Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was in negotiations with the Whip and other leadership regarding the path forward on the SAVE Act and my misgivings with the bill and the vote closed before I cast my vote. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 53.

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, what happened in Kerr County was not a typical flood. We know floods in Houston. We know worst-case scenarios, and this is one of them.

More than 6 inches of rain fell in just a few hours. In some areas, the Guadalupe River surged over 30 feet in just 45 minutes, and we lost dozens of lives, including 27 at Camp Mystic. Children and counselors were caught while they were sleeping.

Entire communities were hit before sunrise with not enough time to react, but in the face of devastation, Texans rose up. Local responders acted immediately, some without any sleep and without any backup.

In one case, Petty Officer Scott Ruskan saved 165 people.

Dick Eastland, owner of Camp Mystic, gave his life saving his campers. He was found shielding them. Emma Foltz bravely led her bunkmates to safety. Julian Ryan sacrificed himself for his fiancee and children.

There are so many more stories of heroism. These are just a few, but it is good to know that there are still heroes in America. You never know if you are going to be one until the time comes. These are unmistakably Texan stories of courage and sacrifice.

I am proud of the Trump administration declaring a disaster within 48 hours, making sure that FEMA and the Coast Guard mobilized quickly and help was on the ground fast.

This is a rare and devastating event, but it will stay with us. We will mourn, but we will never forget.

We pray that we can prove worthy of those we have lost and prove worthy in our own lives of those heroes and those survivors.

I can't help but think of what I saw just a few days ago. Thousands of people lined the streets in my district in Kingwood as they brought back the Wilson family. Shiloh Wilson, a 12-year-old boy, was out there for a rodeo competition. He and his parents were all lost. Now they can rest together because of the volunteers and the first responders that got them back home. What an amazing sight to see, thousands of people back home lining the streets awaiting their arrival.

These people will never be forgotten. I am proud to stand here with my colleagues today to make sure that doesn't happen.

Mr. Speaker, I was detained for 3 minutes by personal phone call and they closed the vote very quickly. Had I been present, I would have voted AYE on Roll Call No. 122.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 61 because it is common sense. The Biden administration decided to put these additional regulations on tire manufacturers. The inevitable consequence of that, of course, is increasing the cost of tires for the American people.

The American people might be okay with such a regulation if it was to have a meaningful, positive effect. Everybody wants to protect the environment. I can't name a single Member who doesn't. As policymakers, we have to ensure that regulations are pragmatic and balance the inherent trade-offs. That is what policymaking is about. That is what regulation is about, trade-offs.

The Biden-era regulation on tire manufacturers is a perfect example of when regulators fail to do a proper cost-benefit analysis.

Let's talk specifics. This EPA rule piles on huge costs for our domestic tire makers. It is going to hit close to 100 rubber-mixers across the country. That jeopardizes jobs, increases prices, and makes American manufacturers less competitive globally.

Worse, there is not really a benefit to this. These regulations don't do much of anything to actually improve the environment. Under the final rule, tire manufacturers have to install expensive new devices like regenerative thermal oxidizers, which require incredible amounts of energy to operate. Therefore, you offset the so-called benefit by burning a lot more energy, meaning you are burning a lot more carbon dioxide, by the way. In other words, you are left with a policy that is pretty much all cost and no clear upside to it.

If you look at the justification, the Biden EPA claimed they implemented this rule to address hazardous air pollutants from tire manufacturers. Here is the thing: The agency's own data found that our existing standards already kept those emissions in check and protect public health. Why did they do it anyway? It is simple. It was because the political appointees at Biden's EPA are beholden to a bunch of radical environmental groups.

They went for the optics. They want headlines like ``Tough on Pollution'' instead of trusting the data that says actually we are in a good place here. They want the headlines. They believe in this crazy philosophy that if 1 regulation is good, then 10 more must be better. You can never do enough.

Of course, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have started with the scare tactics claiming the sky is falling, the air quality is plummeting, and people are dying and they are not going to have healthcare. There is no evidence for that, of course.

