[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 183 (Tuesday, December 10, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H6549-H6555]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 7673, LIBERTY IN LAUNDRY ACT;
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 4199, JUDICIAL UNDERSTAFFING DELAYS
GETTING EMERGENCIES SOLVED ACT OF 2024; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION
OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 5009, WILDLIFE INNOVATION AND LONGEVITY
DRIVER REAUTHORIZATION ACT
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1612 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1612
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 7673) to
prohibit the Secretary of Energy from prescribing or
enforcing energy conservation standards for clothes washers
that are not cost-effective or technologically feasible, and
for other purposes. All points of order against consideration
of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or
their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (S. 4199) to
authorize additional district judges for the district courts
and convert temporary judgeships. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary or their respective designees; and (2) one motion
to commit.
Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5009)
to reauthorize wildlife habitat and conservation programs,
and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto,
and to consider in the House, without intervention of any
point of order, a motion offered by the chair of the
Committee on Armed Services or his designee that the House
concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment consisting
of the text of Rules Committee Print 118-52. The Senate
amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The
motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority
[[Page H6550]]
member of the Committee on Armed Services or their respective
designees. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening
motion.
Sec. 4. The chair of the Committee on Armed Services may
insert in the Congressional Record not later than December
10, 2024, such material as he may deem explanatory of the
Senate amendment and the motion specified in section 3 of
this resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bost). The gentleman from Georgia is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New
Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), pending which I yield myself such time as
I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and
extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule,
House Resolution 1612, providing for consideration of three measures,
including the Senate amendment to H.R. 5009, the Servicemember Quality
of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2025.
The rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the
Committee on Armed Services or his designee that the House concur in
the Senate amendment with an amendment consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 118-52.
The rule provides for 1 hour of debate on the motion, equally divided
and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Armed Services
Committee or their respective designees.
The rule also provides that the chair of the Armed Services Committee
may insert into the Congressional Record, not later than December 10,
2024, such material as he may deem explanatory of the Senate amendment
and the motion specified in section 3.
Additionally, the rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 7673,
the Liberty in Laundry Act, under a closed rule.
The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Energy
and Commerce or their respective designees, and provides for one motion
to recommit.
Further, the rule provides for consideration of S. 4199, the Judicial
Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved Act of 2024, under a
closed rule.
The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the
Judiciary or their respective designees, and provides for one motion to
recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the rule and the underlying
piece of legislation, beginning with the Servicemember Quality of Life
Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2025.
Mr. Speaker, under the leadership of Speaker Mike Johnson, Chairman
Mike Rogers, Ranking Member Adam Smith, and additional colleagues in
the House and Senate, the fiscal year 2025 National Defense
Authorization Act represents the result of months of bipartisan and
bicameral collaboration.
It is a bill that balances the needs of our servicemen and -women and
the fiscal challenges facing our Nation. The NDAA significantly
improves the quality of life for our servicemembers, deters our
adversaries, supports our allies, and focuses on military readiness and
our national security.
Our country is facing serious threats to our security and freedom at
levels that we have not seen since World War II. It is imperative for
our national security that our servicemembers and their families are
supported so that they can focus on their mission.
Ahead of the NDAA, Chairman Rogers established a panel to evaluate
the quality of life for our servicemembers and found that
servicemembers' standards of living are a major cause of low morale and
family stress. This undermines our recruitment, retention, and military
readiness.
{time} 1230
The NDAA puts our servicemembers and their families first and
addresses many of the issues found by the Quality of Life Panel. This
legislation boosts compensation, improves housing, expands access to
medical care, increases access to childcare, and provides support for
the spouses of servicemembers.
Through the tireless work of the House Armed Services Committee and
Rules Committee staff, the NDAA advances important policies to support
our warfighters at home and abroad and deters our adversaries.
The National Defense Authorization Act ensures that our Nation's
military is organized, trained, and equipped to deter our adversaries.
Communist China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and any other nation or
terrorist group must know that they will never succeed in a war with
the United States of America.
