Floor Statements

Madam Chair, it seems like my colleague on the other side of the aisle has just as little understanding of parliamentary procedure as she has understanding of military readiness.

This amendment is a waste of time. The trans military already exists. This executive order is already in effect. So what does this amendment actually do? It makes discrimination permanent.

RAND and the Pentagon have already studied this. They concluded that allowing trans Americans to serve openly doesn't hurt unit cohesion, operational effectiveness, or readiness. Commanders said it made their force stronger.

Do you know what actually hurts readiness? Kicking out trans servicemembers despite their stellar performance and discharging people we have spent time, money, and resources training because of who they are, not how they performed. That costs money. That hurts readiness.

Secretary Hegseth loves talking about the importance of meritocracy in the military, but kicking out qualified people because he doesn't like their identity is the exact opposite of meritocracy.

If you are really cynical and think that trans people only serve to get their healthcare paid for, you would be wrong. The Pentagon spent 6,400 times more on trans servicemembers' career development than on their healthcare.

One of the trans servicemembers I met told me that their most costly procedure was for their shoulder reconstruction after being injured in the line of duty. For the record, shoulder reconstruction has nothing to do with being trans.

Here is the double standard at the heart of this amendment. Hormone therapy is standard, evidence-based care. They just made a whole new policy about it.

The same medical treatment can't strengthen readiness for a cisgender man and hurt readiness when a trans servicemember needs it.

Mr. Chair, I don't believe that 435 Members of Congress should play pretend doctor and try to decide the medical care of servicemembers or their children that we have never met. In fact, even the physicians in this body know that there is a legal and ethical standard: that a doctor has to establish a patient-physician relationship, like an evaluation or an exam before prescribing care. None of us should be overriding the actual doctors who decide what kind of care is and isn't necessary.

For the record, every major medical association in this country, representing over 1.3 million American doctors, recognizes that trans healthcare and gender-affirming care is safe, effective, and medically necessary.

Prescribing any kind of care, whether it is puberty blockers or hormones or anything else, doesn't happen on a whim. It is after a rigorous, deliberate, multi-step physical and psychological evaluation by doctors.

Here is the worst part about all this, the double standard at the heart of this amendment: Gender-affirming care is standard evidence- based care. In fact, the military relies on it for cisgender troops: troops with thyroid conditions, low testosterone, or other hormone needs. They just made a whole new policy about it.

My colleague literally said: It is to make sure someone is more masculine. Making someone who is masculine more masculine is literally the definition of affirming one's gender with gender-affirming care.

The same medical treatment can't strengthen readiness for a cis man and hurt readiness when a trans servicemember or our military families need it.

A blanket ban on healthcare is a cruel punishment for kids. Denying them mental health care and therapy is especially disgusting when they are more likely to feel alone and isolated because of the vitriol they hear from people in this very body, people in power like my colleagues.

We are better than this. Our troops are better than this. Our troops deserve better than this.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, it is unfortunate that, once again, I am here fighting with my colleague from South Carolina to prevent her from injecting culture wars into our military.

Let's clear up a few things. This amendment isn't about the Olympics. It isn't about the World Cup. It isn't even about college-level athletics. It is about discriminating against kids in preschool, from preschool to high school, whose parents are serving this country.

These are kids who are trying to find a place where they fit in and belong, and this amendment makes them a political and physical target.

Military kids change schools frequently due to their parents' careers. They have mastered the art of saying good-bye to their new friends, their home, their routine because they do it so often.

They have missed birthdays and holidays and milestones with their parent when they are deployed, and sometimes they have to grow up too soon, taking on additional responsibilities when one parent is away.

We should be doing everything we can to make sure that these kids get to be kids. However, this amendment does the opposite. It politicizes kids who just want to play on a soccer team with their friends.

My colleague talks a lot about men forcing their way into girls' locker rooms. Well, this amendment actually is about forcing men into girls' locker rooms. It actually makes young girls more vulnerable to the likes of Larry Nassar, who would celebrate a policy like this because it makes it easier to victimize little girls.

Think about it: Actual predators will be happy about this amendment. It could force any girl, especially tall, muscular, or more masculine- presenting girls to have to undergo invasive exams to prove that they are a girl. It could require girls of all ages to answer personal questions about their bodies and physical development to adults they may not know.

