Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, we are in a constitutional crisis. President Trump and his co-president Musk apparently are blatantly rejecting the role of the courts while Republicans in Congress are too scared to stand up for their constituents or the Constitution.

When we talk about Social Security, the idea I kept hearing from the other side is: We have done nothing to Social Security.

Yes, they have. Republicans have done nothing to stand up for their constituents who are worried about their Social Security check. They are appropriately worried about their Social Security check because Republicans have done nothing to complain about the executive cutting the workers at the Social Security Administration. Republicans have done nothing to complain about the closing of offices at Social Security or done nothing about the idea that a person can no longer call Social Security. Republicans have done nothing to reject Project 2025 cuts and proposals to cut Social Security.

Social Security is also important, Mr. Speaker, because we are in a cost-of-living crisis. Prices for groceries, food, and housing are rising thanks to Trump's policies and Trump's tariffs.

What are House Republicans doing in response to these crises? Bringing appliance bills, appliance bills which show how out of touch they are with their constituents. These appliance bills, by the way, have consequences. They raise costs. They raise costs so that American small businesses will pay for utilities so that big companies, those big utility companies, can continue racking up more profit.

Republicans seem to always stand with the greediest corporations and not the consumers.

For those few Republicans--not our colleague here--but those few Republicans who are willing to hold townhalls, they are hearing a lot of anger

about Medicaid and Social Security cuts, but not much about refrigerators, are they?

What do they say in Iowa?

In Iowa they said that Trump and Musk are ``moving very rapidly toward a dictatorship and an oligarchy.''

This is in Iowa.

In Wyoming, farmers shared with their Representative that Trump's cuts will limit the resources they need to deal with the devastating impacts of drought.

H.R. 1048 under this rule continues Trump's and Republicans' attacks on higher education and the lifesaving and innovative research conducted at our universities. I don't know why they hate our universities so much, because we already have a law that requires disclosures of foreign gifts. However, this Republican bill will have impossible burdens of reporting to a Department that they want to eliminate.

What are we doing here with a bill that goes to a Department they want to eliminate?

This bill shows how out of touch Republicans are, once again, to Americans' concerns because a majority of Americans want to keep the Department of Education that funds programs for kids with disabilities, provides student loans, and makes sure poorer schools can hire enough teachers.

If Republicans were truly worried about national security, they would look at how this administration is destroying America's leadership abroad, from having Signal chats about our national security to everything else they are doing.

I will end with this Mr. Speaker: While Republicans' billionaire class might not need public schools for their kids, the kids in my district do.

Mr. Speaker, Americans across the country are angry about Elon Musk illegally firing employees and freezing Federal funds.

Rather than stand up to Musk, Republicans are giving him the power to shut down the government programs Musk doesn't like. Remember, just last night Musk said that he wants to eliminate the big programs like Social Security and Medicare. Musk also wants to fire thousands of VA employees. This bill cuts $22.8 billion for veterans' care. It cuts housing, and it cuts programs that protect our food supply so we can bring down the cost of eggs.

This rule also endorses Trump's tariffs under the guise of a national emergency. Yesterday Trump's tariffs caused the markets to plummet, taking Americans' retirement savings with them. That is the real national emergency. A vote for this rule is a vote for Trump tariffs.

Is that why Republicans are hiding from their constituents? Is it because they are backing unpopular tariffs that will cost the average family $2,000 a year?

Or maybe they are hiding because their funding bill cuts $15 billion from community projects. We are losing first responder and water infrastructure projects in New Mexico.

Republicans are also defunding the police in Hazleton, Pennsylvania, in Representative Bresnahan's district, and they are eliminating a clean water project in Lehigh County in Representative Mackenzie's district, just to name a few of the many projects that are being gutted in Republican and Democratic districts alike.

This is not a clean CR. It is as dirty as it gets.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the life of Margaret ``VK'' VeneKlasen (Margaret Lorraine Bombasaro)--lovingly known to her family and friends and the broader Santa Fe, New Mexico community as Marg.

It is hard to know where to start in honoring the life, achievements and contributions of this unstoppable renaissance woman who transformed our city and our state for the better over the almost 70 years she gave us. A fierce leader and advocate for women and girls, realtor, entrepreneur, skier, flight attendant, tap dancer, athlete, matriarch, icon, and Santa Fe Living Treasure.

Marg often said ``It's better to be true to yourself than be popular.'' And true to herself she was--although beloved she was for it.

