Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, let's face it, most people in the United States don't know someone who is transgender, and that can lead to fear of the unknown.

Some less-scrupulous politicians feed that fear and are willing to bully people, even kids, to lift themselves. They will tell you all sorts of distortions to manipulate you if it benefits them.

They argue that there is a national problem if trans girls participate in school sports. That is a lie. They don't care if it hurts kids--trans kids in this case--who already face huge rates of bullying just for being different. They just want to play with their friends and learn the value sports offer, but these politicians don't care. All they care about is building their political brand and lifting their fundraising.

How do I know they really don't care about girls and women in sports? Does anything in this bill address the severe inequities between men's and women's sports?

Not one word. In fact, most women's sporting groups oppose the bill.

It is not about keeping kids safe. If it was, it would be about keeping guns out of school.

Crickets on that.

Fortunately, not all Republicans agree.

The Republican Governor of Utah vetoed similar legislation highlighting the daily challenges trans kids already go through from bullying to suicide.

He shared how many trans kids play school sports in his State: Four trans youth, only one a girl. There is your raging national problem.

What is the Republican's response to this nonexistent issue?

Hurt kids for being kids by banning them from playing in school sports and even be as extreme as saying all female athletes, as young as in their pre-teen years, can be subject to personal bodily inspection by adults to prove that they are a girl.

Look, I know not everyone may understand this or may not know someone who is transgender, but just because you don't understand something isn't a good enough reason to outright ban kids from school sports.

We may not be able to stop unscrupulous politicians overnight, but we can stop bad legislation from hurting good kids.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following proclamation in honor of Cheryl Sherman.

Whereas, Cheryl Sherman began her public service to the Village of Prairie Du Sac in 1983 by serving on the Plan Commission, and was first elected to the Village Board in 1991; and

Whereas, Cheryl Sherman has played a vital role in her community's growth and development through her service on a variety of boards, commissions, and committees throughout her tenure; and

Whereas, Cheryl Sherman has consistently proven herself to be a thoughtful, effective, and dependable community leader by continuously serving as Village President since 1995; and

Whereas, Under Cheryl Sherman's leadership, the Village has more than doubled its population, expanded its community spaces, entered into a variety of future oriented intergovernmental cooperative agreements, and seen multiple community projects successfully come to fruition; and

Now, therefore, I hereby proclaim April 25, 2023 as Cheryl Sherman Day in honor of her 40 years of public service to her community, the Village of Prairie Du Sac, and the State of Wisconsin. I join her friends, family, and colleagues in offering her best wishes on her much-deserved retirement.

Madam Speaker, you have probably heard the Republican majority tell you they are laser focused on reducing costs for the average American by lowering inflation. You have likely heard about their alleged quest for a smaller, less-intrusive government. Yup, I have heard them, too.

Well, this week in Congress clearly shows they didn't mean any of that. In fact, quite the opposite.

Just yesterday, Republicans showed their real priorities--partisan ultra-MAGA political priorities--by considering a trans and intersex sports ban as their opening salvo in their efforts to undermine the rights of LGBTQ+ people.

Here are the facts. Young people participate in sports to be part of a team, learn sportsmanship, and challenge themselves. It is about friendships and learning to work together as a team. The GOP sports ban seeks to strip trans girls of all ages of these opportunities.

Look, there are real, pressing problems impacting women's and girls' sports, including sexual harassment and assault, lack of equal resources, and pay inequality. These are real issues that the GOP majority is ignoring.

There are pressing problems facing kids of our Nation, including nearly 50,000 gun deaths a year, including more than 4,700 that involve kids; but not a peep from the Republicans in Congress about something that is actually killing children.

Rather than addressing any of these issues, anti-equality politicians on the Committee on Education and the Workforce spent their first legislative markup this session targeting the few trans girls and women who participate in school sports.

When it comes to protecting women's sports, we should look to leading women's sports and gender justice organizations like the Women's Sports Foundation and the National Women's Law

Center. Both organizations, as well as leading women athletes, support transgender inclusion in sports.