I remember being a girl growing up, and as comfortable as I may be now talking about my period with all of you, that would be my worst nightmare in middle school, but that is the experience we would be forcing on millions of little girls around the country; not just trans girls, all girls. Talk about an invasion of little girls' privacy.

At the end of the day, what is this really accomplishing? The number of trans girls in DODEA schools competing in sports is incredibly small. I bet the author of this amendment doesn't even know of any. This isn't a crisis, but my colleague is pretending it is to score political points.

The parents of these military kids serve so we can have debates in this Chamber. The least we can do is not make their kids the collateral damage in culture war fights.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chair, my colleague says that we are just fear- mongering about what these bans would actually mean, but we have actually already seen how trans sports bans have been used to target all girls.

A high school athletic association secretly investigated a female athlete without telling her or her parents to see if she was trans. She was not.

The same association had investigated other complaints, receiving them because ``an athlete doesn't look feminine enough,'' and none of those allegations that the students were trans were verified to be true.

In another incident, a Utah State school board member falsely suggested in 2024 that a high school basketball athlete was trans, subjecting her to relentless harassment and bullying, including threats of violence.

In Florida, a school investigated a trans student's participation in girls' sports, and investigators repeatedly asked other individuals, all children, to describe how the student appeared in various stages of undress.

If this does not disturb you about how our young girls will be treated in sports, then you are clearly not paying any attention. Let's be clear: Trans girls and trans women are much more likely--four times more likely than Cis people to be the victims of violent crime, not the perpetrator.

Let's also be clear about something. The author of this amendment has led her own investigations that have failed, trying to prevent our colleagues from being able to use the restroom.

She is talking about the right to vote. Her side of the aisle is literally pushing to take away a woman's right to vote because of the SAVE Act, and Secretary Hegseth doesn't think women should have the right to vote or serve in the military. This is absurd. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to honor the lives of Amin Abdullah, Mansour Kaziha, who went by AbulEzz, and Nadir Awad who were murdered at the Islamic Center of San Diego on Monday, a holy day in the final and most sacred month of the Islamic year.

I am heartbroken for their families, for all of the students who were scared for their lives and were evacuated out of the school hand in hand, and for the greater Muslim community in San Diego and across the country.

The Islamic Center is a special place for the Clairemont community, a sanctuary for peace, comfort, and safety. Unfortunately, that was ripped away from our community by two people armed with guns and hate.

This tragedy didn't happen in a vacuum. We let it happen by refusing to actually do something and stop the rise of Islamophobia and anti- Muslim hate and hatred of all kinds.

For decades, the Islamic Center has been the target of hate speech and vandalism and yelling by people driving by, so this is a very resilient community because they have had to be a resilient community, but this has to be where we draw the line. It has to be because I refuse to let Amin, AbulEzz, and Nadir's sacrifices be in vain.

Amin worked as a security guard at the center for years. He came to work every day, prepared to protect his place of worship, and when confronted by the gunmen, he gave his life to save others.

AbulEzz was the heart and soul of the mosque for nearly 40 years. He was a constant presence, a pillar of the community, and a beloved husband, grandfather, and father who treated every child at the mosque as his own. He died doing what he loved most in the world: caring for the children of the mosque.

Nadir was a devoted member of the Clairemont community who gave his life shielding others from the gunmen.

This tragedy could have been so much worse had it not been for all of their sacrifices. They had the courage and bravery to stand up in the face of danger, to distract, delay, and even engage with the gunmen to save others.

We owe it to them to prevent the next hate crime, the next attack on our Muslim community because this is an attack on all of us. It is an attack on everyone's right to gather, worship, learn, and live in peace and safety. It is an attack on pluralism, on our right to celebrate our differences and coexist. It is an attack on our entire community, and we won't tolerate it.

To our Muslim community, we are here for you. We mourn alongside you. We will honor the lives of these great men we lost by coming together and showing that our response to hate is love. It is compassion. It is understanding. It is community.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all of us to join in a moment of silence in honor of Amin Abdullah, AbulEzz Kaziha, and Nadir Awad.

Mr. Speaker, this isn't just politics for me.

Two weeks ago, thousands of San Diego military families got 48-hour deployment notices. That means they need to be ready to drop everything to deploy to the Middle East, get their affairs in order, pack, and say good-bye to their families for a few months or maybe a year.

Don't get me wrong, this is what our servicemembers and their families signed up for, and they are not complaining.

