Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and my colleague from Rules (Mr. Austin Scott) for the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, families all across the United States want Congress to help lower…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and my colleague from Rules (Mr. Austin Scott) for the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, families all across the United States want Congress to help lower the cost of living, whether it is the single mom working to put enough food on the table for her kids or an elder who tries to stretch their Social Security as much as possible. Millions of Americans also worry about the cost of their utilities. Indeed, utility bills are at the heart of our most basic needs. They are some of the highest costs that working families have to think about each month.
H.R. 7673, the Liberty in Laundry Act--yes, I know. Some chuckle just by hearing the title--but the Liberty in Laundry Act betrays Americans' desire for lower costs because it increases utility bills. Energy- efficient washing machines can save the average family up to $285 over the washing machine's lifetime.
Republicans would take away these savings with these bills. This isn't the first appliance where Republicans are raising costs. Republicans are making your refrigerators, dishwashers, and stoves even more expensive to operate. With these bills attacking energy efficiency, they are definitely not looking after American working families.
Who are they really protecting?
With just 6 more days in the congressional calendar this year, we have a laundry list. Indeed, we need to talk about laundry, but it is the laundry list of unfinished business that Congress should be doing for the American people.
However, my colleagues across the aisle decided that a washing machine is more important than Social Security, the farm bill, nutrition programs, and so much more.
I am here to tell you, when I am in New Mexico, my constituents never ask me what I am doing about washers and dryers unless, of course, I am lost in the hardware store.
They do ask, however, about saving Social Security and lowering the cost of medicine. While Democrats have worked hard to protect Social Security and lower healthcare costs, what do we hear from the other side? Trump's billionaire bros were just here and they said his plans would ``necessarily involve some temporary hardship,'' from billionaire bro Musk.
Now, I need to tell you, if you are a billionaire, a little bit of hardship, you are not going to face with some of the cuts they are talking. Working families will suffer.
This rule also includes the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2025. I am pleased that so much of this year's NDAA is rooted in improving the quality of life for our servicemembers and their families.
These measures, some of which were described by my colleague, include things like the 14.5 percent pay raise for junior enlisted servicemembers and 4.5 percent pay raise for all other servicemembers. They are going to provide our military personnel with the resources they deserve.
Indeed, it is the care for our servicemembers and the shared goal of increased military readiness that typically makes the NDAA very bipartisan. That is why it is, indeed, disappointing that the Republican majority decided to use the NDAA to attack military families with the inclusion of a provision to attack transgender children.
As Ranking Member Smith eloquently discussed at Rules last night, for the first time, the NDAA is attacking a family member's right to choose the healthcare they need for their kids. He pointed out that there are thousands of families who rely on medical care to improve the lives of children who suffer from gender dysphoria.
Imagine, you are serving in the Marines because you and your family love your country, but your child is suffering. He comes to you, she comes to you, their pain is so great that they tell you they are contemplating suicide. Of course, as a parent, you want to do everything you can to help your child, and the medical profession has tools that can help. They can help you treat your child, save your child, make sure your child leads a healthy, happy life, but Congress is now telling that marine, you can't get the medical help your child needs.
Congress is telling that marine: We know better.
The Committee on Armed Services did not ask for this ban on transgender healthcare for minors. That was explained to us last night in Rules. This did not come out of the Committee whose goal is to look at armed services. No, this proposed ban was inserted by Speaker Johnson.
What Republicans are doing is interfering with a parent's ability to get healthcare for their children.
Why do Republicans keep interfering in personal healthcare decisions?
We have Republican politicians sitting on the examination table when a parent is trying to get their children care just like they sit on the examination table when women are trying to get reproductive healthcare.
This mean provision is a stain on the bipartisan NDAA.
I don't know why Republicans keep launching culture wars when the NDAA should focus on preventing wars.
Finally, the rule also includes the JUDGES Act, adding Federal judges to ensure we guarantee justice in America. We worked on a bipartisan bargain to do just that. Democrats and Republicans negotiated a good, fair deal to pass this bill, but the deal was to pass it before the election so we could ensure impartiality before anybody knew who had won.