Major athletic bodies such as the International Olympic Committee and NCAA have guidelines for the participation of transgender athletes, and these bodies reject the type of systematic exclusion of transgender people from sports that anti-LGBTQ+ politicians are pushing.

This isn't about a real problem in this Nation. This is part of a larger coordinated attack against transgender people and the larger LGBTQ+ population. We have seen hundreds of anti-equality bills, many specifically targeting transgender people introduced in States across the country this year.

Unfortunately, this is about building the personal brand of some extreme rightwing politicians, people who fundraise from and appeal to a small subset of their political base, rather than about a real problem in this country.

These bullying politicians will endanger the lives of trans kids for their own political purposes, seemingly with the support of GOP leadership.

I guess we shouldn't be surprised. Not one Republican in leadership called out the comments last week by a conservative speaker at the CPAC conference who called for the eradication of transgender people.

This isn't about sports. This is about attacking trans and LGBTQ+ kids and the extreme MAGA politics of that issue, not the substance of just letting kids play. That is heartless and cruel.

We will fight these attacks hard. We will call out this dangerous demagoguery, and we will make sure the public sees it for what it is-- raw, swampy politics, as usual, of the worst kind.

There will be few pages assigned to future chapters of ``Profiles in Courage'' for the politicians that bully kids for their own gain. This week, that is exactly what we saw from the majority party in Congress, and we will expose this opportunistic bullying.

Mr. Speaker, I was not present for 7 Roll Call votes in the House on Wednesday, February 8, 2023, and for 3 Roll Call votes in the House on Thursday, February 9, 2023. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner:

YEA on Roll Call No. 110, McGovern Amendment No. 1 to H.R. 185; NAY on Roll Call No. 111, Boebert Amendment No. 2 to H.R. 185; YEA on Roll Call No. 112, Golden Amendment No. 3 to H.R. 185; YEA on Roll Call No. 113, Rose Amendment No. 4 to H.R. 185; YEA on Roll Call No. 114, Torres Amendment No. 5 to H.R. 185; YEA on Roll Call No. 115, Motion to Recommit H.R. 185;

NAY on Roll Call No. 116, Passage of H.R. 185, ``To terminate the requirement imposed by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for proof of COVID-19 vaccination for foreign travelers, and for other purposes;''

YEA on Roll Call No. 117, H. Res. 104, ``Condemning the Chinese Communist Party's use of a high-altitude surveillance balloon over United States territory as a brazen violation of United States sovereignty;''

NAY on Roll Call No. 118, H.J. Res. 24, ``Disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022;'' and

NAY on Roll Call No. 119, H.J. Res. 26, ``Disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the Revised Criminal Code Act.''

Mr. Speaker, for 35 years now I have owned a small business, giving me significantly more experience as a capitalist than the vast majority of Members on the other side of the aisle.

As a capitalist, let me tell you, this resolution is plain ridiculous. It jointly condemns Pol Pot and Norway. I am with you on the first one. But Norway? Please.

Here is what this is really about. More and more Members on the other side of the aisle are calling for cuts to Social Security and Medicare, and many have referred to these programs as socialism throughout their existence.

The other night in the Rules Committee, they showed their cards. Republicans refused an amendment to declare that Social Security and Medicare is not socialism.

This resolution has little to do with intelligent discourse and everything to do with laying the groundwork to cut Social Security and Medicare. I support Social Security and Medicare, capitalism, and Norway. I will be voting ``no.''

Madam Speaker, this is a new low.

The majority party uplifts and seats on committees a Member who has a history of pathological lying but wants to remove someone who even Republican Members of Congress admit is a talented member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Madam Speaker, do you want to oust people for what they said?

How about a member of the majority party who has said that Jewish space lasers set forest fires in California? No. She is seated on a committee.

Multiple Republican Members have said that prominent Jewish Democrats essentially bought control of Congress. They are not only given full congressional privileges, but the majority elects them to GOP leadership.

Republicans only draw a line when an incredibly productive member of a committee says something that she has apologized for. That doesn't add up.

This clearly isn't about what Ilhan Omar said as much as who she is.

Being a smart, outspoken Black woman of the Muslim faith is apparently the issue, and some Republicans can't handle that, so they are going to kick her off the committee.