It is our job in Congress, and my job as a Representative of the country's biggest military community, to make sure that we have explored all the contingency plans, exhausted all diplomatic and nonmilitary options, and figured out the objectives, the strategy, and the exit plan before we have asked them to.

We have done none of that. While I will push for oversight and transparency about how we got here, our focus now should be on how we end this war.

Instead, President Trump is escalating. The San Diego-based carrier, the USS Lincoln, is already in the region. San Diego's USS Boxer and the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit will be arriving soon, and we are expecting another San Diego-based carrier, the USS Roosevelt, to deploy any day now.

When they get there, they will be prime targets for retaliation and charged with the difficult task of enforcing Donald Trump's cockamamie blockade of Iran's ports and partial blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which will put a lot of strain on an already fragile cease-fire.

Donald Trump is getting our country further entrenched in another forever war in the Middle East, and the longer we stay, the harder and more expensive it will be to get out.

Yes, we should support our troops. That means doing our jobs and asking these questions before they are asked to sacrifice their lives. That is why Congress needs to do our job or else we will keep paying the cost in terms of lives lost and taxpayer dollars.

Captain Cody Khork, Sergeant 1st Class Noah Tietjens, Sergeant 1st Class Nicole Amor, Sergeant Declan Coady, Major Jeffrey O'Brien, Chief Warrant Officer Robert Marzan, Sergeant Benjamin Pennington, and all of the other servicemembers who have been killed in this war deserve for us to do our job.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents' lives are in our hands and their fate is now up to us. Vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today because our country has normalized something that should never be normal: locking up kids. Under the Trump administration, ICE has detained thousands of children, many of them under 5 years old.

As a Representative from San Diego, an immigrant and border community, I have seen firsthand the consequences of our immigration system. As someone who has spent my career working on human rights, I can tell you that this is state-sanctioned child abuse.

These children are not threats. They are not statistics. They are kids, some just babies and toddlers, who have fled violence, poverty, and instability. They have done nothing wrong. Many have experienced trauma before they ever set foot on American soil.

Instead of care and instead of compassion, we are detaining them and traumatizing them for life.

To be honest, I don't actually care what their parents may or may not have done. Children should not be punished for their parents' actions.

Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago, I went to the Dilley immigration detention center in Texas, the primary site for family detention in our country. What I saw and what I heard would rattle any parent, and it should disturb everyone.

Kids have nightmares so bad that they wake up screaming in the middle of the night. Teenagers are regressing developmentally and wetting the bed. The classrooms were empty. The playground was empty. There was no joy or laughter, just the look of fear and despair in people's eyes.

The mom of a 3-year-old told me that her daughter was anxious and depressed, but the nurse said that she was fine because she hadn't lost too much weight yet, so they didn't help her.

This kind of fear and uncertainty doesn't just go away. It will follow these kids. It will shape their development and leave lasting scars.

This isn't just my observation. The American Academy of Pediatrics has said for years that detaining children causes toxic stress that can permanently alter brain development. Pediatricians call it institutional harm.

When medical professionals are telling us that what we are doing to these kids causes the same neurological damage as physical abuse, we need to stop calling it immigration policy and start calling it for what it is.

I know immigration is complicated. I know that there are strong opinions on all sides of this issue, but protecting children should not be controversial. Ensuring that children are treated with dignity and care should not be political or partisan. Apparently, it is because the Republican Party, the so-called profamily party, is complicit in child abuse.

I won't be complicit. My colleagues and I will not be complicit. We need to shut down Dilley and end family detention for good. We need to reject the idea that locking up children and their parents is an acceptable response to migration.

That means Congress needs to do its job and cut off funding for family detention and claw back the $75 billion blank check that was given to ICE and Border Patrol.

While we are at it, not a single committee in this House has held a hearing on conditions inside family detention facilities, not one. Republicans control every gavel in this building, and they have conducted zero oversight of what is being done to children in our government's custody. If they won't do oversight, we will. When we have the majority, Dilley will be the first place we go.

Many of us in this Chamber have children of our own. While I don't have kids yet, I wouldn't be able to live with myself and look my four nieces and nephews in the eyes if I weren't doing everything in my power to protect all kids.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to look their kids in their eyes tonight and imagine them locked up in these conditions, and then work with us to end family detention.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Dexter for her leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a voice for my generation and for my community in San Diego, the biggest military community in our country.