To strengthen our defense, the NDAA supports the continued
modernization of our nuclear deterrent. It invests in our naval fleet,
increases innovation, and revitalizes our defense industrial base to
ensure our warfighters have the capabilities they need to win on future
battlefields.
The NDAA restores American deterrence by restoring lethality,
defending Israel, securing our southern border, and providing oversight
and accountability.
We must continue to modernize our military. The NDAA fosters
innovation by providing for the development and fielding of artificial
intelligence, hypersonics, quantum computing, and autonomous systems.
The NDAA builds and maintains the overmatch we need to deter China.
This legislation counters Communist China's maligned global influence
in Africa, South America, and Central America. The NDAA removes
Communist China from our supply chains and prevents CCP spies from
infiltrating our research institutions.
The NDAA bolsters Taiwan's defense and support of our Indo-Pacific
allies as they work to deter our shared adversaries. This legislation
also supports our ally Israel as they defend themselves from Hamas
terrorists by fully funding cooperative missile defense programs and
expanding emerging technology research and development efforts.
The NDAA reforms and improves the acquisition process by streamlining
the budgeting, milestone, and contracting processes making them more
efficient, user-friendly, and less costly.
Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the NDAA includes language that saves our
taxpayers over $31 billion by cutting inefficient programs, obsolete
weapons, and Pentagon bureaucracy.
We live in the greatest Nation on Earth, and it is imperative that we
support those who protect our freedoms.
Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year 2025 NDAA is another step in that
direction.
Now, moving on to H.R. 7673, the Liberty in Laundry Act.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is simple. It clarifies the intent of the
Energy Policy Conservation Act of 1975 by prohibiting the Secretary of
Energy from imposing new efficiency mandates or enforcing existing
standards for washing machines unless these standards: one, are cost-
effective and technologically feasible; two, save the consumers money;
and three, save a significant amount of energy.
The Energy Policy Conservation Act of 1975 already requires the
Department of Energy to follow specific criteria for prescribing new
efficiency standards and the DOE may only propose the new standard if
the new standard results in a significant conservation of energy, is
technologically feasible, and economically justified.
The DOE, under President Biden, has consistently ignored the consumer
protections built into the underlying statute and has used efficiency
and appliance standards to pursue climate objectives over consumer
choice. They have attempted to impose these mandates on every appliance
in our homes: gas stoves, clothes dryers, dishwashers, refrigerators,
and air-conditioners.
These mandates have increased the cost of appliances, undercut
appliance production quality, and jeopardized
[[Page H6551]]
consumer choice. It is just another example of executive overreach that
has made the cost of living for everyday Americans more expensive.
If the Biden administration had proposed standards in accordance with
the law, H.R. 7673 wouldn't be coming to the floor.
Finally, we have S. 4199, the JUDGES Act of 2024. It is another
simple bill, Mr. Speaker.
Congress last comprehensively updated judgeships for the district
courts in the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990. Since then, the
population of the United States has grown by nearly 100 million people
and Federal caseload has increased by 40 percent.
In the last 20 years, civil cases pending more than 3 years have
increased 346 percent and the average time between filing cases and
trial is over 2 years, but often it is 3 to 4 years.
This bill is based off the 2023 recommendations of the Judicial
Conference of the United States and increases district judgeships by 66
over time, splitting the new judges into six tranches across at least
two Presidential administrations.
Additionally, S. 4199 amends certain districts in Utah, Texas, and
California, and requires a GAO report on the caseload of district
courts and courts of appeals with recommendations on how to alleviate
any caseload-related challenges.
Mr. Speaker, to simplify it further, this bill requires the President
to appoint, with the advice and consent of the Senate, new judgeships
for certain district courts by each of the years 2025, 2027, 2029,
2031, 2033, and 2035.
That is across six different Congresses, across three different
Presidential terms, and at least two different Presidential
administrations.
This bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent in August. I will
say that again, Mr. Speaker. This bill passed the Senate by unanimous
consent in August, and the House should now do its part to address the
workload demands in the courts.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to consideration of these important
pieces of legislation and urge passage of this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. 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
[[Page H6552]]
debated on this floor in the people's House.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I will take just a second
to read to the American citizens the provision that the Democratic
Party, at least some in the Democratic Party, are using as an excuse to
vote against the National Defense Authorization Act.
