Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chair, let me be clear. There are two biological sexes: male and female. They are assigned at conception and cannot be changed. Biology doesn't care how many hormones someone pumps into their bodies or how they mutilate their bodies. Biological reality cannot be changed by medical intervention.

In the Fiscal Year 2025 NDAA, Congress prohibited TRICARE from covering medical interventions to treat gender dysphoria, which would result in the sterilization of children. This was an important step, but there is more to be done.

This language failed to prohibit the Department of War from chemically and surgically mutilating our servicemembers and their children and performing a number of sick procedures on our kids.

This amendment would prohibit the Department of War from covering or furnishing any chemical or surgical mutilation procedures through TRICARE--not one dime for cross-sex hormones, not one dime for taxpayer-funded puberty blockers, not one dime for taxpayer-funded surgeries, all in the name of gender-affirming care and this crazy gender woke ideology.

The Federal Government and, particularly, the Department of War should not be in the business of funding the chemical and surgical mutilation of our citizens. This is not healthcare. It is the butchering of healthy bodies, and American taxpayers should never pay for it.

Not only do these disgusting trans chemical, trans surgical interventions often cause permanent infertility, sterility, and sexual dysfunction, but they can actually increase depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. They can cause cancer among those on whom these medical procedures are performed.

This amendment restores common sense to military healthcare. It aligns the Department of War with the growing international medical consensus that these interventions, particularly for children, are extremely harmful.

This amendment ensures that Defense health dollars are spent on advancing the health of our servicemembers and their families, not undermining it, and certainly not on advancing an ideology based on delusion. We

pay for our warfighters to mutilate the enemy, not to mutilate themselves.

Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, testosterone treatment for men serving in our military isn't gender-affirming care. We want the most masculine, the most muscular, the toughest warfighters in the world because they are in the trenches. They are doing combat. They are the ones who are putting their lives on the line.

The idea that chopping someone's penis off is risking military readiness is ludicrous. We are talking about mentally ill men that think having a menstrual cycle means bleeding out of your rectum. That is how crazy and insane this conversation is.

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

If you think your kid is trans and you are the parent, your kid needs to be taken out of your household. It is insane to think--you are hearing these stories this week in the news how somebody's 2-year- old knew that, when they were born a girl, they are actually a boy and all this craziness.

Children have creative imaginations. They imagine that they might be a monkey. That doesn't mean you feed them bananas and leave them in a jungle because they think they are Curious George. It is insane.

This is a mental health crisis. Anyone who is mentally ill should not be serving in our military, and they absolutely should not be serving in combat.

Every dollar spent by the Department of War on chemical and surgical sex change procedures is a dollar not spent on preparing the readiness of America's warfighter.

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

Mr. Chair, you just heard it from California: cis man. I don't even know what a cis man is. That sounds ridiculous.

Talking about pretend doctors, I think we had a pretend doctor testify on the Hill this week. The president of a prestigious university could not testify that only women can give birth to babies. Someone who is supposed to be training medical physicians and medical doctors here in the United States couldn't say under oath, in Congress, that only women can give birth to babies. I don't think you can trust medical doctors that say being tranny is a thing.

Treating somebody's low T or thyroid, if they are a man, that seems like a natural, biological thing, but not for a woman. If you give a woman a ton of testosterone, it erodes the lining of her bladder. She eventually becomes incontinent. The other hormones are going to eventually give her breast cancer.

It is just a crazy ideology. We need to follow actual science, follow biology, and not these doctors and universities that are training medical doctors, that are making millions and millions of dollars by keeping people on prescriptions, on medicines that drive them crazy, to shoot up schools, churches, and synagogues. All these tranny shootings, all these mass shootings, it is actually insane. They should not be serving in the military.

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

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

Mr. Chair, women and girls have fought for so long to have equal opportunities in education and athletics. As the first female graduate of the Citadel's Corps of Cadets, no one understands this more than I do.

Unfortunately, these rights are now under attack. Over 900 medals have been stolen from women and girls by biological males. This flies in the face of common sense and our most basic notions of fairness and women's rights.

Even if some of my colleagues are too afraid to say it, every person in this room knows that men and women are biologically distinct. This truth has been obvious to every civilization in the history of mankind. Yet, mediocre male athletes are forcing their way into little girls' locker rooms and onto their courts and fields. Women and girls are being robbed of athletic opportunities. Make no mistake, this is misogyny masquerading as progress.

This amendment would prohibit biological males from participating in schools administered by the Department of Defense Education Activity.

DoDEA schools serve the children of our warfighters, and they should not have to worry about their little girls having their private spaces invaded, having their accomplishments and opportunities stolen from them, and being injured competing against men.

We have seen countless women's volleyball teams across the country forfeit instead of having to face biological men and risk the same physical injuries experienced by Payton McNabb.

In Massachusetts in 2023, a female field hockey player had her teeth knocked out by a biological male during a game.

In 2024, a high school women's basketball team was forced to forfeit after a 6-foot bearded male athlete injured three of their players, leaving girls in pain and injury on the court.

These are the predictable consequences of a policy which dresses up biological ignorance as compassion.

I urge all Members to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, trans girls aren't real girls. Trans women aren't real women. Cis women, nobody knows what that is. It is not actually a thing.

There are significant physical, biological differences between men and women. Biological men generally have greater muscle mass, bone density, cardiovascular capacity, physical strength than women, and the risk of physical injury is real.

The irony and the hypocrisy to say that banning biological men from girls' locker rooms and sports makes them less safe is ludicrous. It is actually the trannies that are going into prisons or going into schools, going into locker rooms, going into bathrooms.

The LGBTQ-plus-plus-plus whatever it is, queer, these are the people that are putting women at risk. They are raping them in our prisons. They are assaulting them at schools, in the locker rooms, in the bathrooms. This is the kind of thing that we don't want our very masculine, high-T warfighter having to worry about his little girl when he is out there killing the real bad guys. We want to keep them safe.

As a survivor, I know what the vulnerabilities are for women in private spaces and how vulnerable we are at all ages. This bill would protect the little girls of our warfighters across the country.