When Presidents from both sides of the aisle have taken military action, it is our servicemembers, our young people, who are sent into harm's way. They sacrifice their bodies, their mental health, their time with their loved ones, and even their lives for us.

While they are willing to make those sacrifices, we in Congress should be damned sure it is worth it. Too often, it is not. Too often, wars last longer and cost more than promised. Too often, regime-change plans go awry, like we have already seen with the deaths of six servicemembers, hundreds of civilian deaths, and rising gas prices.

My colleagues will try to claim that voting for this War Powers Resolution hurts our servicemembers, but the opposite is true. We owe our servicemembers a real debate before we send them into harm's way. Voting ``yes'' is a vote for our military to ensure that their sacrifices won't be in vain.

If any of my colleagues vote ``no,'' they should come to my district, look our servicemembers in the eye, and explain why they believe debating before we risk their lives is a bad thing.

I hope every single one of my colleagues votes ``yes'' on this War Powers Resolution for our servicemembers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share a story from Lydia, an Army wife who desperately wants IVF coverage.

Mr. Speaker, I hope Speaker Johnson is listening because he just stole her dream to build a family by removing my bipartisan and bicameral provision from this year's NDAA.

Here is what Lydia said: ``The very job that injured my husband and caused his infertility, his service to his country, also denies him the medical treatment he needs to become a parent. IVF isn't a luxury for us. It is the only medical path we have to conceive, and TRICARE completely ignores that reality. My husband served 11 deployments, survived a brain injury, and has continued to serve, but we are told the cost of growing our family is ours alone to carry.''

Lydia and her husband have tried everything to conceive. They have already done nine rounds of IUI. Since they can't afford IVF out of pocket, they have considered leaving the military and even divorcing to get coverage in another State.

Speaker Johnson is forcing this reality on Lydia and many more military families by refusing IVF coverage. It is especially hypocritical when his own staff has access to this care. This is one of the reasons why I will vote ``no'' on the final NDAA, but this fight isn't over.

Mr. Chair, as you all know, President Trump has already kicked out transgender troops from the military, despite the fact that they are willing and able to serve and despite the fact that it will cost billions of dollars and decades to recruit and train their replacements.

This proposed ban on medical care is unnecessary and redundant for our servicemembers because we know the goal here isn't actually about policy. It is a symbolic punishment. It is to send a false political message that trans healthcare is illegitimate, even though those of us who live in reality know that trans healthcare is safe, effective, and medically necessary. It is supported by every major medical association in the U.S., representing more than 1.3 million U.S. doctors.

Let's be clear by what we mean by gender-affirming care. We don't only mean surgery. Sometimes it is just using the correct pronouns. Sometimes it is mental health care. Sometimes it is hormone therapy. Yes, sometimes it is surgery.

This ban would also take away mental health care from the trans children of our servicemembers. We know that trans youth face significant mental

health challenges, not because they are trans to be clear, but because of the external factors they face like: social isolation, discrimination, lack of affirmation, the stress of not getting the care they need, and having to hear colleagues of mine say horrible things about them on the House floor.

Like any parent, if a servicemember's child can't get the care they need, they will be distracted from their mission.

Ultimately, this ban will hurt our military readiness and likely lead servicemembers to leave the military. This amendment isn't only bigoted; it is shortsighted and would hurt our national security. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

Trans people, including trans servicemembers, deserve the basic human dignity and common decency of safely using the restroom.

Besides that, let's take the gentlewoman's point at face value. She wants

to protect women. Great. So do I. Bathroom bans do not protect women.

The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law even did a study on it, and there is zero evidence that allowing trans people to use the correct bathroom increases the risk to others. In fact, it is actually opposite. We have seen that cis women are harassed when people try to enforce or decree bathroom bans.

Earlier this year at a Buffalo Wild Wings in Minnesota, a server followed a teenage girl into the restroom and demanded she prove she was a girl. When the server didn't believe her, she unzipped her hoodie to show she had breasts. That is the actual reality of bathroom bans and even the idea of bathroom bans: harassment, discrimination, and body exams.

We don't need servicemembers acting like vigilantes to enforce this policy either by surveillance, profiling, or physical inspections. Our servicewomen go through enough. We shouldn't be inviting even more harassment. We don't need this amendment opening up the Pentagon and the entire U.S. Government to a massive lawsuit.

This isn't good policy. This doesn't protect women. This is based on misinformation, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez).

