at odds with the needs of the American people that they have ignored all year the kitchen-table issues that American families struggle with every single day.

Instead, they have spent their time in Washington, when they have actually come to Washington, working on industry handouts, gold-plated ballrooms, and stirring up insane culture wars.

You deserve better. America deserves better. We deserve a functioning Congress that actually works for the American people, not just the wealthy and well connected.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the point we are trying to make is that this shouldn't be about economic policy. The Republican leadership's refusal to address the Trump tariffs and the damage they have inflicted upon our economy and upon American families' pocketbooks should be the topic before the House instead of these makeweight bills that are never going to become law.

Mr. Speaker, at the start of 2025, the Republicans knew there were two big tax provisions due to expire at the end of this year, now, within the next 10 days. One of them was the 2017 Trump tax cuts which overwhelmingly went to the wealthiest Americans, and the second was the ACA tax credits that helped millions of Americans afford health insurance. This has been known to everybody all year.

Now, our Republican colleagues made the choice in their big, ugly bill, which they spent so much time and energy on this summer, to extend the Trump tax cuts for the wealthy, and they have also made the intentional choice to let the ACA tax credits expire. In doing so, they are causing the premiums for 22 million Americans to skyrocket. It is likely that millions of Americans will lose their health coverage this year due to our Republican colleagues' failure, refusal, in fact, to address that issue.

Mr. Speaker, when we hear our Republican colleagues talk about their healthcare bill that they are trying to bring to the floor this week, know that their legislation will not renew the ACA tax credits. It will not lower premiums, and it will not lower costs.

Mr. Speaker, 80 percent of the bill is simply new paperwork requirements for pharmacy benefit managers, and the parts of the bill that do involve healthcare costs are horrible. They basically want to sell Americans junk insurance policies, and people know about these. These are the policies that have low sticker costs but terrible coverage when you need it, Mr. Speaker.

We really just have been imploring our colleagues to come to the table to try to do what the American people need them to do so that Americans have health coverage when they need it, and we have not seen them be willing to do that.

That is why we have a discharge petition sitting there at the desk. We just need four Republicans to join all of the Democrats in the House to force a vote to extend the ACA tax credits, and we would invite them to do so.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of H.R. 6074, which would extend the Affordable Care Act enhanced premium tax credits for 3 years, through 2028.

Mr. Speaker, for months, Democrats have sounded the alarm about the expiring enhanced premiums, urging the Republican majority to join us in extending these premiums before the end of the year so that all of our constituents can get the healthcare coverage they deserve.

Millions of Americans have already received notices from their health plan that their premiums are going to skyrocket starting January 1, 2026, just a few days from now, in some cases by over $1,000 a month. The median income in my district is about $80,000 for a family of four. They can't afford an additional $12,000 a year for health insurance.

However, there are only 3 legislative days remaining to fix this problem before the health insurance costs of over 20 million Americans rise, but this Republican majority has ignored and blocked any effort to extend those credits. The majority even told their own moderates they won't get a vote on the floor to extend them.

I am happy to give them that vote right now. We can defeat the previous question, and we can consider a bill that would extend the ACA enhanced premium tax credits for 3 years.

There is no more time to waste. The deadlines are all passed. We have to act now for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Min) to discuss our proposal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague from New York that Congress needs to get serious about affordability both of everyday products and services but also health insurance, and that is why we have offered the amendments that we have and why we have been urging our colleagues across the aisle for months to address this issue.

However, as we focus on the rule today, which does not address affordability, there are a number of issues dealing with electricity prices. American households right now are paying record-high electricity prices, prices that have been rising, and most analysts are predicting will continue to rise more in 2026.

There is only one real way to lower electricity prices. That is to build more energy in the United States. Democrats did this, made serious efforts toward this when we passed the Inflation Reduction Act. We provided a forward-looking mix of financial incentives to build more power from all sources but especially from wind and solar. Those measures have been embraced by the American people, and they have been embraced by our energy industries.