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

Mr. Chair, I would encourage my colleagues on the left side of the aisle to read Martina Navratilova's X account today, talking about how confirming she was a woman was not invasive. It was a simple cheek swab. This is the fear politics of the left, and that says a lot about how far they have gone.

To say that trans kids just want to be on a team with our little girls, if there is a tranny on a team with our daughters, they need to be kicked right off. If they are in a locker room with our girls, they need to be kicked right out.

We have seen some really crazy stories of grown men with beards shaving at the sink with little girls in towels in the corner of the locker room scared to death and vulnerable to sexual predators. We all know the tranny thing really is about sexual gratification. Sexual attraction to being dressed as a woman has nothing to do with them thinking that they are a woman.

In fact, they are mocking being a woman. They are mocking our femininity, and they are mocking the rights that we fought for for hundreds and hundreds of years. It has not been long since women actually got the right to vote. There are still ceilings to be broken in this country. It is not going to be done by some mentally ill man in a skirt.

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

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

Mr. Chair, if you visit South Carolina's Lowcountry, you will understand commercial shrimping and fishing are not just the backbone of our coastal communities but a part of our heritage and our way of life. You will find shrimp festivals, oyster roasts, and Lowcountry boils nearly every weekend during the season.

In communities across South Carolina's First Congressional District from McClellanville to Mount Pleasant to Beaufort to Bluffton to Hilton Head and Hilton Head Island, Mr. Chair, you will see thousands show up to bless the fleet of shrimp boats when they head out to begin their season.

Across the State of South Carolina, Mr. Chair, you will see communities, neighbors, and families come together around locally caught seafood and see people come from thousands of miles away just to taste it.

However, Mr. Chair, talk to any shrimper or fisherman in this country, and you will know that the commercial fishing and shrimping industries are struggling. For too long, the USDA has ignored our shrimpers and our fishermen, the farmers of the sea, who put nutritious, fresh seafood on our tables at dinner.

President Trump understands food security is national security, and he has recognized the importance of revitalizing our domestic seafood industry. Last April he issued an executive order titled Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness.

Last fall, we saw the USDA establish a new seafood liaison in the Secretary's office to ensure the voices of our seafood harvesters are heard.

Just a few weeks ago, Secretary Rollins announced the creation of the first-ever Office of Seafood within the Department of Agriculture. This gives our shrimpers and our fishermen a seat at the table.

Our amendment would codify the newly established Office of Seafood at the USDA, ensuring our commercial shrimpers and fishermen as well as our fish processors, are integrated into USDA programs.

The Office of Seafood would also be responsible for working alongside the Department of Commerce, the U.S. Trade Representative, NOAA, and other Federal agencies and departments to revitalize the American seafood industry.

The hardworking South Carolinians who work our waters and put fresh, local seafood on our plates deserve this. This amendment would deliver it.

I will always stand with South Carolina's shrimpers and fishermen, and I urge all Members to support our domestic seafood industry by voting in favor of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, an onslaught of substandard foreign seafood,

often subsidized by foreign governments or international financial institutions, is being dumped into our markets, devastating our domestic seafood industry.

For example, after hearing testimony of some of my constituents, the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined that Ecuador, India, Indonesia, and Vietnam were illegally subsidizing and dumping shrimp, imposing antidumping and countervailing duties.

This foreign seafood is often caught through illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing and employs brutal working conditions, including the use of child or forced labor. These foreign actors also don't abide by the same stringent food safety standards we have in our country, using banned antibiotics and other chemicals in their seafood.

Just last year, there was a recall of foreign shrimp from Indonesia which was contaminated with cesium-137. The foreign shrimp was literally radioactive. Mr. Chair, imagine all the contaminated foreign seafood that slips into our food supply undetected.

This has all combined to push down dock prices for our domestic shrimpers and fishermen. In some parts of the country, dock prices for shrimp fell to around $1 per pound in recent years.

This coupled with the inflation we experienced under the previous administration and elevated fuel costs is causing the perfect storm.

Facing anticompetitive foreign practices, falling dock prices, and economic headwinds, fishermen and shrimpers are struggling not just to earn a living but to even make it to the next season.

To illustrate the scope and scale of this problem, total value of U.S. commercial seafood landings has fallen 25 percent from 2021 to 2024. Landings by weight have fallen to their lowest levels since 1988. At the same time, our food supply has become increasingly dependent on foreign seafood. Today, foreign imports account for approximately 94 percent of total seafood consumption in America.

This is exactly why I am offering this amendment today. Our shrimpers and fishermen put food on the table, they are the farmers of sea, and it is past time we started treating them like it.

The USDA has a variety of programs to provide assistance to farmers and ranchers, and it is time we allowed our commercial fishermen to take part in them.

This amendment would amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to include commercial fishing and fish processing as eligible agricultural activities for USDA programs, unlocking access to many grant, loan, and assistance programs for shrimpers and fishermen.

This amendment would also ensure commercial fishermen and fish processors have access to USDA Farm Ownership Loans and Farm Operating Loans.

Best of all, according to the Congressional Budget Office, this amendment is budget neutral.

This is a commonsense way to support the shrimpers and fishermen who feed our families and make South Carolina's Lowcountry, and so many places across our Nation's coasts, very special.

I thank Representative Carbajal for partnering with me on this amendment. I urge all Members to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, since I came to Congress, I have been fighting to put an end to taxpayer-funded animal cruelty.

We have seen great successes, including successfully eliminating these painful and inhumane animal experiments across the VA, Department of War, and more. Today, we seek to build on the significant progress with this amendment.

Based on our bipartisan bill, Violet's Law, which we named after a hound dog which was rescued from a government lab, our amendment would ensure the humane treatment of lab animals once they are retired.

Each year, thousands of animals like Violet are used in Federal labs, many of them in noninvasive and nonterminal testing. Too often, when that research ends, these animals, despite being healthy, are killed simply because there is no policy in place to retire them.

Our amendment fixes that.

Rather than being euthanized, my amendment would ensure Federal research facilities establish procedures to facilitate the adoption or nonlaboratory placement of dogs, cats, nonhuman primates, guinea pigs, hamsters, and rabbits used in government labs.