Born in 1927 to a tight-knit, union, Italian immigrant family in Joliet, Illinois, Marg was a young athlete who started her career as a stewardess for United Airlines. It was on a flight that she met Walter Paepcke, who invited her to his new Aspen Ski Resort in Colorado--which is where she discovered two of her great loves: skiing and her future husband, Gordon VeneKlasen.

Marg and Gordon, a geophysicist and WWII veteran, were wed in 1953, and shared their love of New Mexico and each other until his passing in 1998. They moved to Santa Fe in 1956, where Marg met her next love: our Santa Fe mountains. She wrote in her journal at 94: ``I see the ski mountain from my window and check on it every morning. I gave up skiing this year, but the mountain is where my heart is.''

True to her life-long love of sports--which she encouraged all of her five children to pursue--Marg was committed to making sports accessible to all New Mexican children, regardless of their background. In 1973, she co-established the Santa Fe Public School Ski Program, which helped 40,000 Santa Fe public school children learn to ski. In the 70's, 80's, and 90's, she built and led the Northern New Mexico Soccer Club (now known as the Northern Soccer Club), and through her leadership, in 1981, girls soccer was sanctioned as a varsity sport in New Mexico.

Marg championed ``everyone watches women's sports'' before it was cool. She herself was an accomplished tennis player, skier, and golfer--she was the first woman to serve on the FIFA National Rules Committee and fought for girl athletes to have access to public playing fields across sports.

A successful real estate broker for over 40 years, she co-founded VeneKlasen Property Management with her husband Gordon, which they ran together for almost 30 years, with a commitment to employing local workers and paying decent wages.

Kiwanis Club of Santa Fe named Marg ``Person of the Year'' for her commitment to protecting the traditional culture and wellbeing of the city.

A champion for women and girls throughout her life, she served on the boards of Girls, Inc. and the Santa Fe Rape Crisis Center.

In 2002, Marg was asked by the late Governor Bill Richardson to carry the Olympic Torch on its last prestigious leg of its journey: lighting the Olympic bonfire on Santa Fe Plaza.

On January 22, 2025, at the age of 97, Marg passed away peacefully in her beloved home of 62 years.

Today, we include Marg's name and accomplishments into the Record. In the words of one of her sons, Garrett, ``She taped wings on people and made them into who they were.'' We add our gratitude for the many flights of possibility New Mexicans took because of her generosity and love for our whole state. It is my honor to enshrine her contributions to our state, culture, and economy in history.

Madam Chair, Republicans are attacking women's ability to afford life as a mom or a daughter.

Medicaid supports more than 40 percent of all births in the United States.

Our grandmothers and parents in nursing homes rely on Medicaid to pay their health bills. Their caregivers, who are mostly women, depend on Medicaid themselves.

Over 37 million children rely on Medicaid and CHIP. Republicans would strip this essential healthcare from women across the country. Why? To give tax breaks to their billionaire bros.

Women need to know how they will be impacted wherever they live.

Earlier today, we heard Representative Valadao acknowledge that his voters depend on Medicaid and are upset. Indeed, 507,000 of his constituents receive Medicaid, but he said he will vote ``yes'' on the bill.

I need women across the country to visit the Democratic Women's Caucus website to find out how these cuts will impact them and how much money billionaires and millionaires will make from women's economic pain.

Republicans should stand with their moms and not the billionaires.

Mr. Speaker, we are in a moment of constitutional crisis. These days will define what we stand for. They will define who we stand with.

Yet in this time of crisis, Republicans are rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Republicans are using the precious floor time we are given to put forth watered-down fentanyl bills like the one in this rule. Let's remember that all of these bills require a Federal agency to enforce it.

Let me remind my Republican colleagues that their President granted Elon Musk the authority to dismantle our Federal agencies. Musk and his DOGE--I like to call it dodgy because they seem to dodge any kind of authority and accountability--are intent on destroying our Federal Government and the essential services it provides.

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleagues to remember their power and remember their constitutional duty.

Musk didn't take an oath to protect the Constitution. We did. Voters sent us here to protect their interests. Congress alone has the power to fund our agencies. A billionaire who was not elected and has not probably even passed a security clearance cannot destroy our Federal agencies. We will not stand for it, and I hope you stand with us to protect our Federal agencies, including the FBI who would be the ones who would enforce and investigate and go after fentanyl trafficking.

My phones are ringing off the hook from constituents who are frightened and terrified and angry about what Musk is doing. They don't want billionaire tech titans to dismantle Federal agencies or gain access to their most private data.

We definitely can't address the fentanyl crisis, like the bill in today's rule claims to do, if Trump and Republicans get their way on the Federal funding freeze, if they get their way on a hiring freeze.