The evidence actually shows the opposite. The EPA's own website shows criteria pollutants have dropped by nearly 80 percent over the last several decades. We have already made a huge amount of progress. The data backs that up, not doom-and-gloom talking points.

Mr. Speaker, I say to anyone watching at home, don't buy into the fear-mongering that the Democrats are selling. This resolution is about protecting American jobs and keeping an eye on costs for everyone. It won't hurt the environment at all. It just reverses a burdensome rule that does more harm than good.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand with Chairman Griffith in support of this resolution. I urge all my colleagues on both sides to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the HALT Fentanyl Act because it is the most obvious thing in the world to be in support of.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost their lives to fentanyl. Fentanyl is supposed to be used in the operating room and on the battlefield. It is not meant to be laced into street drugs and sold online to kids. Due to its street use, it has killed hundreds of thousands of Americans--75,000 deaths a year. It is the Nation's biggest mass poisoning in our history.

There is a supply-side element to that. It is the Mexican drug cartels.

It is also worth mentioning the counterarguments to this. Everyone says, well, if we schedule this as a schedule I drug, then we are going to go right back to the old days of the 1980s and 1990s of mass incarceration.

There is a really big problem with that argument, and it is this: This has been temporarily scheduled since 2018. I would love my colleagues who are making that claim to show me the data on how this has hurt minority communities over the last 7 years. You can't because it doesn't exist. It has been schedule I for 7 years.

We cannot let that expire because then we take away the tools that our prosecutors and law enforcement need to stop this deadly threat.

I hate to break it to everybody, but incentives matter, behaviors matter. You need higher penalties for dealing fentanyl, a heck of a lot higher than the mandatory minimums we are even talking about here, if we actually care about saving kids' lives.

Mr. Speaker, we should stop playing politics. Let's do what is right. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a tremendous community in my district, The Woodlands, Texas, as it celebrates its 50th Anniversary on October 19th.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, George Mitchell began developing plans for a new hometown called The Woodlands. Mr. Mitchell's vision was for an all-encompassing, integrated community where residents could live, work, play, learn and pray among a natural forested and preserved environment.

Beginning with the modest purchase in 1964 of 2,800 acres from the Grogan Cochran Lumber Company, over the next decade Mr. Mitchell would invest in an additional 17,455 acres as a start to the master planned community. The first public school opened in 1971, and The Woodlands celebrated its grand opening with the opening of the Village of Grogan's Mill on October 19, 1974.

A master planned community far ahead of its time, Mr. Mitchell created in The Woodlands a thoughtful and diverse living experience that balanced the spirit of neighborhood life with business and innovation, all nestled within a grounded natural setting.

Over its five decades, The Woodlands has grown to include nine residential villages, The Woodlands Town Center, Hughes Landing and the Woodlands Waterway, the community's nexus of business and entertainment. The Woodlands boasts some of the highest ranked schools in the greater Houston region, award-winning medical and wellness centers, and places of worship of virtually every denomination. Today, approximately, 2,668 businesses, including the headquarters of major corporations, are based in The Woodlands.

The Woodlands has become an economic juggernaut in the Greater Southeast Texas area led by the development of The Woodlands Town Center. Spanning 1,000 acres, the urban core features premier office and retail space, a plethora of world class dining and entertainment options, hotels, healthcare and residences, all within a walkable environment. Economic development has been key to the success of The Woodlands generating commercial growth that has contributed to sustaining a low tax rate for residents while preserving the exceptional amenities that distinguish The Woodlands from many urban cores.

Likewise, the 151 parks, over 220 miles of hiking and bike trails, pools, public art, water sport destinations and signature golf courses highlight the community's natural surroundings. And yet, with all the community offers, the forest remains. Over the years, nearly one million seedlings have been given away at Arbor Day festivals and planted to enrich the community's forested beauty. Today, almost 8,000 of 28,500 total acres, remains open space.