It would allow agencies to place these precious animals with animal rescue organizations, animal sanctuaries, and animal shelters to facilitate finding their new home or with an individual looking to adopt the animal.

This is a commonsense idea which is already working. We have already seen some Federal agencies adopt policies allowing lab animals to be retired and rehomed. Many States have adopted similar laws.

This idea is supported not just by animal welfare advocates, but by leaders in the biomedical research community, as well.

We can judge a man and a country by its treatment of animals, and our country can do so much better than euthanizing healthy, innocent animals created by God.

I thank Representative Titus for partnering with me on this amendment, and I urge all Members to support this amendment. Together, we can save the lives of countless innocent dogs, cats, guinea pigs, hamsters, and rabbits. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would encourage my colleagues to support the amendment and vote for its passage. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer the resolution that was previously noticed.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intent to raise a question of the privileges of the House.

The form of the resolution is as follows:

Directing the Committee on Ethics to preserve and publicly release records of the Committee's review of violations or alleged violations of clause 9 (as it pertains to acts of sexual harassment) and clause 18 of rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

Whereas, there is no place for sexual harassment or unwelcome sexual advances in the House of Representatives;

Whereas, clause 9 of rule XXIII of the Rules of the House provides ``Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House may not discharge and may not refuse to hire an individual, or otherwise discriminate against an individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of the race, color, religion, sex (including marital or parental status), sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, age, or national origin of such individual, including by committing an act of sexual harassment against such individual'';

Whereas, clause 18(a) of rule XXIII of the Rules of the House provides ``A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not engage in a sexual relationship with any employee of the House who works under the supervision of the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, or who is an employee of a committee on which the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner serves'';

Whereas, clause 18(b) of rule XXIII of the Rules of the House provides ``A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House may not engage in unwelcome sexual advances or conduct toward another Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House'';

Whereas, sexual harassment and unwelcome sexual advances by Members, Delegates, or Resident Commissioners, in violation of clause 9 and clause 18 of rule XXIII of the Rules of the House, affect the safety, dignity, and integrity of the proceedings of the House of Representatives: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, that the Committee on Ethics shall:

(1) preserve all documents and investigative materials related to any violations or alleged violations of clause 9 (as it pertains to acts of sexual harassment), clause 18, or any other clause (to the extent an act of sexual harassment, unwelcome sexual advance, or sexual assault constituted a violation or alleged violation of such clause) of rule XXIII of the Rules of the House by a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner; and

(2) not later than 60 days after the date of the adoption of this resolution, make publicly available all final reports, or in such cases where there is not a final report, the most recent draft report, conclusions, recommendations, exhibits, and attached or accompanying materials, with the personally identifiable information of victims, alleged victims, and witnesses redacted, related to the Committee's investigations into violations or alleged violations of clause 9 (as it pertains to acts of sexual harassment), clause 18, or any other clause (to the extent an act of sexual harassment, unwelcome sexual advance, or sexual assault constituted a violation or alleged violation of such clause) of rule XXIII by a Member, a Delegate, or Resident Commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from South Carolina for

yielding time. Mr. Timmons is doing an excellent job managing floor time today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of our bill, the Skills- Based Federal Contracting Act. The price of admission should not be a 4-year college degree.

At a hearing I held last Congress in the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government Innovation, a witness from IBM testified that Federal contractors are rarely able to place an individual without a 4-year degree on a technology services contract, regardless of their qualifications. This problem extends beyond technology and service contracts.

Across the Federal Government, many contract solicitations include unnecessary degree requirements, mandating individuals who perform various tasks hold specific education credentials such as 4-year college degrees.

The Federal Government spends hundreds of billions of dollars outsourcing work to millions of contractors to perform the functions of government. This immense purchasing power shapes the entire labor market.

When we embed unnecessary degree requirements into Federal contracting solicitations, we are not just making a hiring decision; we are sending a signal to the entire economy that a college diploma is a prerequisite for economic opportunity.

With less than 40 percent of Americans holding a 4-year college degree, this creates a paper ceiling where talented Americans are excluded from opportunity, regardless of how qualified they may be, simply because they lack a college degree.

The Skills-Based Federal Contracting Act bill would tear through this paper ceiling by prohibiting the Federal Government from including a minimum educational requirement for proposed contractor personnel in a Federal contract solicitation, unless the contracting officer provides a written justification for why the needs of the agency cannot be met without such requirements.

Think about the immense economic value and economic opportunity created in this country by individuals who didn't finish college. These include Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, and Steve Jobs. Under onerous degree requirements, it would have been nearly impossible for any of these individuals to have been placed on a government contract.

Across the private sector, we have seen companies move to phase out or even eliminate degree requirements, recognizing a college degree does not serve as an effective proxy for competence or skills. It is far past time the Federal Government follows suit.

This bill in no way tells private companies how to hire or who to hire. Rather, it removes unnecessary Federal restrictions on their ability to hire the best qualified Americans who acquired their skills through alternative pathways.

In some cases, required education credentials are warranted. For example, we expect a doctor to have a medical degree, but only a small fraction of Federal contract work falls into these types of categories.

In the case that it does, this bill would simply require a brief justification in writing from a contracting officer before they exclude over 60 percent of American workers who do not have a 4-year degree from the chance to compete.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the lead Democratic cosponsor of this bill, Representative Krishnamoorthi, for joining me in this effort.

Skills-based hiring has been a rare area of widespread bipartisan and nonpartisan support in Congress. The Skills-Based Federal Contracting Act passed out of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on an enormously bipartisan basis by a vote of 44-0.

Together, we can provide all Americans, regardless of whether they studied classic literature in ivory towers, with economic opportunity and the chance to work on behalf of their fellow citizens serving our country.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this commonsense, nonpartisan bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Protect Children's Innocence Act.

When we are talking about ``shameful,'' shameful is castrating a kid. Shameful is chopping off the breasts of an underage girl, and that is what the Democrats are doing today. It is obscene. It is disgusting. You are seeing in real time Democrats wanting and defending grooming of children, and it is abhorrent.