However, while our Republican colleagues say they want to lower electricity bills, they have actively torpedoed these efforts to build more domestic energy.

President Trump and congressional Republicans have rescinded nearly all the investment incentives from the IRA. As a result, we are seeing domestic power generation decreasing, household electricity costs rising, and thousands of good-paying jobs being effectively canceled.

At the same time, the big, beautiful bill gave huge handouts to the oil and gas industry. These are handouts that won't increase energy production but will simply pad the profits of Chevron and Exxon. This is the Republican energy agenda: higher prices for you, the consumer, and higher profits for the oil and gas industry.

It is an incentive that we see continued in some of the bills under consideration in this rule today, which will require that coal- generating electricity plants stay online even when they have outlived their usefulness and profitability. Meaning, once again, consumer costs go up, but the coal industry gets the benefit.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard some well-intentioned debate from our Republican colleague today, but the fact remains that this week is being wasted on messaging bills that will not become law.

All year, Republicans have failed to act on affordability. They failed to bring down housing costs, to control inflation at the grocery store, or to lower electricity bills. They were elected to office to tackle these problems, but for an entire year, they have sat on their hands, opting for press conferences and tweets instead of legislation and dealmaking.

Earlier this year, Republicans ended healthcare coverage for 15 million Americans with their big, ugly bill. All this year, Republicans have blocked each and every effort to renew the ACA tax credits. Now, health insurance costs are at a 15-year high, and premiums are set to skyrocket for 22 million people.

In my district and in most of America, electricity prices are through the roof. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has bent over backward for AI companies, cut billions of dollars in energy investments, and canceled major clean energy projects.

In Congress, Republicans' energy agenda continues to boost oil and gas profits but does nothing to actually lower bills.

This past weekend, America witnessed yet another mass shooting that took the lives of two and critically injured nine more. This year has seen 391 mass shootings. We have lost nearly 14,000 people to senseless gun violence. No matter how many times we see the same tragic story play out on the news, our Republican colleagues keep their heads in the sand and refuse to bring forward or endorse commonsense gun safety legislation, which the majority of Americans and law enforcement leaders support.

This term, Republicans have turned Congress into a rubberstamp for executive action. It is a major abdication of our constitutional responsibilities, and it has done irreparable damage to this institution. It is my sincere hope that 2026 brings new opportunities for bipartisan action on these pressing issues.

The American people deserve better than a President who governs by tweet and a Speaker who has neutered Congress' role in our constitutional order.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is shamelessly bold for Republicans to bring a bill to the floor called the Do No Harm in Medicaid Act. That is today's Republican Party. They simply lack any shame.

They say that they are doing no harm to Medicaid when their big, ugly bill earlier this year cut nearly $1 trillion from the Medicaid program. That is a huge cut that will leave millions of low-income families without any health coverage at all.

We already see the devastating effects of their big, ugly bill. States,

which are already facing budget shortfalls, stare down a reduction of as much as 20 percent of their Federal Medicaid funding. They are being left with an impossible challenge.

We are seeing across-the-board cuts that are crippling hospitals, maternity units, home care providers, and clinics. We are seeing healthcare providers close their doors and cut their services. We are seeing States scale back benefits, leaving those who are able to keep their Medicaid coverage with less of the healthcare that they need.

Now, even with all of that, Republicans have the audacity to bring a bill to the floor that they claim is about doing no harm in Medicaid. That is not what this is about.

H.R. 498 is an extreme attack on medically necessary healthcare for children. The bill bans Medicaid funding for gender-affirming care for minors and strips States of even more Medicaid funding if they choose to cover this medically necessary care with their own State dollars.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans are once again reaching into the doctor's office and taking deeply personal and private medical questions out of the hands of doctors, parents, and patients. They are putting it into their own hands, as if anyone wants politicians making medical decisions for them and their children.