This dedication to the natural environment was a priority in the development of The Woodlands. Parks have been planned and developed hand-in-hand with residential development. Families can enjoy a park within a 10-minute walk. In fact, The Woodlands was designed to be park plentiful, boasting one park per 815 residents, placing the community 200 percent above the national average for parks per resident, according to the National Recreation and Parks Association.

George Mitchell strategically planned The Woodlands with a focus on residential development first, laying the groundwork and support for a robust commercial destination aimed to create a central hub that would enhance the overall community experience and attract businesses, residents and visitors. Since its founding, The Woodlands has emerged from a fledging outpost of the Greater Houston area to a thriving community ranked the No. 1 Community to Live in America in 2021 and 2022. As The Woodlands celebrates five decades of diversity, innovation and community pride, we all look forward to its even more promising future.

In recognition of the 50th Anniversary, The Woodlands community will come together for a week of events culminating in a community wide celebration on October 19th. I congratulate The Woodlands on its 50th Anniversary and wish its residents a safe and joyous celebration on this momentous occasion.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I are here tonight to honor the life of Harris County Precinct 4 Constable, Corporal Maher Husseini, who was senselessly murdered on September 3.

Maher was an American by choice, immigrating here 30 years ago. He was my constituent. He lived the American Dream, starting a business and raising a family.

He also sought to serve the community he called home: Harris County and the city of Houston.

For 3 years, he was a proud and dedicated member of the thin blue line. He committed himself to training others who wanted to serve their country and community as a law enforcement officer.

Corporal Husseini leaves behind a wife, Jamila; and two sons, Amin and Jamil. His loss leaves an irreparable hole in their lives and the lives of all those impacted.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Speaker, as Houstonians, Texans, and Americans, we want to thank him for his service and sacrifice, and, most of all, we thank his family.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to observe a moment of silence to honor Corporal Maher Husseini.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support an amendment that would increase the capabilities of small and medium law enforcement agencies close to the border to fight the Mexican drug cartels that are bringing deadly poisons into our country at unprecedented levels.

This amendment would prioritize law enforcement organizations within 100 miles of the border that have annual budgets under $200,000 to receive excess defense articles to surveil and interdict drug and drug traffickers.

Here is the problem that we are trying to solve: Cartels have more capabilities, more resources, more weapons, more money than any small border county can possibly deal with. Our law enforcement needs better weapons and better surveillance tools in order to stand a fighting chance.

It is worth noting some of the concerns: that this would create competition for organizations that need things like high-water rescue vehicles. I am from Houston; I know all too well the importance of those assets. It is also important to note that this does not create that kind of competition because what is needed for disaster response and recovery is far different than what is needed for counternarcotics and counter drug cartel surveillance and interdiction.

During my work as chairman of the Task Force to Combat Mexican Drug Cartels, I have heard firsthand of the need for equipment by these organizations that my amendment would prioritize. They are on the front lines of the cartel wars, and we need to support them.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, to answer the gentleman's question, the need arises from an exponential rise in the threat from the Mexican drug cartels that have taken operational control of our border and flooded our country with poisonous fentanyl trafficking. That is the difference between now and the last 10, 20 years.

As long as this program has existed, all law enforcement agencies have had access to it. To the extent that they don't have what they need, it is most likely because their local politicians are defunding the police, but it is indeed up to us to actually prioritize policy.

The Department of Defense might not understand because it is not in their purview to understand the needs of domestic border counties. That is not within the purview of the Department of Defense. It is up to us as policymakers to say, look, this is where it needs to be prioritized because we are the ones who actually talk to constituents and understand the problem.

I would urge the gentleman to perhaps change his mind and support this amendment because I think it is a good one and timely, given the circumstances we find ourselves in.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an answer to that question, as well. The reality is, it is often said that in the current border crisis, every State is a border State, every county is a border county, but that is simply not true. It is simply not true.