There is a lie at the heart of the debate that we are having today that I have to correct. No child is born in their wrong body. There are only two sexes. They are male, and they are female. There are no others.

Every child is created in the Lord's image, and we cannot remain silent while demonic forces are here today on the floor, the left, here to groom children and defend it.

Children are innocent. For too long, Democrats have tried to mainstream satanic, irreversible procedures which destroy the bodies of young children and often lead to kids being sterilized for life. It leads to disease, leads to cancer, and leads to suicide.

Democrats say to protect trans kids. I came here today to the floor of the House of Representatives to say: There is no such thing as a trans kid. Transgenderism is a mind virus perpetuated by the far left to groom kids.

This is not gender-affirming care. It is genital-destroying child abuse.

This chemical and surgical mutilation of children has devastating consequences on their physical and mental health, and many live to regret it. Many live to detransition if they make it out at all.

This is sick. This is disgusting. We cannot allow the left to prey on underage kids any longer.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intent to raise a question of the privileges of the House.

The form of the resolution is as follows:

Censuring Representative Cory Mills of Florida and removing him from the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Whereas prior to serving in the House of Representatives, Representative Cory Mills founded PACEM Solutions International, LLC, and PACEM Defense, LLC, and acquired AMTEC Corporation, now renamed as ALS, Inc., companies which engage in security and military contracting with the United States Government, as well as foreign nations;

Whereas in August 2024, the Office of Congressional Conduct found: From January 2023 to present, PACEM Defense/ALS has been actively contracting with the Federal Government, securing close to $1 million in Federal contracts for munitions and weapons, distributed to prisons across the country. Specifically, since January 9, 2024, 94 contracts have been awarded to entities owned by Representative Mills and went on to conclude that there is substantial reason to believe that Representative Mills may have entered into, held, or enjoyed contracts with Federal agencies while he was a Member of Congress in violation of House rules, standards of conduct, and Federal law;

Whereas in August 2024, the Office of Congressional Conduct noted: According to its website, PACEM Solutions is currently registered and/ or partnered

with trusted local firms to work in the following countries: United States, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, UAE, Australia, Kenya, Malaysia, and Kuwait. Public reports indicate companies owned by Representative Mills sought or entered into contracts to sell munitions to foreign nations while serving as a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and on the Committee on Armed Services;

Whereas entities owned by Representative Mills seeking or entering into contracts to sell munitions to the United States Government as well as foreign nations while he serves as a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and Committee on Armed Services represents a clear and troubling conflict of interest;

Whereas in August 2024, the Office of Congressional Conduct further adopted and transmitted to the Committee on Ethics of the House of Representatives a report indicating that there was substantial reason to believe that Representative Cory Mills may have omitted or misrepresented required information in his financial disclosure statements, accepted excessive contributions to his campaign committee in the form of personal loans and contributions that may not have derived from Representative Cory Mills' personal funds, and may have accepted through his campaign committee in-kind contributions or other contributions not lawfully made;

Whereas individuals who served in the military with Representative Cory Mills have called into question the veracity of the account of events which formed the basis of a recommendation that Representative Cory Mills receive an award of a Bronze Star, bestowed in 2021 or afterwards, for his service under enemy fire in Iraq in 2003;

Whereas in August 2024, Representative Cory Mills provided The Daytona Beach News with documents purporting to prove that he earned a Bronze Star with heroism, including a Department of the Army Form 638 recommending Representative Cory Mills for a Bronze Star, which includes a signature from then-Army Brigade Commander Arnold N. Gordon- Bray;

Whereas Retired Army Brigadier General Arnold N. Gordon-Bray has stated he did not personally write, read, or sign the Department of the Army Form 638 recommending Representative Cory Mills for a Bronze Star;

Whereas five people who served with Representative Cory Mills, including two men who were reported as having been personally saved by Representative Cory Mills at great risk to his own life as a basis for the recommendation for his Bronze Star in the Department of the Army Form 638, disputed that Representative Cory Mills was involved in their rescue or provided lifesaving care;

Whereas one private first class cited as having been involved in one of the listed achievements on Representative Cory Mills' Army Form 638 recommending him for a Bronze Star denied that Representative Cory Mills provided him any aid and also denied that his injuries were life- threatening;

Whereas one sergeant cited as having been involved in one of the listed achievements on Representative Cory Mills' Army Form 638 recommending him for a Bronze Star called the account a fabrication and claimed that he was not involved in any claims that Cory Mills makes about me;

Whereas Representative Cory Mills' employment application to DynCorp International stated he served in the United States Army 75th Ranger Regiment and attended United States Army Sniper School, claims which are not corroborated in his military records;

Whereas on February 19, 2025, Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department officers were called to resolve a private matter at Representative Cory Mills' residence, where officers were called to the 1300 block of Maryland Avenue, SW, around 1:15 p.m. for the report of an assault;

Whereas police reports obtained by NBC4 Washington confirmed that the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department was investigating Representative Cory Mills for an alleged assault of a 27-year-old woman that took place on February 19, 2025, at the residence of Representative Cory Mills;

Whereas the first police report provided to NBC4 Washington by a source and confirmed by a second source familiar with the investigation said that the 27-year-old woman accused her significant other for over a year of having grabbed her, shoved her, and pushed her out the door, and also said that the woman involved showed the officer bruises on her arm which appeared fresh;

Whereas NBC4 Washington also reported that the Metropolitan Police Department identified Representative Cory Mills as the significant other of the alleged victim of assault, which alleged victim was a 27- year-old woman who was not the wife of Representative Cory Mills, and that the alleged victim let officers hear Subject 1--now identified by MPD as Mills--instruct her to lie about the origin of her bruises. Eventually, Subject 1 made contact with the police and admitted that the situation escalated from verbal to physical, but it was severe enough to create bruising.