As Members of Congress, we ought to be focused on bringing down healthcare costs and ensuring people have access to the healthcare they need, not getting in the way of doctors and parents who know what is best for their patients and their children.

The reality is this floor debate is nothing more than political theater, aimed at distracting from the devastating healthcare crisis Republicans created and are making worse every day.

They are trying to distract from the fact that their healthcare cuts are going to strip healthcare away from 15 million Americans and close hospitals all across the Nation. They are trying to distract from the fact that they are letting the Affordable Care Act's enhanced premium tax credits expire on January 1.

Republican inaction is driving up healthcare costs for more than 20 million Americans who are facing double, triple, or even quadruple premium increases.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans can't distract from this cruelty. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

I also call on Speaker Johnson to immediately bring up the Jeffries discharge petition that now has the support of a majority of House Members and that would extend the ACA premium tax credits for 3 years.

A majority of this House--Democrat and Republican--wants to act to extend these tax credits. It is time for Speaker Johnson to bring that bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), who is the ranking member of our Environment Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington State (Ms. Randall).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains on our side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Soto), who is a member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just have to correct two comments that were made by my Republican colleagues.

First, the sponsor of the bill said that they are just talking about Federal funds. The fact of the matter is, they are not just talking about Federal funds because this bill prevents States like Washington State--we had two people speak about this--from using State funds for gender-affirming care for minors. It is not just a prohibition on Federal funds.

Also, my chairman from Kentucky kept saying that the healthcare bill that the Republicans put on the floor yesterday would lower costs and somehow address the healthcare crisis. It does not. It does not lower costs, and it certainly doesn't extend the tax credits that are necessary under the Affordable Care Act to lower costs. Those expire January 1.

Mr. Speaker, I know the sponsor from Texas also mentioned medical professional organizations that oppose this bill, and there are many, but I include in the Record a letter from four of those organizations: American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American College of Physicians, and American Psychiatric Association.

December 16, 2025.

Dear Members of Congress: We, the undersigned medical

professional organizations, write in strong opposition to

H.R. 3492 and H.R. 498. These bills would criminalize and

dismantle health care for transgender young people and as

such represent a direct threat to patient welfare. We urge

you to reject these extreme proposals.

Families must be able to make personal medical decisions

regarding the care of their child in consultation with

trained health professionals. H.R. 3492 threatens parents and

physicians with imprisonment for obtaining medically

necessary health care. Such a proposal harms the physical and

mental health and well-being of families and interferes with

parents' ability to make informed decisions in the best

interests of their child. It also creates an irresolvable

ethical conflict that makes it impossible to fulfill their

duty to put the needs of the patient first.

Health care for transgender young people is individualized,

age-appropriate, provided according to longstanding expert

clinical guidelines, and supported by leading American

medical organizations. Under existing guidelines, medical

interventions are provided only after careful screening and

joint decision-making including a patient, family, and their

care team. H.R. 498 would insert the federal government

between patients and physicians. It would also put this care

out of reach for families nationwide by prohibiting the use

of federal Medicaid funding for its provision and requiring

physicians to provide different care to patients based on the

health insurance they hold. Preventing anyone from obtaining

medically necessary care threatens their physical and mental

health and well-being and that of their families.

Our organizations are united in opposition to political

interference in the practice of medicine. The confidential

relationship between a patient, their caregiver, and a

physician is the foundation of clinical care. Physicians and

other health professionals should never be criminalized or

penalized for providing care consistent with evidence-based

guidelines and best clinical judgment, and the government

should not interfere. Physicians, not the federal government,

are best positioned to work with patients and their families

to address their unique medical and mental health care needs.

We urge lawmakers to oppose these harmful intrusions into

the patient-physician relationship and the provision of

medical care.

Sincerely,

American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of

Obstetricians & Gynecologists, American College of

Physicians, American Psychiatric Association.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to read certain sections of it. They say: ``We, the undersigned medical professional organizations, write in strong opposition to H.R. 3492.''