The fact is that many border counties are more rural, poorer counties that have budgets below $200,000. That is why we set that limit. If they are a wealthy county with plenty of resources, we exclude them from this prioritization. It is simply true that geographically speaking, you are more likely to be dealing with this threat, to be dealing with traffickers and high-speed chases if you are an actual border county, and that is why we put that provision in there, within 100 miles of the border. The fact of the matter is that these counties simply are different from the rest of the counties around the United States.

To the extent that other counties have large drug and crime problems, they are usually big cities. They are usually large cities that have plenty of resources that they can draw from, unlike these counties that are, frankly, drowning in the problems that they are dealing with. I think this could be an easy bipartisan solution to fix that.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Alabama.

This week marks the 80th anniversary of D-Day where tens of thousands of our finest, of our Greatest Generation stormed the beaches of Normandy, France, part of the largest seaborne invasion in history, and ushered in an unprecedented era of human flourishing and prosperity because of their courage and sacrifice, because they understood that it was America's time to lead, and to take up arms against tyranny and against the spread of aggression.

Tonight, I have the honor to read an account of that day from Private Benjamin Alvarado's personal diary. He was part of the second wave to land on the Easy Red portion of Omaha Beach in Normandy.

These are his words:

It was very early in the morning, 6 of June, 1944. Cold,

dark, and foggy with a little drizzle. The water was choppy.

I could not see land even though we were only 11 miles from

shore. The drone of the engines stopped, and it was quiet

again.

It was 5:30 a.m. when all hell broke loose. All battleships

began firing. Over 5,000 ships filled the waters and planes

filled the sky as far as one could see, all headed in one

direction. The noise was indescribably deafening.

Continuous firing for our ships coupled with the drone of

our planes bombing the beaches. Never in all the training I

went through was I prepared for this. It was time to go over,

grab the rope net, lift my leg over the side, hang on for

dear life, 60 pounds on my back.

The rope net swung in and out as the ship and the Higgins

boat struggled to meet 20, 30 feet down. I am going to hit

the water and be crushed between the ship and the Higgins

boat. We managed somehow to embark into the Higgins. The boat

was full. The motor started, the boat shuddered, and away we

went, up and down the waves. No land in sight. Go toward the

noise and flashes of fire.

We were under the swooshing sound of our big guns, 12- and

14-inch shells trumpeting awesomely, cutting the air above

us, almost lifting us out of the water. My heart was pounding

out of my shirt as though my life were being sucked out. It

was horrifying.

As we approached the beach, the Germans continued spraying

our boat with machine gun fire. Our boat went as close as it

dared, and the ramp went down.

I was the third one out, water up to my chest, holding my

M-1 high, pushing the water with my legs, trying to keep my

balance. I was numb with fear of what I was about to

encounter.

It was early dawn, foggy, a smoke-covered beach, flashes of

light, rumbling explosions, German artillery, mortar shells

bursting around us, bullets whizzing by.

At the water's edge, I tripped over several dead GIs. My

hair stood on end. I ran as fast as my legs could carry me

through the smoke and gauntlet of enemy fire, running

erratically, avoiding GIs that had fallen.

I ran toward a bluff that had a slight overhang where

others were huddled. We were wet, scared, and trapped, all in

a state of shock.

Nothing was said. We made room for each other, mirroring

our fear, unable to encourage each other. Pausing for a

moment to contemplate, I realized the improbability of my

ever going home again.

The invasion continued. Barbed wire and land mines were

everywhere. The water was filled with boats pressured to

unload their men and equipment.

To my right, through a haze of smoke and fog, bodies were

everywhere. Steel obstacles were scattered throughout the

beach. The indiscriminate slaughter continued.

As our men scrambled frantically for safety, a lieutenant

made his way running toward us, looking as though he had just

come out of a storm into our little sanctuary of protection.

Gasping for air, he said: Men, this is Omaha Beach. You are

on the second wave. Catching his breath, he continued: For

what you have just been through, you men deserve a Purple

Heart.

Now we are ready to do what we are trained for. Our group,

the first and second wave of the First Army, was ready to

move up.

Watch out for the land mines, someone exclaimed. We went

through a small opening in the barbed wire. The path had been

marked by the men that had stepped on the land mines.