Whereas on February 21, 2025, The Washington Post also confirmed two D.C. police officials said that the alleged victim of assault initially told a 9/11 operator and police that she had been assaulted and that officers said she also had what seemed to be visible injuries, and that while a supervisor initially classified the offense internally as a family disturbance, police commanders later learned of the incident, reviewed the reports and body camera footage from the responding officers, and reclassified the case as a domestic violence assault;

Whereas on February 21, 2025, NBC4 Washington also reported that the Metropolitan Police Department determined that probable cause to arrest Representative Cory Mills for misdemeanor assault existed and sent an arrest warrant for Representative Cory Mills to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia;

Whereas on July 14, 2025, a different former romantic partner of Representative Cory Mills, who was apparently in a relationship with Representative Mills from November 2021 to February 2025, reported to authorities in Florida that Representative Mills threatened to release nude images and other intimate videos of her and threatened to harm her future romantic partners in retaliation for her decision to end a relationship with Representative Mills after seeing the public reports described above concerning the alleged February 2025 physical assault;

Whereas on October 14, 2025, the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit in Columbia County, Florida, issued a Final Judgment of Injunction for Protection Against Dating Violence against Representative Cory Mills, based on a finding that his former romantic partner was a victim of dating violence or had reasonable cause to believe she was in imminent danger of becoming a victim of an act of dating violence; and

Whereas such conduct by Representative Cory Mills affects the dignity and integrity of the proceedings of the House and brings discredit upon the House: Now, therefore, be it resolved, that:

(1) Representative Cory Mills be censured;

(2) Representative Cory Mills forthwith present himself in the well of the House of Representatives for the pronouncement of censure;

(3) Representative Cory Mills be censured with a public reading of this resolution by the Speaker; and

(4) Representative Cory Mills be, and is hereby, removed from the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer the resolution that was previously noticed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues, Mr. McGovern and Mr. Khanna, today for the time, for the 5 minutes on the floor to speak about an issue that is not political for me. Helping the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein and his horrific, gruesome, brutal sex trafficking ring is deeply personal. While we often have many disagreements about a lot of issues, maybe most issues, today, they are allowing us to speak on the floor. My colleagues, Congressman Massie, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Lauren Boebert, the four of us, we are making history today over the discharge petition and delivering justice for those who have desperately fought for it for, in some cases, almost 30 years.

I wore white today because I wanted to reflect on the innocence of the young women who had their innocence stolen by a demon named Jeffrey Epstein, from demons, friends of his, rich and powerful people who stole their innocence at as young as 14 years old. It was taken from them, and they have never gotten it back.

I am also wearing white today to recognize the courage that it takes for women to come forward, the sacrifices of them personally, professionally, and financially. There is embarrassment, humiliation, and shame that we still deliver on the backs of women who have been brutalized, who have been raped, and who have been assaulted. There is shame that the media pours over their heads. Their colleagues, their friends, their neighbors, their loved ones--because you come forward and because you talk about sexual assault, you are not a slut. It is not because of what you wore. You are not a whore. That is how women are treated. You are not lying.

I want every woman to know, every Epstein survivor to know, every woman across the country who is a survivor, who is a victim of assault, that today, we see you. This fight and this vote tonight, I see it is about the Epstein victims, but it is about much more than the Epstein victims. This is about the powerless taking power away from the very powerful. This is about giving women who never had a voice a voice, giving a voice to the voiceless.

This is about their sacrifice. This is about having and recognizing their courage. This is about justice for the Epstein victims, but it is also about hope.

Earlier this year, I gave a speech right here on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives detailing trauma that I experienced, endured, and am a survivor of that I accidentally uncovered 2 years ago, almost to the day. Today, I still don't have justice, like millions of women across the country.

When I spoke out, I got attacked. When I spoke out, I was shamed. When I spoke out, I was defamed and smeared. That goes on today, right now, in the present.

God sure has a funny way of working through us. Like many of the Epstein survivors and many other survivors across the country, I don't think I will ever heal from the destruction that abuser did to me. I can heal by being a vessel and being a voice for all those who need it, and that is why we are here today. That is why I will never abandon a single survivor ever, and I will never waver.

I spent my morning talking to law enforcement and others about another

potential Jane Doe, Jane Doe No. 5, who may be another sexual assault victim in the case that I uncovered 2 years ago. It is very difficult for us to come forward, but I thank the women who have, the Epstein victims, and the victims in the case that I have uncovered. I thank all of them for being a voice, for giving me hope that maybe one day I, too, can get justice.

Mr. Speaker, while I support the Senate Amendment to H.R. 5371, which puts an end to the Democrats' reckless and unnecessary 43- day government shutdown, I strongly oppose Section 781 of this bill, which would deal a fatal blow to American farmers supplying the regulated hemp industry and small businesses, and jeopardize tens of billions of dollars in economic activity.

The 2018 Farm Bill expanded the definition of hemp and established a successful framework for the hemp industry. Under this framework, the hemp industry supports over 320,000 American jobs, generates $28.4 billion in regulated market activity, and produces some $1.5 billion in state tax revenue.

The hemp industry has stepped forward to self-regulate in the absence of uniform federal regulations--uniting behind a framework which restricts the sale and possession of hemp products to adults 21 years and older, standardizes packaging to eliminate ``look-a-like'' products that are appealing to children, standardizes labeling to empower adult consumers to make informed choices, and requires independent third- party laboratory tests for consumable hemp products. They have been asking Congress to pass legislation to responsibly regulate their industry.

Rather than adopt this common-sense regulatory framework to protect children and allow adults to make informed decisions, Section 781 of this bill essentially imposes a national ban of all ingestible hemp products with any ``quantifiable'' level of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which represents between 90 and 95 percent of hemp products in the marketplace, including the vast majority of non-intoxicating cannabidiol (CBD) products offered in the marketplace.

Section 781 of this bill would needlessly and arbitrarily change the definition of legal hemp rather than responsibly regulating the market, This would effectively turn out the lights on America's legal hemp farmers, preempt the work being done in states to create regulatory frameworks for hemp products, and restrict consumer choice for the tens of millions of Americans who use hemp-derived products.