``Healthcare for transgender young people is individualized, age- appropriate, provided according to longstanding expert clinical guidelines, and supported by leading American medical organizations. . . . Our organizations are united in opposition to political interference in the practice of medicine. The confidential relationship between a patient, their caregiver, and a physician is the foundation of clinical care.''

Physicians and other health professionals should never be stopped ``from providing care consistent with evidence-based guidelines and best clinical judgment, and the government should not interfere. Physicians, not the Federal Government, are best positioned to work with patients and their families to address their unique medical and mental health care needs.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Landsman), a member of our committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will say that I totally oppose this bill. I think these decisions should be left with parents and physicians, but more than anything else, I will mention today that Republicans need to do the right thing and bring up the Jeffries discharge petition that would extend the tax credits under the ACA for 3 more years. They should not allow them to expire on January 1. It should be brought up now.

I oppose this bill, and I ask that the Speaker bring up the discharge petition now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Oregon for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is right. If we want to talk about the occasional conflicts that exist between livestock and pets and any predators, that is a legitimate conversation. However, what we are hearing from across the aisle is really jumping the shark, if you will forgive another predator metaphor, Mr. Speaker.

We are being led to believe that packs of wolves are about to descend on urban areas in New England and Madison, Wisconsin, and that they are looming outside of schools.

I think my colleagues across the aisle need to understand: The American people are a little smarter than that. They are kind of going to see through this Little Red Riding Hood meets chupacabra narrative the gentleman was trying to spin to scare people about wolves.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you the way it actually works. The Endangered Species Act does not prevent wildlife managers from intervening any time a wolf or any other predator threatens property or human beings. In fact, just a few weeks ago in Northern California, I believe it was the Sierra Valley, a pack of wolves from one of our packs there had begun preying on cattle in an area where they are concentrated because of the way they move through the State, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife came in and took some. I think they took five or six of them, killed them. There was no ESA lawsuit, and there was no violation of the law.

A little reality check on what we just heard from my colleague from Minnesota, that there was nothing anyone could do about this scary chupacabra wolf in the school parking lot. That is nonsense. That is not the way the ESA works.

Now, let's be clear. This bill is not about protecting pets or livestock. It is about politics overriding science, and the consequences of doing that are disastrous. The precedent set by this bill would be very troubling. It would tell wildlife scientists that their expertise doesn't matter. It tells Tribal nations that their voices can be ignored, and it tells the American people they no longer have the right to challenge unlawful government actions.

The ESA is simple and effective. It ensures decisions are grounded in science. That is the heart of it, and this bill throws that principle out the window. It mandates a nationwide delisting of gray wolves, and it explicitly blocks judicial review. It would prevent courts from doing their job to determine whether a government action even complies with the law.

Now, we don't have to speculate about what happens when protections for gray wolves are lifted because we have seen it play out.

In the State of Wisconsin where hunters like the group, Hunter Nation, which is led by Ted Nugent and Don Jr. on the board, swept in as soon as the wolf hunting season was open. Quickly they did that, despite objections from Tribes in the region. The result was devastating. Mr. Speaker, 218 wolves, about 20 percent of the State's population, were wiped out. By the end of the season, 30 percent were killed--nearly twice as many wolves as the State had authorized.

Over the course of about 60 hours, thousands of hunters, including some unlicensed hunters, participated in coordinating hunting groups, engaged in a dangerous terrorizing campaign against the wolves using bait and wolf calls. They hunted at night. They used dogs. Mr. Speaker, 188 wolves were taken by dogs. They killed 130 wolf pups that were less than 2 years old. This is not thoughtful, science-based management of the State's wolf population. This is not celebrating the recovery of the wolf as we keep hearing in this debate.

This week we received a letter from the Wisconsin Tribes who had sued to try to stop that hunt. In the letter, they object to this bill today. They point out the inadequacy of existing State-level regulatory mechanisms that led to that disaster in Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from six Wisconsin Tribes.