When we reached the top, I felt we had broken loose from a

trap, yet still quite apprehensive about the land mines. Not

looking back, I could see where the Germans had entrenched

themselves and were now dead.

The shooting continued as we scampered to places of

protection like roadside ditches. The Germans were beginning

to surrender as they saw us inching up to them, crying out:

kamerad, kamerad. A white piece of cloth would go up, and

they would scamper out with their hands up, sometimes crying.

The Germans were on the run, leaving their dead and wounded

behind. They left the snipers behind to slow us down, but we

continued advancing.

We could still hear the rumbling sounds of those big shells

being fired from our ships, deeper into enemy lines, an

enormous extended hand of protection for us, a welcomed

sound.

Our trucks, tanks, artillery pieces, and supplies were

catching up to us. Every time we would liberate a town, the

people would run out of their homes to greet us. Church bells

would ring for hours, day or night. The old men and women

offered us wine and bread. Orders, we could not stop.

Mr. Chairman, I have seen a lot since we have been here. This is my third term. Never before have I actually been frightened about what could happen if FISA is not reauthorized or this warrant amendment is passed, which effectively kills our ability to detect and connect the dots between foreign terrorists and what they might do here domestically.

I have never been more concerned. I spent the last 20 years of my life fighting for this country. I lost an eye doing it.

Additionally, I don't think we actually disagree very much on principle. There is always a balance between civil liberties, privacy, and security. I don't think my colleagues and I are very far apart on that. We are very far apart on the facts at hand. So let's talk about some myths and some facts.

Myth: FISA is used to spy on Americans.

The myth goes like this: If you query an American's name, you can see their in-box. That is not true.

It is used to spy on foreign intelligence targets, foreign terrorists, and you need a warrant to do so. If they speak to an American, you will get that part of the conversation. That is all you get.

There is another myth. This bill doesn't go far enough. It doesn't do any reforms. That is not true.

The reforms in here would stop in their tracks what happened to President Trump with Crossfire Hurricane. It is almost entirely intended to stop what happened to President Trump. Not only that, it would codify 56 warrant reforms. It would put in processes before queries are even made. It would put in criminal penalties for those who do not abide by those processes.

The FBI hates these reforms, by the way.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and not to support the amendment to require a warrant for queries.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I want to let my fellow Americans know something that might shock them.

We all know that fentanyl is a scourge on our country. We all know that fentanyl is produced by the Mexican drug cartels. We all know that the precursor chemicals for fentanyl come from Chinese companies.

What you might not know is that we can't even get a FISA warrant to stop that, to collect intelligence on those production companies, on those attorneys, on those bankers, on those facilitators that help the cartels murder and poison tens of thousands of Americans every single year.

That is a pretty shocking statement. I bet you didn't know that. You should know that.

FISA, despite all of the misinformation put out about it, is actually very narrowly tailored. It only allows you to get a warrant on a foreigner in foreign land if it is related to foreign intelligence, if it is related to countering weapons of mass destruction, or if it is related to counterterrorism. Nowhere in there is there anything about counternarcotics, the thing that is actually killing Americans today and every single day.

My amendment would simply upgrade that categorization to ensure that we can collect intelligence on the Chinese precursor being shipped into Mexico and into our own country so that we can actually stop the death of Americans.

It is a very narrowly tailored amendment. It is not about all drug traffickers. It does not swoop in a bunch of Americans. It is about international drug traffickers trafficking illicit synthetics that are killing people.

It is a very simple amendment. It is a bipartisan amendment. It is one of the biggest things that I have learned in my role as chairman on the cartel task force, that we actually are blind to the supply chains of fentanyl.

To be against this amendment is to say we should give the cartels and China more Fourth Amendment rights and more First Amendment rights than we have. That is what it would mean in practice. I hope that anyone who votes against this amendment stops talking about the cartels being a problem. If we are not even allowed to collect intelligence on the cartels, then what are we doing?

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan).