I will read this word for word: ``Medical interventions for the
treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization may
not be provided to a child under the age of 18.''
Let me read that one more time, Mr. Speaker. ``Medical interventions
for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in
sterilization may not be provided to a child under the age of 18.''
{time} 1245
That is the provision that they are talking about that is their
excuse for voting against the National Defense Authorization Act.
We are talking about children under the age of 18, and we are saying
that we are not going to allow a surgical procedure on them that could
lead to or result in sterilization.
I don't understand why we are even having this discussion. It defies
logic to me that it is even legal to do that to a child under the age
of 18. These are permanent and irreversible procedures, and they should
not be allowed.
Mr. Speaker, they certainly shouldn't be an excuse to vote against
the National Defense Authorization Act.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. 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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I feel like I am living in an alternative
reality right now.
Liberty in laundry? I mean, liberty in laundry? Are you kidding me,
Mr. Speaker? I mean, you can't make this stuff up. Who came up with the
title? ChatGPT? What is next, changing the national motto to ``lint
free or die''?
It is no surprise coming from the same Republican Party that gave us
the Refrigerator Freedom Act and the Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act.
I mean, is something wrong with them? I ask that seriously, Mr.
Speaker. Americans voted for lower grocery prices, not whatever the
hell this is. This is insane.
As I listen to the gentleman on the other side talk about lowering
costs for consumers, I have to wonder what bill is he talking about
because it is definitely not this one.
This bill gives big companies license to cut corners and make bad
appliances that use more electricity and water. I mean, to put it
simply, they object to appliances that save consumers money on their
bills. What the hell planet are these guys living on where that saves
people money?
I remember, Mr. Speaker, when a washing machine used to last 30
years. People could go their whole lives without buying a new
refrigerator. Now they break all the time. Why is that? It is because
these big, huge companies cut corners and because my Republican friends
are letting them do it right here and right now.
That is what this is all about. That is the Republican solution: Let
the appliance companies cut corners so they can make a buck, say it
will lower costs, and then turn around and act surprised when
everyone's crappy washing machine breaks down in 2 years.
This bill is about one thing. It is about making money for big
corporations at the expense of everyone else. That is all my Republican
friends care about.
Then we have the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year
2025. I have to tell you, the military budget is out of control. We are
looking at over a trillion dollars. I mean, does anyone here realize
how much money that is? This is for an agency that cannot even pass an
audit. Not once in 33 years has the DOD been able to pass an audit.
Meanwhile, I hear from every one of my friends on the other side of
the aisle about the deficit, the deficit, the deficit. There are long
diatribes about the national debt. Where is that energy and passion
today as we are talking about an agency that probably wastes more money
in a second than most people earn in a year?
The kicker here is that all this money we spend on the military, a
huge chunk of it doesn't even go to our troops. It goes to defense
contractors. It goes to their CEOs. It goes to the military-industrial
complex. There is no discussion of that on the floor today--just more
money, more money, more money for the Pentagon.
When does it all end?
Don't worry, though, the Republicans found time to strip out language
on in vitro fertilization for our servicemembers. They found a way to
deny people IVF because of their extreme views on everything under the
Sun. Women's rights, family rights, you name it, they are against it.
They also found a way to talk about transgender people, their weird
obsession. They talk about transgender people and bathrooms more than
they talk about jobs and the economy. They never miss an opportunity to
divide people, to double down on the cruelty.
Once again, the agenda of this majority is just all screwed up, and
today's rule is just the latest example of how wrong their priorities
are.
Mr. Speaker, before I forget, I have one last thing. This rule that
we are debating provides for three more completely closed rules on
legislation. This is the most closed Congress in history. This is the
most authoritarian House in U.S. history. My colleagues are making
Putin proud. But I will tell you this: It is lousy for democracy.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I do want to acknowledge
that the citizens did vote for lower gas prices, grocery prices, secure
borders, and extension of the Tax Code.