Now remember, this intention that we have seen from this administration, that we are not hearing them stand up against, would actually destroy the FBI. It would take away funds from addiction treatment, which would be essential to save lives. It would take away funds from interdiction technology, which is what we need to stop fentanyl from flowing in and killing our neighbors and my friends and my constituents. My constituents want us to fund effective border safety measures, not engage in the chaos and demonization we have seen from this administration.

I have also heard loud and clear from my communities in New Mexico about the chaos that Trump's orders have created. Trump is about chaos and Trump is about corruption.

Yesterday, I went to the Treasury Department to demand answers about Musk's power grab and information heist. They didn't let Members of Congress in that building, which belongs to the American people.

They didn't let us in that building because they don't want Americans to know what they are doing.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and all my Republican colleagues: Would you let Elon Musk and his interns rummage through your savings account, your tax return, your children's personal data?

I just don't understand the point of putting bills like this on the floor if we are not going to have the courage to stand up to Elon Musk and his rip off of Congress' power.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule.

Mr. Speaker, when I was pregnant, I ended up in an emergency room waving my ultrasound picture showing I was pregnant. I was so proud. After multiple miscarriages, I wanted to keep this pregnancy, so I didn't take anesthesia.

As I lay bleeding on that operating table, I could hear the doctors yelling: We are losing her. We are losing her.

My doctors had to worry about keeping me alive that day, but they didn't have to worry about going to jail for any decision I made.

However, today Republicans would criminalize reproductive healthcare nationwide. Women experiencing heartbreaking, life-threatening pregnancies will die on the operating table because doctors will be scared of going to jail for 5 years under this bill.

Republicans don't seem to care about the deadly consequences.

Do they care about women at all?

Mr. Speaker, we should absolutely hold immigrants accountable when they commit a crime, especially when it is against a law enforcement officer. However, there are already existing laws for the detention and deportation of immigrants who commit violent crimes.

What we are talking about today is that we must hold convicted felons accountable for attacking our very own Capitol Police. In this very building, January 6 insurrectionists brutally attacked our Capitol Police and other law enforcement officers. More than 140 cops suffered injuries and went to the hospital. Five police officers died. President Trump just pardoned the violent thugs who were convicted of those attacks. It is ``shameless,'' ``sin verguenza,'' as we say in Spanish. If Republicans were truly concerned about attacks on law enforcement, they would denounce those pardons.

We just heard about the violence that was inflicted and about the violent offenders who committed them. I am asking my Republican colleagues to also keep in mind the faces and the names of those who were brutally attacked.

When the majority walked into this building and they walked past those Capitol Police who are protecting them today, do they tell them: Good morning?

They should also tell them: I am sorry. I am sorry that my President pardoned the people who beat you. I am sorry, and I denounce those attacks because I honor you.

However, they do not seem to have the courage to say I am sorry to those police officers.

It is hypocrisy to say that they care about law enforcement if they don't denounce those pardons.

Those violent criminals whom Trump described as peaceful and loving are being released into our communities. We have seen the videos of the attacks, the shouts, and the pounding of Officer Fanone, and so many others, and their cries for help. It was on video. Americans remember it.

I ask my colleagues to remember it and to see those videos. The convicted attackers were not peaceful.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to denounce the pardons and to vote against this rule.

Mr. Speaker, this image could be from the California wildfires, but it is not. It is from New Mexico's Hermit's Peak and Calf Canyon Fires, which ravaged northern New Mexico. We are still recovering from the inferno with help from the Federal Government.

We might see a picture like this in Montana or Utah or anywhere there are droughts and extreme weather events.

When disaster hit New Mexico, my colleagues supported our State, including recently Speaker Johnson and my Republican friends. I am grateful that we acted as one.

When hurricanes hit North Carolina, Florida, and Georgia, we supported the recovery in those States without conditions because that is what we do.

Americans don't turn their backs on each other.

That should not change with California. They need our help. New Mexican firefighters are there helping, and Congress must also help without placing conditions on emergency disaster aid.

Let's act as one United States in the face of this disaster.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Naya Stamets. Naya is an extraordinary leader with a heart as bold and inspiring as her mission. It's the only way you get to receive the most prestigious award in Girl Scouting, the Gold Award. She earned this award by turning her personal battle with Type 1 Diabetes into a powerful PSA, raising awareness of the condition one person at a time.

It is so wonderful to have Naya as my constituent from Farmington, New Mexico. She is one of New Mexico's golden treasures.

She has been a member of the Girl Scouts of New Mexico Trails, Troop 10068 for 13 years. She is now a first-year undergraduate student at New Mexico Tech studying Mechanical Engineering and Digital Media--go Miners.