This is unbelievable bigotry. Shame on them.

Mr. Speaker, it is never too late to do the right thing. Thanks to bipartisan work in the Senate, the Respect for Marriage Act comes back to the House with added language that should allay anyone's fears or misunderstandings, yet still ensure we can legally recognize marriage as it is currently recognized in this country.

It would be wrong to say that my husband, Phil, and I have a marriage that is any different from anyone else's marriage here in this body. My workplace health insurance should extend to my husband just like yours extends to your spouse. I should be able to visit my husband in the hospital, if need be, just like you can visit your spouse. My earned benefits for retirement, Social Security, our property rights, our benefits through our taxes, and so much more should be no different, regardless of if your spouse is named Samuel or Samantha.

That is what we will do today. With the revised Respect for Marriage Act, denying legal recognition to any legally married couple would be so far out of the mainstream that it would actually be discrimination. I am sure no one here would intend to discriminate against me and my spouse, as I would never against you and yours.

Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone's support for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, global inflation caused by our reopening due to COVID-19 has caused increased prices in everything from gasoline to groceries to healthcare.

Today, we put people over politics as we lessen the impact of global inflation on the American people via the Inflation Reduction Act.

Among the many things it does, it addresses some of the drivers of higher energy costs while also investing in U.S.-based renewable energy that will make us more energy independent and less dirty.

It finally allows us to negotiate lower prescription drug prices through volume purchasing via Medicare while capping out-of-pocket drug expenses for seniors to no more than $2,000 per year.

We make these big investments by ensuring that corporations that have often gamed the system pay a minimal share of taxes and go after wealthy tax cheats who, all too often, have evaded their responsibilities.

I will gladly vote for this bill today. It is time to stand up to Big Pharma and those energy companies making record profits while making our planet less safe, and it is important we make sure that corporations pay their fair share of taxes to reduce the burden on working families.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to extend remarks I made earlier this session during debate of this year's National Defense Authorization Act. During that floor debate, and many times previously, I spoke about the lack of accountability at the Department of Defense and the need for enhanced oversight. In keeping with this lack of accountability not only to the American taxpayer, but Congress itself, I wish to publicly request information from the Department that my staff has solicited since July of 2018. Namely, I seek information on behalf of Wisconsin-based PFC Lawrence Gordon Foundation, a 501(c)(3) organization that works to locate and identify servicemembers who remain missing as a result of armed conflicts. This request for information on behalf of a constituent is now entering its fifth year of processing--the time has come for the Department to be responsive to this records request.

Additionally, I also wish to mention another concern relayed to me by a separate constituent--TRICARE's inability to reimburse beneficiaries for personally purchased COVID tests from local drugstores. I encourage the Secretary to examine this matter and consider amending TRICARE reimbursement practices, and I look forward to working with him to address the concern (particularly during the current increases in positivity rates across the country).

Madam Speaker, I was not present for 6 Roll Call votes in the House on Tuesday evening, July 26, 2022. Had I been present, I would have voted: YEA on Roll Call No. 388, H.R. 6552 the ``Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Reauthorization Act of 2022''; YEA on Roll Call No. 389, H.R. 7289 the ``Federal PFAS Research Evaluation Act''; YEA on Roll Call No. 390, H.R. 3588 the ``Mathematical and Statistical Modeling Education Act''; YEA on Roll Call No. 391, H.R. 7180, the ``Brycen Gray and Ben Price COVID-19 Cognitive Research Act''; YEA on Roll Call No. 392, H.R. 8454 the ``Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act; and YEA on Roll Call No. 393, H.R. 7734 the ``Timely Delivery of Bank Secrecy Act Reports Act''.

Mr. Speaker, this is a simple bill--whether or not you support current law on marriage in this country, which includes for the LGBT and the interracial couples across the Nation.

My friend from Ohio said this bill is unnecessary. This bill is very necessary because the extremist-packed Supreme Court recently took away a half a century of law on Roe.

In that decision, Justice Clarence Thomas said they should revisit marriage equality. We have people in this House and in the Senate, like Senator Ted Cruz, who have said the exact same thing.