December 17, 2025.

Dear Congressperson: We, the federally recognized bands of

Ojibwe in Wisconsin, oppose the legislation proposed by Rep.

Lauren Boebert (R-CO) to delist gray wolves and believe that

the gray wolf should remain protected under the Endangered

Species Act (``ESA''). We write to inform you of our

continued opposition to proposed legislation that would

direct the Secretary of the Interior to reissue final rules

relating to delisting the gray wolf under the ESA,

particularly where judicial review of the rule would be

barred.

The Pet and Livestock Protection Act, H.R. 845, would

impact our rights and treaty-protected resources. The treaty-

protected resources of the Ojibwe bands include gray wolves

in the territory ceded to the United States under the

Treaties of 1837 and 1842 (``ceded territory''), which has

become the northern third of the State of Wisconsin. We

previously expressed this opposition to lawmakers, including

Sen. Baldwin and Sen. Johnson when they proposed legislation

to delist the gray wolf in 2022.

One of the requirements for a finding of recovery and

delisting under the ESA is a determination that the species

in question is no longer imperiled by ``the inadequacy of

existing regulatory mechanisms.'' 16 U.S.C.

Sec. 1533(a)(1)(D). However, Wisconsin's February 2021 wolf

hunt resulted in the deaths of almost twice the number of

wolves allowed to be killed by the state. This debacle

clearly demonstrated that Wisconsin's existing regulatory

mechanisms are not up to the task of enabling effective

management of the state's wolf population. If the gray wolf

is delisted, and the Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources (``WDNFR'') implements another hunt as required

under Wisconsin law, Wisconsin's problematic legal framework

for regulation and oversight of state-licensed wolf hunters

and trappers will again threaten the wolves and Ojibwe treaty

rights.

This misguided legislation continues a long history of

disproportionately targeting the gray wolf--the first

endangered species ever to be legislatively delisted by

Congress. This proposed legislation also disregards the fact

that many Americans nationwide believe that wolves should

remain protected. In 2013 for example, approximately one

million Americans voiced opposition to the proposal to strip

endangered species protections from gray wolves. In addition,

widespread public opposition to the wolf hunt has been

routinely disregarded by the WDNR Board, making federal

protections even more important.

Our position still stands that legislation to delist the

gray wolf is misguided and continues to disregard strong

tribal opposition to delisting, as well as widespread

opposition from the general public.

Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Lac Courte

Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Lac du

Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Red Cliff

Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Sokaogon Chippewa

Community, St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, Tribes support continued protection for wolves. Seventy-eight percent of Americans support continued protection for wolves. They want to see living wolf pups in Yellowstone, not news stories about tortured wolves in bars or wolf hunts with dogs. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

I would also like to just move to some additional remarks that are part of our motion to recommit.

The entire debate so far has shown why Members of Congress have no business in listing and delisting decisions. We are not scientific experts. We are not objective scientists tasked with assessing population numbers, recovery goals, and continued threats to the species.

That is why the ESA properly leaves those questions to actual experts, not politicians. For that reason, we shouldn't be passing this bill at all, but if Republicans are going to go down this road, then there should at least be some guardrails in place that are based on actual science.

For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee.

If the House rules permitted, I would have offered this motion with an important amendment to this bill. We were not allowed to do that.

My amendment is straightforward. The NRA gets to have this bill and its little hunting spree, but if Ted Nugent and Don Jr. and all the other folks who need to do this to prove their manhood actually go where scientists have warned us about and take the wolf population down below science-based recovery standards, then the Secretary of the Interior would have to issue an emergency regulation temporarily restoring Federal protection in that instance.

This would provide a necessary backstop if Congress legislatively delists the gray wolf and it careens right back toward extinction again, which we know it would.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to recommit in a few moments and keeping amodicum of actual science in the Endangered Species Act.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

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