I again want to read the provision of the bill: Medical interventions
for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in
sterilization may not be provided to a child--a child, Mr. Speaker--
under the age of 18.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Wild) to discuss our proposal.
[[Page H6553]]
Ms. WILD. Mr. Speaker, there are only 2 weeks left of this Congress
and I, along with many of my colleagues, want to use that time to do
useful things that will actually help the American people.
Instead, House Republicans and Speaker Johnson have us debating the
Liberty in Laundry Act, but I am here today to urge my colleagues to
consider a vote on the Right to IVF Act, a bill that I have been proud
to lead this Congress, which would protect the right of Americans
across the country to receive fertility treatments.
I wish we were not facing unprecedented times, where even our most
basic freedoms, including the freedom to start or grow your family, are
at risk.
Like so many hopeful parents, I struggled with my own fertility when
having my children, and I am so grateful that there were no government
restrictions on what was available to me. That would have made an
already heartbreaking situation even more heartbreaking.
Unfortunately, politicians and judges across the country are now
threatening to strip hopeful parents of that right. Imagine looking at
a couple who has been hoping and praying for a baby for years and has
struggled to conceive or a cancer patient who has been told by their
oncologist that treatment could destroy their fertility, and then
telling them that they can no longer turn to IVF.
Imagine a military couple in the midst of IVF treatments in one State
where they are permitted, then being transferred to a new post in a
State that forbids IVF.
Since long before my time in Congress, I have believed that judges
and politicians have no place in your bedroom or doctor's office, and
that your personal medical decisions are yours alone to make. That is
why I am proud to be the House lead of the Right to IVF Act, which
would ensure hopeful parents across the country have access to the
fertility treatments they need and to expand insurance coverage to make
those treatments more affordable.
With an incoming administration that has promised to roll back
reproductive rights, it is more crucial than ever that we pass the
Right to IVF Act and prevent access to fertility treatments from being
swept up in all the dangerous rhetoric and legislation around embryos
and personhood.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to
the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.
Ms. WILD. Mr. Speaker, instead of wasting time with messaging bills
that have no chance of becoming law, Speaker Johnson and House
Republicans should be taking steps that would actually solve problems
for the American people. Please put the Right to IVF Act on the floor
for a vote today, and vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we
can protect Americans' right to build their families free from
government interference.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell you a
couple of the great things the National Defense Authorization Act does:
14.5 percent pay raise for our junior enlisted, and a 4.5 percent pay
raise for all other servicemembers. It fixes some of the cost of living
and the basic needs allowances for our soldiers, and it authorizes an
additional $954 million over the Pentagon's request for housing and
facility maintenance accounts.
It authorizes over $569 million to build new family housing units,
$1.2 billion to renovate and build new barracks.
It increases access to childcare, authorizes over $176 million for
the design and construction of new childcare centers. It fully funds
childcare fee assistance programs to eliminate all fee assistance wait-
lists for eligible families.
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of good things in this National Defense
Authorization Act. It takes care of our military servicemen and -women,
and it makes sure that we are safe.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), another distinguished
member of the Rules Committee and my friend.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to a rule that
demonstrates much of what is wrong with the 118th Congress under this
Republican majority, primarily a failure to do the people's business in
a timely and serious manner.
This rule has three bills. First, there is S. 4199, which addresses
serious understaffing in our Federal courts, which impedes access to
justice for all Americans. This carefully negotiated, bipartisan bill
should have passed months ago, but it has been delayed in the House to
seek partisan political advantage in the staffing of those new
positions.
Next, we have the Liberty in Laundry Act, part of the House
Republican spin cycle to undermine energy efficiency standards for
common household appliances. Like the companion bills that have been
offered throughout this term, it would hamper the process of setting
energy efficiency standards upon which consumers rely to save money and
operate their homes more efficiently.
{time} 1300
Finally, and most distressingly, this rule puts forward a politicized
version of the National Defense Authorization Act. For 60 years,
Congress has worked in a bipartisan manner to draft the NDAA, coming
together to put our troops, veterans, and national security above
political considerations. The FY25 NDAA breaks from this tradition.