Mr. Chair, to those opposed to the underlying bill, I understand. We are going to have to agree to disagree, but I cannot imagine being opposed to this amendment, even if you vote against the overall bill.

I thought we all agreed that the cartels are one of our number one threats. They are killing tens of thousands of Americans every year by poisoning them with fentanyl. We need to know how they are doing it. We need to know who their suppliers are. We need to know who is laundering their money. We can't know that within our current law. All we have to do is allow ourselves to do it.

This is one of the most important things that I think our constituents actually care about. If we are going to act like we have sympathy for the sons and daughters who have been killed from an overdose of fentanyl, then we actually have to take action on it.

I have got to say, too, that the warrant amendment would kill our ability to do this. Remember, the whole point of drug trafficking is to get it in the United States.

The whole point of terrorism is to conduct a terrorist attack here in the United States.

When you are collecting intelligence on foreigners, the only way they do those things is to communicate with entities inside the United States. To demand a secondary warrant just to search that communication kills our ability to connect those dots.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address all of my colleagues who I think are confused about the First Amendment, confused about the nature of TikTok, and confused about the intentions of the Chinese Communist Party.

Let me explain this very simply. TikTok is owned by ByteDance. ByteDance is in China, and when you are in China, you have to do whatever the Chinese Communist Party says you have to do. That is according to the National Intelligence Law passed in 2017. If they want you to spy for them, you will spy for them. That is how that works.

They have a board member from the Chinese Communist Party on ByteDance. My colleagues wouldn't allow a radio tower owned by the Chinese to be put up right in the middle of Washington, D.C., and then allow it to put out Chinese propaganda. My colleagues would probably complain about that.

That is exactly what TikTok can be used for because millions of Americans are addicted to it. They see it, and the Chinese can absolutely manipulate those algorithms.

The First Amendment does not give the Chinese Communist Party the right to American data or the right to manipulate the minds of Americans. That would be a really weird interpretation of the First Amendment.

The primary counterarguments to this bill seem to be as shallow as it doesn't do everything I want, and Facebook is really mean, and I don't want them to make money. Does that mean we owe the Chinese access to all of our data and access to manipulate the minds of Americans? I don't think so.

This is a very specific bill, very specifically tailored. It does not harm American companies or American individuals. You know it. You have to read it. Pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, the Medicaid Primary Care Improvement Act.

I thank both the chair and the ranking member for their support. I also thank Representative Schrier for being such an excellent co-lead and advocate; and Representatives Smucker, Blumenauer, and Pettersen, who continue to also champion direct primary care.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of attention gets paid to the Members who come down here and raise their voices and scream and yell about all the things they are really mad at because they want the public to know how mad they are. Every once in a while, we can raise our voices and wave our arms for some good things that we all work on together just to improve people's healthcare.

This bill is just that. It is a first step for addressing one of the most important issues in healthcare, which is access. We can promise people health insurance, and we can add more money to it, but it doesn't necessarily translate into actual access to a provider.

Direct primary care is one of the easiest and most direct ways to deliver primary care to patients. It is a payment model that makes sense to patients because it is simple. It is unlimited access to primary care providers by paying a monthly fee. It is a win-win for both patients and doctors because it simplifies and guarantees that relationship.

It keeps patients out of costly emergency rooms. It saves money for the

entire healthcare system. It encourages more efficient preventative medicine, as well. This means treating prediabetes before it becomes diabetes. This means treating heart issues before they become heart disease.

The market has already created direct primary care, and it is a model that actually thrives in districts like mine, where we have doctors like my friend, Dr. Glenn Davis, whose direct primary care practice saves businesses lots of money on their premium payments and also delivers quality care to patients, but, as usual, the government has not caught up.

This bill removes the uncertainty about whether Medicaid can pay for direct primary care access and empowers States with the necessary guidance to provide direct primary care for vulnerable patients who need it most.

It is a game changer because many Medicaid patients aren't accessing primary care right now. They are more likely to show up at an ER than schedule regular visits with a primary care physician, and ER costs keep going up because too many people are not getting the preventative care that they need.