May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chair, I would just like to point out that I think it is very interesting that my colleague from South Carolina is so obsessed with the issue of trans people, using horrible slurs to talk about them, when many people in this body have received gender- affirming care. Filler is gender-affirming care. Boob jobs are gender- affirming care. Botox is gender-affirming care. Lots of my colleagues have received gender-affirming care. Let me be clear, I think everyone should have access to the gender-affirming care that they need, and I think we should respect everybody in this country.

The Committee is not in order.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I request her words be taken down.

Mr. Chair, the Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid account empowers the U.S. to be a global first responder, advancing our humanitarian goals and strategic interests at the same time.

This fund makes humanitarian responses possible that otherwise wouldn't be. It enables the quick delivery of food, water, shelter, medical supplies, and transportation during natural disasters or humanitarian crises in areas that are too hard for NGOs and other U.S. agencies to reach as quickly. That means more lives saved.

This account is also used to fund the removal of dangerous landmines and other unexploded ordnance that could harm civilians, something I know the amendment's sponsor has been vocal about in the past.

This fund helps showcase the U.S. military in a positive light, leading with our values and capabilities while strengthening partnerships and alliances.

For example, just a few years ago, OHDACA provided critical humanitarian assistance to Afghan Special Immigrant Visa applicants after the collapse of the Afghan Government.

Compared to the rest of the defense budget, OHDACA's budget is modest, but its impact is huge. It yields massive returns in lives saved, crises stabilized, and partnerships strengthened.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, these AUMFs were literally voted on when I was 2 years old and 13 years old, respectively, and now I am old enough to be a Member of Congress.

Let's be clear. Presidents from both parties have abused these AUMFs, and my generation is tired of these endless, forever wars. We know that President Trump will exploit, bend, and break any law. The courts have even said it. That is why this body should leave no ambiguity, no wiggle room, and no daylight about our congressional intent and congressional authority. Congress has the sole constitutional right to declare war, not President Trump or any other President.

Yet, we have already seen this President take unauthorized military strikes in places like Yemen, Somalia, Syria, and Iraq. Earlier this year, he launched strikes on Iran without congressional authorization. Right now, he is weighing military strikes on cartels in Venezuela and hasn't sought congressional authorization.

This body should not sit idly by while the President makes a mockery of our Constitution and our laws. We--only we--have the power to declare war. I urge my colleagues to pass our bipartisan amendment and repeal these outdated AUMFs.

Madam Chair, I thank the ranking member for yielding.

Unauthorized entry on a military defense installation property or National Defense Area is already illegal under Federal law, and there is no need to make it a felony.

This is something that actually happens all the time in San Diego because our military bases are literally right in the middle of neighborhoods, and to be honest, there is not great signage. In fact, many military bases do not have obvious or well-marked perimeters, especially in rural or desert areas.

This provision would apply to DOD properties such as military housing and areas and ranges that don't have a traditional gate and often are not completely fenced off. This means that someone who is hiking or off-road driving in the vicinity of range property could find themselves in violation.

On top of that, Madam Chairman, since President Trump approved the land transfer to DOD, most of the southern border is now considered an installation, making it even harder to distinguish if you are on a military base or not.

We shouldn't punish people who accidentally make a wrong turn, tourists who get lost, or anyone who follows bad GPS directions with a felony charge that can result in prison time, a loss of voting rights, and barriers to employment, housing, and education.

Moreover, making it a general intent crime means that it would apply to anyone who voluntarily or willfully entered a military base without requiring a prosecutor to prove an actual intent to commit a crime or do harm.

Law enforcement and the military already have sufficient tools to deter and respond to intrusions without felony charges, and this isn't a proportionate punishment, especially if no one is harmed.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this short-sighted amendment to protect my constituents who so proudly support our military community in San Diego.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Magaziner for championing this issue and fighting to address the malnutrition of millions of children around the world.

Every year, about 45 million young children worldwide suffer from severe malnutrition. That is about one in every three children under 5 years old. Tragically, about 1 to 2 million of those children will die.

Nutrition during that time is incredibly important for long-term development. It is what powers kids to grow taller, get stronger, develop their brains, and have a stronger immune system. If kids don't get the nutrition they need during this time, it literally has generational consequences.

Thankfully, as Congressman Magaziner has highlighted, we have a proven treatment to save the lives of malnourished children: ready-to- use therapeutic food, or RUTF. RUTF is the go-to treatment for malnutrition in hard-to-reach areas and emergencies because it doesn't require refrigeration, preparation, or any training to deliver. It is nutrient rich, delivering essential nutrients and calories so people can recover from malnutrition quickly.