Republican leadership went back on that deal and refused to move the bill until Donald Trump won. That is a huge breach of trust.
How are we supposed to negotiate unless the other side keeps their promise?
Republicans broke their word and broke the deal.
Time and again, the Republican majority shows the American people that their priorities are power and partisanship. They did it again with a closed rule for each of these bills, so Congress cannot debate any amendments that were offered.
Members should have the opportunity to debate. The American people should have the opportunity to hear where their Representatives stand on these issues, where they will vote on amendments, but we keep getting denied the right to have any amendments
debated on this floor in the people's House.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I point out, once again, that these are decisions, individual decisions with regard to gender care that a marine, a naval officer, or enlisted personnel are making in consultation with their doctors and for their family. We are saying we know better.
I would also point out what happens if your child has not gotten the care they need and have taken their life? Fifty-six percent of transgender youth attempt suicide.
When the Republican Governor of Utah was vetoing a transgender ban, his words were so moving. He said: I don't really understand this, but it is not my place to understand those decisions. This is what haunts me is his statement: ``But I want them to live.'' That is a quote. ``But I want them to live.''
We should want all of our children to live, and we should let the parents of those children take actions so that their children can live.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules and my dear friend and mentor.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 9643, a bill to protect and expand nationwide access to fertility treatment, including in vitro fertilization.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans have been relentless on their attacks against reproductive healthcare rights, including IVF treatments that are so important to millions of Americans hoping to start a family.
Just recently, the House-passed and Senate-passed versions of the NDAA contained provisions to improve IVF access for our servicemembers. However, what did Republicans do? They stripped those provisions from the legislation we are considering today. They stripped the recommendations to allow access to IVF treatment.
Simply put, that is why we must defeat the previous question and pass H.R. 9643, to ensure that IVF treatment is protected for all Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Wild) to discuss our proposal.
Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), another distinguished member of the Rules Committee and my friend.
Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Speaker, indeed, I do have additional speakers.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Vermont (Ms. Balint).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard from my Democratic colleagues as we have raised our voices in opposition to this rule. We have raised our voices in opposition to this rule for numerous reasons.
One is that it is not really taking care of the people's business, of their most pressing concerns--liberty and laundry, really?--when we could be addressing key things like funding the government, protecting Social Security, passing the farm bill, and making sure that we have the nutrition programs so children do not go to school hungry and stay hungry.
We need to protect education. We need to do all of these things that the American people are asking for, and what do we get instead? We get their bills for liberty and laundry.
This is a continuation of their other bills, you know, stoves, refrigerators, all kinds of things that mean nothing to the American people but that mean a lot to those big corporations and those billionaires.
Time and time again, Republicans have come to this floor and told us who they stand with. They stand with the richest Americans. They stand with the billionaires. They stand with the wealthy corporations who do not want any regulation.
When they say no regulation, what they are saying is don't pass the kinds of regulations that save lives, don't pass the kinds of regulations that make sure that we save money. That is when we will constantly point out every time they do it: Who are you standing with? The wealthiest, the billionaires.
We are standing with working families.
Then, we have the NDAA, something that is usually and almost always bipartisan. You do not hear the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee come before the committee and describe how these kinds of provisions are poison pills, how they are a stain on bipartisanship.
My colleague across the aisle keeps getting up and pointing out one provision, but that provision fails to acknowledge that the lack of care leads to death, leads to suicide. You are standing in between a father, a mother, and their child. You are standing in between the parents, the doctors, and their child.
I think that Americans deserve more. We deserve American families, especially those who, as the story from the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon) said, have sacrificed so much for our Nation, who go and travel from one base to another base to another base knowing they can get care for their children.
Members on the other side say: No, no, no, we know better than you. We know better than the parent and the doctor as to what care your child should get.
That is insulting to our marines, to those who serve in our Navy, to those who are deployed overseas and on our bases around our own country. They deserve better.
That is why we are calling out that provision, because it interferes with a
family's ability to get care for their children. Because of these tragic problems and the fact that you don't let us debate anything--all those amendments that were offered, no, we never get to debate any of those, so the American people don't know. They can't hear us talk about these things. This is one of the only times we get to come to talk about these things.
For these reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.