I am deeply opposed to a provision in this NDAA that will prohibit
the children of U.S. servicemembers from receiving medical treatment if
they are diagnosed with gender dysphoria. This provision has no
business being in an NDAA. At a time when we are struggling to recruit
and retain soldiers, ensuring access to medical care for servicemembers
and their families is more important than ever, but this bill, as
written, will take away medically necessary care.
The evidence is clear. Gender-affirming care of various types is
life-changing and lifesaving for the children who need it. Our soldiers
need to be able to focus on their missions, not worrying whether their
children are able to get the medical treatment that they need.
In order to illustrate the impact of this political attack, I would
like to share the following story from a military spouse whose family
would be harmed by this provision of the NDAA. They write:
My spouse has proudly served in the U.S. Air Force for 22
years, dedicating their life to protecting our country. Over
the years, our family has moved across the Nation and the
world, embracing the challenges and opportunities that
military life brings.
One of the greatest blessings of this life has been the
assurance of quality healthcare for our family. It has been a
cornerstone of our stability and a key reason why my spouse
continues to serve. Knowing we could depend on the military
healthcare system gave us the peace of mind to focus on the
sacrifices required of us as a military family.
However, I am now writing to you with great concern and a
heavy heart. Recent legislative efforts to restrict or
eliminate access to gender-affirming care threaten not only
the well-being of my trans child but also the very values of
dignity and respect that our military stands for.
This care has been transformative for my child, giving them
confidence, joy, and a sense of self that we had only
glimpsed before. To have this vital care stripped away feels
cruel and unjust. For lawmakers to target military families,
families who already sacrifice so much for this Nation, only
compounds the pain.
My spouse has given 22 years to the service of this
country, and now it feels as though the country is turning
its back on us.
I am thankful to this military family for sharing their story.
The ability to obtain medical care for one's child, including gender-
affirming care, should be between a parent, a child, and their doctor,
and politicians should stay the hell out of it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to
the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, for all of these reasons, I oppose today's
rule.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, again, as long as that
treatment did not result in the sterilization of a child under the age
of 18, then there is not a provision in this legislation that should be
a problem.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
McCormick).
[[Page H6554]]
Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule
providing for consideration of H.R. 7673, S. 4199, and H.R. 5009, the
Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025.
I am confident that this year's NDAA will have a lasting, positive
impact on our national security, and I urge my colleagues to support
the rule providing for its consideration.
The fiscal year 2025 NDAA authorizes targeted, responsible
investments in critical technologies and future capabilities while
restoring our military's focus on lethality.
I served with sailors, marines, and Army folks from all walks of life
during my time on Active Duty. We all bled red and were all green at
heart, and we were all united in our mission to protect the United
States.
Putting our differences under the microscope only divides us and
distracts us from our mission, so I am pleased that the NDAA gets
things like DEI and critical race theory out of the military's divisive
issues.
I am also glad that it reauthorizes language I put in last year's
NDAA to improve the Defense Department's transparency on how it works
with entities that discriminate against conservative voices by steering
advertisement dollars away from them.
I was also proud to champion specific provisions in this bill that
will help us deter and, if necessary, defeat our allies in the future
fight. Things like using drones to clear land mines, changing how we do
aircraft maintenance by using AI to bring down costs and improve
readiness results, and making it easier for the Marine Corps to procure
critical capabilities like LPDs and CH-53K helicopters will all help us
maintain our edge over our adversaries using these techniques.
Perhaps most importantly, the NDAA will drastically improve our
servicemembers' quality of life, especially for the junior enlisted.
The least we can do for our fellow Americans who take up the mantle of
service is to make sure they have good housing, quality medical care,
and the tools and resources to raise a family in the military if they
so choose.
This NDAA deters our adversaries, supports our allies, and exercises
Congress' lawful oversight mandate to cut down on waste and improve the
way our military does business within the private sector.
Mr. Speaker, I express my sincerest thanks to Chairman Rogers,
Ranking Member Smith, my fellow committee members, and all the staff
for their work on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I am honored to have helped with this bill, and I urge
swift passage for the rule and swift passage of the fiscal year 2025
NDAA.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the
gentlewoman if she has any additional speakers.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, indeed, I do have additional
speakers.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Vermont (Ms. Balint).