Mr. Speaker, I worked at UNICEF. I have seen firsthand the power of these lifesaving treatments. I have seen that they work. I have seen how fast kids can bounce back and recover. I have seen that U.S. funding and U.S. assistance makes a difference.

Unfortunately, President Trump has eliminated countless assistance programs that have kept children alive. His administration hasn't placed new orders for RUTF at Edesia Nutrition in Rhode Island, causing production to almost stop.

We already knew that the promises of waivers for emergency food assistance were lies, and now we have further proof. Starving children shouldn't be political pawns, and their futures shouldn't be toyed with.

Here is my message to the Trump administration: Do the right thing. Restore funding for emergency food assistance and help save the lives of children around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Midnight Rules Relief Act, which would strip away the robust debate, careful deliberation, and transparency our democracy requires when considering the repeal of long-established Federal rules.

I have to be honest with you, it is so funny to me that I have just heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle spend 30 minutes talking about the preeminence of Congress, about how we don't want unelected bureaucrats making these rules, when they are literally allowing an unelected Elon Musk to run roughshod over Congress' power of the purse and to literally break laws that Congress has passed and mandated.

Let's talk about what the Midnight Rules Relief Act actually means in practice. It means that Republicans would dismantle important protections in areas like public safety, consumer rights, environmental conservation, data privacy, and so much more all in one fell swoop-- sometimes dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of rules that took years to develop all just smooshed together.

Things like safeguards against lead in our drinking water, rigorous safety standards for baby products, antismoking measures for youth, and consumer protections from shady business practices.

In one hasty move, these protections could vanish without thorough debate or transparent decisionmaking.

Those Federal rules and so many more could be wiped out in the blink of an eye without substantial debate, without sufficient transparency, without allowing the American people to know why we are repealing these rules or what conflicts of interest might be at play, especially from Elon Musk.

For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill.

My amendment would prohibit the bundling of rules related to issue areas where Elon Musk has a clear conflict of interest. With a net worth of around $400 billion, Elon Musk has many conflicts of interests. That is why he should be bound by the same disclosure requirements and ethic guidelines as all other civil servants and elected officials, but, in the meantime, my amendment would force us to consider individually any regulation that may be a conflict of interest to Elon Musk.

The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Meuser). The time of the gentlewoman has expired.

Get ready for these lists of conflicts of interests because it is long: anything related to national security, the aerospace industry, transportation and highway safety, biomedical technology, artificial intelligence, peer-to-peer payment systems, workplace safety and workers' rights, and data privacy. It is a long list, and it is why we should keep Elon Musk far away from our government.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record the text of this amendment immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to recommit.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, it is sadly unsurprising to me that Members of this body know next to nothing about pregnancy or abortion care, which is why we should not be the ones getting involved in these decisions in the first place.

Let's clear a few things up for my colleagues. First of all, killing a baby is already illegal in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. It is called murder, and we already have criminal penalties for it. Second of all, no one--and I mean no one--goes through 8 or 9 months of pregnancy and all that comes with it, such as morning sickness, heartburn, swollen ankles, and all of the other uncomfortable and painful parts of pregnancy, and then, after 8 or 9 months of that, it is just like, no, I don't want to do this.

Only 1 percent of all abortions happen at 21 weeks or later. If they do, it is because of a serious fetal abnormality or the health of the mother.

If you are the one getting that news, it is heartbreaking. It is earth-shattering. The last thing families need is government to interfere with their access to care.

This bill isn't based on science or reality. It is a horrible, disgusting bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is honestly hard to know where even to start with this bill.

Maybe let's start with the name. This bill doesn't even come close to protecting women and girls in sports. In fact, it puts all women and girls in danger of sexual abuse.

I hear my colleagues say, no, this wouldn't require genital exams. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, we have already seen an investigation like this happen at a high school in Utah. Unsurprisingly, they wrongly targeted someone who wasn't trans.

If this bill is passed into law, then there are only a few ways to actually enforce it, and that is genital inspections and asking young girls very inappropriate questions about their menstrual cycles.

My colleagues know that I am 35 years old, and I love talking about my period. I think it is important we talk about it. We shouldn't be making young girls answer these questions to people they don't even trust.