Approximately 20 percent of American adults report using CBD or a hemp-derived product in the preceding 12 months. These products are here; they are widespread, and they are not going away. As the failed war on drugs has shown, provisions like this drive out responsible actors from the industry and embolden shady, black-market actors who care not for consumer safety or the protection of children.

Rather than have a substantive, open debate on the future of hemp policy in America, prohibitionists slipped this provision into a must- pass government funding bill, forcing Members of Congress to choose between voting their conscience on hemp and paying our military servicemembers. This is wrong.

I opposed this language when prohibitionists tried to insert it into the Agriculture-FDA Appropriations bill last fiscal year, I opposed the language when they tried to insert it into the farm bill, I continue to oppose this language. But I cannot vote to keep this government shut down and force the approximately 35,000 military servicemembers in South Carolina to work without pay.

In the year before this provision takes effect, I will work tirelessly to reverse this harmful language and create a common-sense regulatory framework which protects America's children, ensures product quality, and preserves access to products used by tens of millions of Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer the resolution that was previously noticed.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of Rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intent to raise a question of the privileges of the House.

The form of the resolution is as follows:

H. Res. 713, censuring Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and removing her from the Committee on Education and Workforce and the Committee on the Budget.

Whereas Charlie Kirk was a lifelong advocate for freedom of speech, civil political discourse, and the political engagement of youth;

Whereas Charlie Kirk was a man of deep faith, a husband, and a father to two young children;

Whereas on September 10, 2025, Charlie Kirk was assassinated on the campus of Utah Valley University while exercising his First Amendment right to freedom of speech;

Whereas on September 11, 2025, one day after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Representative Ilhan Omar gave an interview on a Zeteo Town Hall with Mehdi Hasan in which she smeared Charlie Kirk and implied he was to blame for his own murder;

Whereas on September 12, 2025, two days after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Representative Ilhan Omar reposted a video on X (formerly known as Twitter), which disparaged the character of Charlie Kirk and those mourning his death;

Whereas the video Representative Ilhan Omar reposted on X states ``Charlie Kirk is dead, and before the body got cold, the far-Right propped his corpse up as a cudgel for their holy war'';

Whereas the video Representative Ilhan Omar reposted on X further states ``Don't be fooled, these people don't give a single shit about Charlie Kirk, they are just using his death to further their Christofascist agenda'';

Whereas the video Representative Ilhan Omar reposted on X further states Charlie Kirk ``was a reprehensible human being. He enacted his political agenda by preying on weak minded people. He took complex socioeconomic issues and simplified them by pointing fingers at out- groups, demonizing those groups, and siccing his massive following on them'';

Whereas the video Representative Ilhan Omar reposted on X further states Charlie Kirk was a ``stochastic terrorist, an adamant transphobe, he denied the genocide happening in Palestine, he believed in the subjugation of women, and in his last dying words he was spewing racist dog whistles'';

Whereas the video Representative Ilhan Omar reposted on X further states ``Charlie Kirk was Dr. Frankenstein and his monster shot him through the neck'';

Whereas the video Representative Ilhan Omar reposted on X further blames Charlie Kirk for his own murder;

Whereas clause 1 of rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives provides, ``A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House shall behave at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House''; and

Whereas Representative Ilhan Omar's actions in the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk are reprehensible and affect the dignity and integrity of the proceedings of the House and do not reflect credibility on the House: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, that--

(1) Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota be censured;

(2) Representative Ilhan Omar forthwith present herself in the well of the House of Representatives for the pronouncement of censure;

(3) Representative Ilhan Omar be censured with the public reading of this resolution by the Speaker; and

(4) Representative Ilhan Omar be, and is hereby, removed from the Committee on Education and Workforce and the Committee on the Budget of the House.

Mr. Speaker, when solicitors don't prosecute crimes, when judges and rogue magistrates let thugs out on the streets of America, cases like Iryna Zarutska happen, murders like Iryna Zarutska happen.

I want to pay special attention to a certain solicitor in South Carolina who is not doing her job, who is lying to South Carolinians, and that is Solicitor Scarlett Wilson of the Ninth Judicial Circuit.

Scarlett, I want you to know that I am watching. When you leak evidence, when you politicize rape, when you leak evidence of rape victims, and when you leak evidence of victims who are being stalked or who have been beaten, South Carolina is watching. I am watching. If you don't do your job to protect South Carolinians, there will be consequences.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is the second of five--only five, and I think there should be more--amendments regarding gender-affirming care, trannies, you name it.

Castration is not a mistake, by the way. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to say that castration is healthcare and there is nothing more dehumanizing than going after the trannies out there.

One recently shot two young schoolchildren in Minnesota. It is a mental illness, and it needs to stop. We can stop it in our military right now.

In last year's NDAA, we took the important step of banning TRICARE from covering medical interventions to treat gender dysphoria, which would result in the sterilization of children.

This is a strong statement by the Congress in opposition to the mutilation of kids. However, the language allows the Department of War to continue to perform an array of gender-affirming child abuse on military dependents and to continue to mutilate our servicemembers.

My amendment is simple. It would prohibit TRICARE, across the board, from covering or furnishing the chemical or surgical mutilation of our warfighters and their dependents under the guise of healthcare.

Our government should not be in the business of mutilating our fellow citizens, particularly our warfighters, with our tax dollars and with your tax dollars, Mr. Chair.

This does not serve to advance our national security. It serves only to advance a dangerous and radical ideology that the American people have soundly rejected. Not only have the American people rejected the chemical and surgical mutilation of their fellow citizens, but much of the science doesn't support it, as well.

The science of playing to the delusions of these individuals is not compassionate. It is cruel. Numerous studies have shown that not only do these cross-sex hormones dramatically increase the risk of infertility and sexual dysfunction, but they actually increase depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation among those for whom these medical procedures are performed.

The purpose of our military is to fight and to win wars. It is to create warfighters, killers, not to participate in the latest progressive fad.

Under the Biden administration, we diverted money away from readiness and lethality to promote extreme gender ideology and to fund sex changes in our military.

Under the Trump administration, we have finally recognized gender dysphoria for what it is, a mental illness which precludes military service.