Here is what I want, I want to make sure that my husband, Phil, can visit me in the hospital, should I have to go back again, like when I had a triple bypass a few years ago.

I want to ensure my husband has my earned benefits for retirement and Social Security. I want to make sure that my husband is taken care of just like your spouses are taken care of.

If I was the entity on the other side of the aisle, I would be more concerned when my own Member is accused of having cocaine-fueled orgies than worrying about the morality of my marriage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our amendment to reduce the Pentagon's budget.

First, let me thank Congresswoman Lee for her partnership on this issue and thank her for securing our Nation always by pursuing peace first.

Mr. Speaker, $839.3 billion, the amount of the defense spending authorized by this bill, before we include anything of up to the 650 amendments this week, is too much with too little accountability.

We already spend more on defense than China, India, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and South Korea combined. It is more than double the amount of funding that the EPA; Health and Human Services; Departments of Education, Energy, Commerce, State, Housing and Urban Development, and Agriculture all receive combined.

This bill also goes above and beyond what the Department of Defense asked for in its budget request submitted to Congress. Yet, the Department of Defense still can't pass an audit of the funding it receives, a requirement of virtually every other agency.

Let's stop rewarding the building of amphibious vehicles that sink, unready projects like the F-35 that still have hundreds and hundreds of recognized deficiencies that have not been addressed, and Ford-class aircraft carriers that have toilets that cost $400 thousand in chemicals to flush when clogged. Yes, we flush defense dollars down the toilet. Let's fix this.

At some point, spending doesn't actually just make you safer. It is security theater and contractor profiteering.

We need a more modern definition of defense, one that recognizes real national security threats like COVID, cyberattacks, and climate change. But the current defense budget doesn't do that.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the 21st Century President Act, a bipartisan bill that I am glad to have authored and introduced.

Federal law hasn't caught up to where progress in this country is, specifically when it comes to who a future President can be.

This bill would change Federal law that refers to a President's spouse. Sections that currently refer to a President's ``wife'' or ``widow'' would be changed to ``spouse'' in recognition of the fact that, in the 21st century, the President could either be a woman or a person from the LGBTQ community.

Without this change to the U.S. Code, for example, the law that makes it a crime to threaten, kill, kidnap, or inflict bodily harm upon the President or the President's family would fail to include a future female or gay President and their potential spouse.

This change is long overdue. Someday, there could be a President Kamala Harris, or Elizabeth Warren, or Amy Klobuchar, or Tammy Baldwin, or Pete Buttigieg, or a President Nikki Haley, or Kristi Noem, or Liz Cheney.

The words in law matter. It is critically important that Federal law recognizes that we could one day have a President who is not a man, or even a straight man, and that they and their families deserve equal protection under the law.

I am glad that this bill passed the House by voice vote last Congress and that it has now been voted out of the Judiciary Committee twice on a voice vote.

I personally thank Chairman Nadler and the Judiciary Committee for their support of this important bipartisan bill, and I urge all of my colleagues to, once again, support the 21st Century President Act.

Madam Speaker, the leaked Supreme Court document shows a complete disregard by the Court majority for the fundamental right to control one's own body by having access to safe abortion care.

In Wisconsin, the end of Roe v. Wade would drag us back to 1849, when our State law banning abortion was enacted and is still on the books.

In 1849, in Wisconsin, the first telegraph was received, there was a 6\1/2\ cent tax on every vehicle drawn by a single horse, and railroad tracks were constructed going west for the first time outside of Milwaukee.

My constituents, like the vast majority of Americans, don't want to go back. They want healthcare decisions to be made by laws that weren't passed when slavery was legal. They want women to have full access to modern healthcare, and that means access to safe abortion care.

Madam Speaker, I was not present for yesterday's roll call votes in the House, and I wish to state how I would have voted on all three bills had I been present. As a cosponsor of all three measures, I would have proudly voted in the following manner: YEA on Roll Call No. 48: H.R. 2116, the ``Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act''; YEA on Roll Call No. 47: H.R. 55, the ``Emmett Till Antilynching Act''; and YEA on Roll Call No. 46: S. 321, the ``Six Triple Eight Congressional Gold Medal Act''.