If this bill is passed into law, then these kinds of secret investigations,

shady questions, and surveillance of kids could happen all across this country.

This does not protect women and girls. This only further jeopardizes their safety and security when they are playing sports. This bill is sloppy, vague, and prejudiced.

Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to represent San Diego, the largest military community in the country that is home to over 118,000 servicemembers and their families. I know firsthand the recent challenges to recruit and retain servicemembers in every military branch.

In my community, there are so many ships that are understaffed because there just aren't enough servicemembers. Too many people aren't joining or aren't staying in the military or even recommending it as a career path to their relatives because they can't afford childcare, safe housing, or to put food on the table.

I am so proud of everything we were able to get into this bill to address these challenges, but we shouldn't do anything that undermines our military recruitment, retention, and readiness. Restricting healthcare access, whether it is removing my bipartisan and bicameral provision for IVF coverage or a gender affirming care ban for dependents does exactly that.

Our priorities should be supporting our servicemembers and military families who sacrifice so much for us, not making their lives any harder.

That is why, sadly, I will have to vote against this year's NDAA, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an individual whose unwavering dedication to education has transformed countless lives and communities: Dr. Paul Gothold. Throughout his distinguished career, Dr. Gothold has epitomized the values of equity, inclusivity, and excellence in education, ensuring that every child has access to the opportunities they need to thrive.

Dr. Gothold's journey in education began over three decades ago as a teacher, where he worked tirelessly with adjudicated, probation, and expelled youth in Los Angeles. From these early experiences, he developed a deep understanding of the challenges facing underserved communities and a steadfast commitment to addressing them.

As he advanced in his career, Dr. Gothold continued to demonstrate exceptional leadership and innovation. As Superintendent of Lynwood Unified in Los Angeles, he led the district to remarkable achievements, including increasing graduation rates from 58 percent to 90 percent at all comprehensive high schools. Under his stewardship, Lynwood Unified was honored as the College Board District of the Year, a testament to its success in expanding AP participation and passage rates for underserved populations.

Beyond his role as district leader, Dr. Gothold has also made a significant contributions to educator preparation and professional development. As an adjunct professor at the University of Southern California, he has mentored and coached numerous aspiring and sitting superintendents, shaping the next generation of education leaders.

In 2017, Dr. Gothold assumed the role of San Diego County Superintendent, where his impact has been nothing short of transformative. His visionary leadership has led to the creation of groundbreaking initiatives and partnerships that have enriched the educational experiences of students across the county.

One of Dr. Gothold's key accomplishments has been his commitment to ensuring school safety and addressing the needs of vulnerable populations. Through partnerships with the San Diego District Attorney's office, he developed county-wide school safety protocols and training to prevent human trafficking. Additionally, he spearheaded initiatives to support foster, homeless, and adjudicated youth, including the creation of innovative programs and pathways to success.

Under Dr. Gothold's leadership, San Diego County has become a beacon of educational innovation and excellence. From pioneering programs in drug prevention and awareness to establishing the first HBCU satellite program in California, his initiatives have set new standards for educational equity and access.

Furthermore, Dr, Gothold's dedication to equity and inclusion has been recognized through numerous awards and accolades, including the ASCD California Instructional Leadership Award and the California County Superintendents Superintendent of the Year award. His tireless advocacy for marginalized communities has earned him the respect and admiration of colleagues and stakeholders across the state and Nation.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Dr. Paul Gothold for his extraordinary contributions to education and his unwavering commitment to ensuring that every child has the opportunity to succeed. His legacy will continue to inspire generations of educators and serve as a guiding light for the pursuit of educational equity and excellence.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind this body of the incredible damage inflicted by the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

For 17 years, it was the official Federal policy to discriminate against LGBTQ+ servicemembers and prevent them from living authentically or risk being discharged.

This policy wasn't only hateful and isolating, it weakened our military and failed to live up to our values.

Today marks 13 years since we repealed this hateful policy, and we won't go back. We won't go back to Don't Ask, Don't Tell or the possibility of a trans service ban with the stroke of a pen or a tweet.

Countless queer people serve our country bravely, they serve our country proudly, they serve our country honorably, and they should serve our country authentically, too.

That is why we need to pass my Ensuring Military Readiness Not Discrimination Act to prohibit discrimination in the military and protect trans servicemembers.

Our servicemembers sacrifice so much for us. They shouldn't have to sacrifice who they are.