Our armed services are not a laboratory to study the effects of irreversible surgeries or hormones. Our service does not exist to provide experimental treatments to those whose conditions should be disqualifying. These people are mentally ill and should not be serving in the United States military.

This amendment says clearly the purpose of our military is to defend the United States, not validate identity politics. It makes sure TRICARE serves the mission of protecting health, not undermining it.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, if not wanting to castrate kids is a rightwing culture war, then sign me up because this is not the kind of thing that should be happening to children or military dependents anywhere in our country.

Castrating kids is not healthcare either. We are talking about something very permanent. We don't allow our kids to be tattooed until they are adults. We don't allow them to drink or smoke or vote until they are adults. The gentleman is saying that it is okay to castrate a kid because of this weirdo, freak ideology.

Yes, these are weirdos. These are freaks. These are people who are mentally deranged and mentally ill. This should not be funded by American taxpayers.

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

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

Mr. Chair, women have fought for decades to have equal opportunity in education and athletics. As the first woman to graduate from The Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina, no one understands that fight better than I do.

Unfortunately, these hard-earned rights women have fought for are now literally under assault. Misogyny disguised as acceptance has forced mediocre male athletes into women's locker rooms, forcing women to undress in front of them, robbing women of opportunities, and have left some women with lifelong scars.

My amendment would prohibit the superintendents of the service academies from allowing a cadet or midshipman who is male to participate in an athletic program or activity that is designed for females.

It is an indisputable fact there are significant physical, biological, I dare say science or scientific, differences between men and women. Biological men generally have greater muscle mass, bone density, cardiovascular capacity, and physical strength than women do. This is very obvious.

Allowing men to compete in women's sports is patently unfair and robs women and girls of accomplishments and opportunities.

Over 900 medals in women's sports have been won by biological men, stolen from women who worked hard to earn them.

Women have fought hard to earn records that have been shattered by mediocre men, men pretending to be women, mentally ill men pretending to be women.

This is a travesty and discourages women from competing at all. This was the case last year when multiple college women's volleyball teams forfeited rather than face a team with a biological male athlete, rather than face a traumatic brain injury when the next man hit them in the face with a volleyball.

There is nothing honorable about robbing women of opportunities, invading their privacy, and jeopardizing their safety in athletic competitions. Allowing biological men to participate in women's sports is incompatible with the values of our servicemembers, our service academies, and basic notions of fairness and good, old-fashioned common sense.

I urge all Members to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, imagine being a woman on the floor of the House of Representatives, screaming--I dare say screeching--into the microphone to put your daughter in danger or to have your daughter's scholarships, your daughter's skills, and your daughter's opportunities stolen from her because some guy--some mentally ill, deranged, weird freak of a man--thinks he is a woman because he can put on a skirt and wave his willy-nilly around in a locker room, that he somehow is equal to a woman and that he is going to take away her rights.

We fought for so long for rights as women. We didn't get the right to vote until, what, 1919 or 1920? In fact, in the State of South Carolina, we didn't elect our first Republican woman to the U.S. House of Representatives, to Congress, until 2020. I was sworn into office in January of 2021.

We have fought hard. There are so many opportunities for women. Yet we have never had a female President of the United States. I am not going to let some guy in a skirt come around to take opportunities away from our daughters, from future leaders, or a future President one day because somebody is mentally ill and thinks they can steal those opportunities away from your daughter.

It is not going to happen, not on my watch. We can start with the service academies and protecting these women who are going to fight valiantly, to serve, and to protect our freedoms in our country, here and abroad, to make sure that opportunities are not stolen from them by the mentally ill.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I will address the topic of sexual violence, particularly with my female colleagues across the aisle.

I have authored dozens of bills related to sexual violence, and very few of my Democratic colleagues will sign up and cosponsor them in a bipartisan way. Why is that? Is it because I don't want men in women's spaces? Probably. Is it because I say the word ``tranny''? Yes.

Democrats don't want to protect women except for when it makes good on their narrative. In fact, when I gave a harrowing speech for 1 hour on the floor of this House earlier this year on February 10, as I talked about my personal experiences with sexual violence, not a single female Democratic colleague spoke up in defense of women who are victims and survivors of sexual violence.

Mr. Chairman, I find it offensive, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about one thing and one thing only: restoring biological truth, restoring biological reality, and restoring science.

For too long, my colleagues across the aisle have pushed the fiction which says that your gender is whatever you say it is and that you can change your mind at any time. You can be thinking. Thinking is like a gender option to some of these morons.

Under 4 long years of the Biden administration, they have enshrined this fiction in every facet of our government and demanded that we all play along with the lie that men can be women, women can be men, and people can be both, neither, either, other, or whatever. They could be a eunuch. It is so ridiculous.

Perhaps they even share the delusion that people can sexually identify as an attack helicopter because, apparently, that is also an option for some of these maniacs.

My amendment recognizes a simple fact: There are two genders. They are designated at birth, and they cannot be changed.

This is basic biology, Biology 101. It is not about feelings. It is not about ideology. It is not about politics. It is not about trying to make half of 1 percent of the population happy for the rest of us.

Under this amendment, the Secretary of War would be prohibited from collecting information for a form or survey related to gender identity. ``Male'' and ``female'' are the only two options that should be listed for questions about sex or gender, and the Secretary will be required to reject forms which list a sex or gender other than ``male'' or ``female.'' We are going to bring back common sense to the Department of War.

Mr. Chairman, this ideology is not harmful. It is corrosive. It has undermined women and seeks to replace objective truths with subjective fiction. It has told us that we must reject the foundational truths that our society has held for thousands of years. This ideology has forced institutions to adopt terms like ``birthing persons,'' ``pronouns,'' which got us into this whole mess--``they,'' ``them,'' ``it''--as if language itself must be bent to their radicalized ideology.

They have taken what is obvious to every civilization in human history, that men are men and women are women, and turned it into a political controversy. I say, today: Enough is enough.

This amendment would restore common sense and the truth at the Department of War. I can't believe this is even a debate we need to have on the floor of the House.