To earn the prestigious Girl Scout Gold Award, high school-age Girl Scouts must identify and investigate an issue they care about, devise a plan, and then lead a team of experts and community members to implement a project that produces lasting change.

In pursuit of this prestigious award, Naya created a PSA video with the help of medical professionals to educate the community about T1D symptoms, prevention, and management. Naya's PSA titled ``SEE T1D'' will have a positive impact on our New Mexico community for years to come.

Naya was inspired to create this PSA after a life-threatening emergency in her childhood, where she learned she had Type 1 Diabetes (T1D). As she grew older, she noticed the lack of T1D education in her community. At the end of the PSA, Naya included a QR code to a Google Form, which asks people if they experience any T1D symptoms and if someone selects 4 or more then it immediately tells them to contact their physician.

As a result of her PSA, she has been able to collect over 50 survey responses and speak with 4 individuals who sought help after seeing her video and survey. Two people were able to get a diagnosis for early onset diabetes after consulting with their doctor and two others learned they had other underlying health issues.

In addition, Naya was able to present her research and PSA to the International Order of the Rainbow Girls, where she shared her findings with over 100 people from across the U.S. ranging from Connecticut, Kansas, Ohio, and California.

On behalf of the 3rd Congressional District of New Mexico, I congratulate Naya for achieving the highest distinction in Girl Scouts, the Gold Award. We are so proud of her.

Mr. Speaker, Americans want safety in the products they buy and the food they eat. Republicans, with this bill, will undermine the regulations that provide Americans peace of mind.

The government's job is to keep us safe, to put people's health and safety over corporate profits, but Republicans want to side with profit-making corporations and their billionaire buddies over the people's interests.

H.R. 115 would allow congressional Republicans to reverse dozens of agency rules at once, in one fell swoop, without careful consideration by professionals or regard for the safety of American families. This bill would help corporations cut corners at the expense of families across the country.

We have seen what happens when rules and regulations aren't in place. Think back to when cars became deadly fire traps after car accidents because there were no safety regulations. Remember the defective airbags that exploded, taking lives instead of saving them?

Without regulations, those car companies would have been able to go on doing that. Regulations make sure that salmonella does not enter our food supply and sicken millions.

Because they don't like regulations, because their corporate friends don't like regulations, in one simple bill, Republicans would eliminate dozens of agency rules, including a rule to replace lead pipes so communities have safe drinking water.

There are almost 10 million American households and--listen to this number--400,000 school and childcare centers that are served by lead service lines, pipes, or other fixtures. In some of our Republican districts, there are tens of thousands of families and children exposed to lead pipes.

Why are they putting their corporate interests over the health and safety of those who are drinking water from lead pipes?

The Biden administration's October 2024 rule makes sure that those dangerous lead pipes would be replaced, but if Republicans get their way, this rule could be on the chopping block without any discussion in Congress.

This Republican bill could also eliminate a proposed rule to expand access to contraception. Women deserve to know that Republicans can't seem to stop going after our reproductive healthcare, this time by reducing our access to basic contraception. Really, Republicans just can't seem to respect women's rights to basic healthcare.

The Republican bill could also eliminate a rule to establish safety standards for infant support cushions and even a rule to finally implement the National Suicide Hotline Act. Once again, because Republicans know that these regulations are popular with the American public, they want to eliminate them without discussion or debate.

``Midnight'' is probably a good name to give to this bill because it is an in-the-dark attack on our ability to protect Americans now and in the future.

Congress already has a bill. If they want to reverse a regulation, they can do it. They can come on the floor and let the American people know why they want to do it so the American people are not in the dark.

This bill would let Republicans deny women's contraception. It would let them hide their work to weaken children's safety and hide the fact that they are turning their back on the suicide hotline.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Fred Harris, a Senator, civil rights and Tribal advocate, Presidential candidate, chairman, professor, and so much more to the people lucky enough to have known him.

The title that I love best for my dear friend is ``radical optimist.'' In times when we might despair, like the time we find ourselves in now, Fred never gave in to fatalism. Instead, Fred asked each of us to charge ahead with commitment and courage. His radical optimism was not passive but proactive.

He called upon us to each act with purpose and passion, to find the unique places where each of us could lend our action to change the direction of the world to better. He called upon us to act collectively in the joy that comes from working together with friends and colleagues on a cause.

I first met Senator Harris as a young attorney working on Tribal issues in New Mexico. He shared stories of his work together with LaDonna Harris, his former wife, elevating Native American issues across this country.