Why? Well, because the truth is a lot of primary care doctors simply can't serve Medicaid patients due to low reimbursement rates. If we allow States to tailor their Medicare programs for direct primary care, which this bill does, we can fundamentally change this dynamic.

Our legislation is straightforward, and it has zero cost. It clarifies that current laws don't prohibit direct primary care arrangements while offering guidance for States that want to use direct primary care in their Medicaid programs, just like my home State of Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I genuinely hope that we can push this forward in a truly bipartisan way.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. Crenshaw, I rise today to offer amendment No. 137, which takes the simple yet important step of directing the Defense Health Agency to report to Congress on options for allowing Active-Duty servicemembers to participate in VA psychedelic-assisted therapy clinical trials.

I repeat, these clinical trials are already happening in partnership with the VA, and there is no reason that we should not be looking at the benefits of this research for our men and women that are already currently serving our country actively.

Mr. Chair, I want to be really clear about why I am supporting this small step to research psychedelic-assisted therapy for Active-Duty servicemembers. This is not about legalization. This is not about recreational use. It is about honoring our promise to our military families and confronting the high incidence of suicide in the military and veteran community.

There is a reason for the high rate of suicide--it is the trauma of serving. There are more than 20 veterans who kill themselves every day and 27 percent of post-9/11 veterans are diagnosed with PTSD.

We have a crisis, and the idea that we wouldn't research potential breakthrough treatments is unacceptable. The status quo is inadequate and it won't stop servicemembers and veterans from committing suicide. I believe this research will.

I have good reason for believing that, so let's look at the data. The most recent phase III clinical trials with MDMA found that 86 percent of the study participants had reduced PTSD symptoms and 71 percent didn't even qualify as having PTSD anymore.

Most people hear the word psychedelics and think of Woodstock. This is not the 1960s LSD trip that many people might be imagining. Some groups are actively lobbying Congress--no, this is not the work of the devil.

It is not the work of the devil when this treatment is actually saving families and keeping families together. This therapy is supervised by medical practitioners, and it occurs with repeat treatments in a very controlled setting. Oftentimes, it is a one- or two-time treatment and follow-up results reveal that the positive effects continue for years, even after just one treatment.

These clinical trials are already changing the lives of people I know. I have so many close friends of mine who can say that they are alive today because of this treatment. Their marriages have survived because of this treatment. The idea that we wouldn't even research it-- that we would keep this out of the hands of people who need it is appalling, frankly.

We should be listening to these stories. They have come up on Capitol Hill multiple times. For the Members we say: We need to learn more. We don't know enough. Well, why would you get in the way of more research?

You haven't come and listened to these veterans and these servicemembers when they have come up and told their stories. They have come up many, many times. We shouldn't make them come up here and spill their guts anymore. We should listen to them and we should act on it.

Mr. Chair, I unapologetically support this research. We shouldn't think twice about it. We owe this to our servicemembers and we owe it to their families. This is a really small but a positive step in the right direction.

I think the VA and the Department of Defense need to coordinate on this research into this psychedelic-assisted therapy, and that is all this amendment does. I encourage my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of National Infertility Awareness Week. In the United States, infertility impacts at least 1 in 8 couples.

The impact of infertility is devastating for people who are trying to build a family and can take a serious toll on their mental and emotional health. Many people face difficulty in accessing or affording treatments. Infertility can impact anyone, and for many people the underlying cause is never known.

Infertility has a serious impact on everyone, but it can be particularly challenging for men and woman in the military and our veterans. Studies have shown that among veterans, infertility is nearly twice as prevalent as it is among the general population. This can be for a variety of factors including the significant stress that members of the military are under, exposure to environmental toxins, and other hazards of their service to our country. In 2021, Blue Star Families issued its annual Military Family Lifestyle Survey. The survey found that 67 percent of military families have experienced at least one family building challenge in their lifetime.

This week, I ask all of my colleagues in Congress to support our military and veterans who are struggling to have a child.