Mr. Chair, you are going to hear opposition to science today from people who tell you to follow science. Women are biologically distinct from men, and we love it. Every single one of my colleagues knows this truth, even if they are too afraid to say it.

My colleagues across the aisle have stood silent for too long and allowed this ideology to erase women and hand over our hard-won victories to men. This amendment ensures the Department of War recognizes these biological realities.

This is more than about forms and paperwork. It is about whether we will defend women or whether we will erase them. It is about whether the strongest military on Earth will be grounded in reality or captured by ideology.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand with the truth, stand with women, and stand with our military, and vote in favor of this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I will say that a form that you say whether you are male or female, how you were born, what God gave you, is not an obstacle. That just goes to show, the mere comment that filling out a form, am I male or female, that it is such a huge, ornate, objective obstacle, that it is adversarial, just goes to show you how mentally ill this ideology is, that filling out a form that is biologically pure, biologically true, would trigger you.

It goes to ask: Would it trigger them so much that they would go shoot up a military base? Maybe. We had a tranny shoot up a school, a Catholic school, a couple of weeks ago in Minnesota, killing two beautiful, young children.

They are mentally ill. These people should not be serving in our military. When they accuse us of erasing trannies in the military, yes, if you are mentally ill, you don't have the right to serve. We need warfighters. We need men and women who are going to be strong on the front of our battle lines fighting terrorism.

Iran is on the march. China is nipping at our heels, as is Russia. We need men and women who, rather than worry about if I am a eunuch or this or that, an attack helicopter, or whatever gender dysphoria they have that day is--who are we going to make safe today? What freedom are we fighting for?

How we are going to make Americans safe here and abroad, that is the mission. Our national security is the mission for the United States military, and it will stay there with Donald Trump as President.

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

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

Mr. Chair, my amendment is straightforward. It would ensure the use of sex-specific spaces such as bathrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms on military installations are based on biological sex, not ideology. Women in uniform deserve dignity, privacy, and absolute safety.

Protecting women's spaces shouldn't be partisan. It should be common sense. However, under the Biden administration, the Federal Government decided to abandon common sense. It allowed men to enter women's spaces and violate their privacy and dignity.

Under President Trump, the government has restored basic biological truth: men are men, and women are women. I applaud the President for his commitment to protecting women, but a future administration could bring us right back to this insanity.

The Biden administration sacrificed the dignity and safety of women to appease radical gender, lunatic ideology. Our women in uniform shouldn't be forced to suffer indignities to appease the insane policies of the other side of the aisle, all the Democrats who support this nonsense.

Allowing delusional men to use women's restrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms is an affront to women, and it is reckless.

In Virginia, a registered sex offender with more than a dozen convictions was allowed to use the women's changing room by claiming he was a woman. For 6 months, he exposed himself to women and kids. This is who the left is defending today, pedophiles and men that want to go in women's spaces and rape them, assault them, and expose themselves to little girls and our daughters.

In California, a 17-year-old girl was terrorized by the presence of a man in her locker room while she showered.

In Georgia, a 51-year-old man pretending to be a woman undressed in the women's restroom and exposed himself to shoppers.

In Virginia, a girl was sexually assaulted by a biological male in a woman's bathroom.

In Oklahoma, a young woman was beaten for daring to say she was uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with a man.

This is not theoretical. These aren't just random incidents. This is an epidemic. They are the natural, predictable consequence of policies that pretend biology doesn't matter. These are the policies of the left, policies of Democrats who say: Follow the science, except for women. We don't care about you. We hate you. We want to take everything away from you. We won't follow science on this one.

We have opened the door for predators to abuse women and girls. Our daughters are growing up with something we never had to distinguish when our generation was growing up. We are putting our daughters in imminent danger, in harm's way, and this has to stop.

Women shouldn't be forced to share their private spaces with men, and this amendment says we are going back to reality. Privacy and safety matters. Dignity matters. Women matter.

Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to protect all women. I urge all Members to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, how much time is remaining?

Mr. Chair, it is ironic that my colleague says that women are harassed going into the bathroom. Well, that might be because nobody wants a transgender, tranny, person in the bathroom with them. No one wants biological men in women's spaces. And because this wacko ideology, not based in science, is now pervasive, we are teaching it in schools and we are forcing kids to use pronouns. We want to protect women because the left has gone so far. It is not just the left. This is mainstream Democrat policy, going after our girls.

You heard my colleague say there is no evidence, literally after I read evidence of incidents of trannies in private spaces assaulting women and underage girls, our daughters, kids.

They say no evidence exists. That is because Democrats will not show you or tell you or share with you the facts, but the average American, we see it every day now. It is everywhere and people are sick and tired of it. If they want this harassment to stop, then the trannies need to stop harassing the rest of America. This is not what the American people want. It is not what they voted for.

They say that our servicemembers, our servicewomen in uniform, go through enough. They are right. That is why we don't want this happening. That is why we want to protect them. In their most intimate moments in the dressing room, no man should be watching them.

They talk about lawsuits. We don't want more lawsuits. I find it ironic because it is Democrats who sue States and sue Republican parties over congressional lines and apportionment and all those things that tie our U.S. elections up in lawsuits. It is their party, not ours. We are just fighting back. We are going to protect every woman and girl, every single daughter in the United States, but particularly for our servicemembers, our women in uniform. The Republican Party is the party of common sense. We are the party of normal. We are the party of women.

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

Are you--

Mr. Speaker, under President Donald Trump's leadership, this rescissions package codifies $9.4 billion in DOGE cuts by canceling some of the most egregious Biden-era waste, fraud, and abuse.

Here is just some of the funding that we are canceling today: $4 million for sedentary migrants in Colombia; $3 million for circumcision, vasectomies, and condoms in Zambia; $5.1 million to strengthen the resilience of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, and queer global movements; $3 million for Iraqi ``Sesame Street''; $2.5 million for teaching young children how to make environmentally friendly reproductive health decisions; and $833,000 for services for transgender people, sex workers and their clients, and sexual networks in Nepal.

The American people are begging Congress to get off its ass, codify the DOGE cuts, and stop this taxpayer-funded nonsense. Failure is not an option.