Ms. BALINT. Mr. Speaker, this is a message to all of my colleagues
voting on the NDAA and to Americans who might be watching: You are
being misled.
Our most cynical Republican colleagues are telling you that Democrats
are pushing for sterilization and surgery for kids in military
families. Let me be absolutely clear: This is not true. That is not
what is going on here.
Here is what is true: TRICARE currently covers appropriate gender-
affirming hormone therapy for all military dependents, period, the kind
of care that millions of doctors support as safe and effective.
Now, Republicans want to restrict this, but only for trans kids. They
are targeting trans kids and their families and saying what kind of
healthcare is appropriate for them. This is a very tiny percentage of
the population, and they are using this opportunity to scapegoat them.
We know that appropriate and medically recommended care saves lives.
We know this. It is well documented. Why wouldn't we want to do
everything that we can to save the lives of children?
I am a member of a military family. I was born on an Army base in
Germany when my dad served in the military. Military families carry the
weight of the world on their shoulders. They shouldn't have to worry
whether their kids can receive the lifesaving care that they need.
Our servicemembers have enough to worry about. Why do Republicans
want to make it even more complicated for them by limiting healthcare
options for their families?
I am here to say it absolutely loud and clear: Military families
deserve the healthcare that they need. This includes gender-affirming
care options for their children.
Servicemembers across this country and across the world deserve so
much better than what they are getting from House Republicans.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, once again, I will read the
provision word for word: ``Medical interventions for the treatment of
gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization may not be provided
to a child under the age of 18.'' That is word for word the language in
the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. 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
[[Page H6555]]
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. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I think every American knows that when agencies pass
rules and regulations just for the sake of passing rules and
regulations, those rules and regulations increase the costs of consumer
goods. It doesn't hurt the billionaire. It hurts the working Americans.
This week, we have the ability to advance significant legislation in
the House of Representatives. In fiscal year 2025, the National Defense
Authorization Act fully authorizes our national defense and improves
efficiency while eliminating wasteful spending and harmful programs.
{time} 1315
Mr. Speaker, it strengthens our military and takes important steps to
address the security threats Americans face from our adversaries
including China, Iran, and foreign terrorist organizations.
It improves our military readiness, provides robust support to our
ally, Israel, and supports law enforcement operations at our southern
border.
Critically, Mr. Speaker, it focuses on improving the quality of life
of our servicemembers and their families who sacrifice so much to
defend us. This NDAA provides a 14.5 percent pay raise for our junior
enlisted servicemembers and a 4.5 percent pay raise for all other
servicemembers.
The NDAA has been enacted into law every year for 63 years, and I
encourage all Members to do what is best for our military and national
security and support this legislation.
Additionally, H.R. 7673, the Liberty in Laundry Act, pushes back on
executive overreach that is increasing the costs of appliances and
diminishing their quality.
Again, H.R. 7673 clarifies the intent of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act by prohibiting the Secretary of Energy from imposing
new efficiency mandates or enforcing existing standards for washing
machines, unless they are cost effective and technologically feasible,
not likely to result in any additional costs to Americans, and save a
significant amount of energy.
Again, passing additional rules and regulations that increase the
cost of people's appliances doesn't matter to the billionaire. It does
matter to the working American.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this bill which supports
energy efficiency standards. As long as the technology exists to meet
them, they don't take more money out of the pockets of hardworking
Americans, and they actually save energy.
Finally, S. 4199, the JUDGES Act of 2024, adds 66 judgeships over
three different Presidential terms. It fairly works to address the
workload demands in our courts. I call on my colleagues to join me in
voting ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I urge on my colleagues to support this legislation
which passed out of the Senate unanimously.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as
follows:
The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as
follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 1612 Offered by Ms. Leger Fernandez of New
Mexico
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 5. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
bill (H.R. 9643) to protect and expand nationwide access to
fertility treatment, including in vitro fertilization. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on
any amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective
designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 9643.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question are postponed.
____________________