Senator Harris sponsored the landmark bill to restore sacred Blue Lake to Taos Pueblo. He created the bipartisan alliance that led to President Richard Nixon signing that bill into law in 1970. Blue Lake became the touchstone and spark for the return of sacred lands to Tribal nations across this country.

Senator Harris and his beautiful wife, Margaret Elliston, herself a democracy hero, then became good friends as I myself ran for office. His deep laughter and inexhaustible supply of stories to illustrate a path forward helped me immensely over the last 5 years.

Harris' career included serving in Oklahoma and the United States Senate as chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Throughout his career and his many roles, he always led and listened with courage and empathy.

He was a strong supporter of and voted for--imagine this--the Voting Rights Act in 1965 during his first year in the United States Senate and continued to advocate until this year.

At the University of New Mexico, he founded the Fred Harris Internship Program. Since 2006, Congress has welcomed smart, dedicated New Mexicans to serve in our delegation offices. I have hosted and then hired Fred Harris interns because they bring with them the same radical optimism as their sponsor.

I hope his family takes solace in the fact that every intern and person whose life he touched will keep his spirit alive as they also bring his love of country, community, and service to their own life work.

Senator Harris' legacy will ring through history in the laughter and radical optimism he left us.

Recognizing Santa Fe New Mexican's 175th Anniversary

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my hometown newspaper, the Santa Fe New Mexican, on its 175th anniversary. The first issue of the paper was printed in 1849.

The New Mexican has brought stories to life about gold strikes, floods, votes on prohibition, and debates on statehood and whether women should have the right to vote. It has shared stories of the struggles and strengths of the survivors of wildfires, informed voters about their local candidates, and anointed the best chili in the city.

To keep democracy strong, it made sure voters understood the positions and perspectives of local, Senate, Federal, and national candidates for office.

I myself like this one page from 1938 that juxtaposes the rise of fascism in Europe with Santa Fe's burning of old man gloom. My local newspaper was ahead of the curve. It took The New York Times 80 years before they reported on Zozobra.

Santa Feans, as the New Mexican has shown, have been choosing joy over fascism for over 100 years.

Stories matter, and who tells them matters just as much. That is why it is important that an independent paper with integrity, like the New Mexican, has been telling stories about our communities since it was founded. Papers like the New Mexican keep us well-informed and active citizens.

In this time of democracy at risk, we need papers like the New Mexican, and I am so happy to be on this floor to celebrate its anniversary.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on November 12, 2024. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No.456; and NAY on Roll Call No.457.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the community of Las Trampas, and the generations of New Mexicans who built, maintained, and protected the San Jose de Gracia Church. The community of Trampas was settled in 1751 by 12 Spanish families who painstakingly carved out an existence in one of the most beautiful parts of our state and country. They relied on the strength of family, the power of community, and faith in God; so much so, that after more than 10 years of backbreaking work they raised up the San Jose de Gracia Church. The church, which is designated as a National Historic Landmark, is approaching its 250th anniversary.

After spending nearly a decade handcrafting, carving, shaping, lifting, and tenderly decorating; the community of Las Trampas spent the next 250 years upkeeping this gem of 18th Century culture, architecture, and faith. For 250 years, it was their faith that kept the candles burning, the vigas and planks intact, and the adobe plaster fresh and strong. For 250 years this community has worked as one to preserve their faith and heritage in such a way that is unmistakably New Mexican--and unmistakably a reflection of unwavering faith in God and in one another. The San Jose de Gracia Church is the only distinctly Spanish Colonial building that remains completely intact within the original historic district of Las Trampas.

Walking in, you are reminded of the original builders, members of the community from all walks of life, the fathers and mothers, the sons and daughters who lent any talent they could to their community for the sake of honoring God and creating a remarkable place to worship. The original floorboards, under which are buried countless members of the Trampas Community creak and pop as you approach the original 18th century altar. The altar, which is covered in frescos, is unlike anything else standing in this country--and still vibrant enough today to steal the breath and inspire awe from all who behold it. In addition to the faith that it has taken for a community to continue such painstaking work for so long--I also wish to honor the love that it took to keep this church alive. It is love that makes it more than just a structure, but a symbol of resilience, survival, and compassion. I wish that every single American could open their heart and draw from that example as we live and work with one another today and into the future.

For the countless hours spent on its construction, for the countless hands that plastered its 6-foot-thick adobe walls, for the thousands of hearts that looked to God for salvation in its pews, and for the 250 years that it has graced the mountains of northern New Mexico, I honor the San Jose de Gracia Church, and the community of Las Trampas. Mr. Speaker, members of Congress of the United States of America, I also pray that God grants at least 250 more.