Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 214 (Thursday, December 18, 2025)

[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 214 (Thursday, December 18, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H6049-H6065]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 1140
PET AND LIVESTOCK PROTECTION ACT

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 951, I call
up the bill (H.R. 845) to require the Secretary of the Interior to
reissue regulations removing the gray wolf from the list of endangered
and threatened wildlife under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and
ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 951, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Natural Resources, printed

[[Page H6050]]

in the bill, is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 845

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Pet and Livestock Protection
Act''.

SEC. 2. REMOVING THE GRAY WOLF FROM THE LIST OF ENDANGERED
AND THREATENED WILDLIFE.

Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this
section, the Secretary of the Interior shall reissue the
final rule entitled ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants; Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) From the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife'' and published on
November 3, 2020 (85 Fed. Reg. 69778).

SEC. 3. NO JUDICIAL REVIEW.

Reissuance of the final rule under section 2 shall not be
subject to judicial review.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective
designees.
The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Hoyle) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.

General Leave

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H.R. 845.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arkansas?
There was no objection.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, as we are getting close to breaking for the Christmas
holiday, I am glad that this last bill that the Natural Resources
Committee will offer is one that we will have a debate on that will
resolve an issue that has united the Bush, Obama, Biden, and Trump
administrations alike.
I am not sure there is another issue like that out there, but this is
one of them because each of those administrations has agreed that the
gray wolf is a recovered species and should be removed from the
Endangered Species Act, or ESA, protection.
H.R. 845, the Pet and Livestock Protection Act, sponsored by
Representatives Boebert and Tiffany, instructs the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to re-issue its 2020 final rule that delisted the gray
wolf from the list of threatened and endangered species in the entire
lower 48 States.
Recovery of the gray wolf is a true ESA success story, and there
aren't a lot of them. In the 1970s, the species was at risk in the
lower 48 States. Today, the gray wolf numbers in the thousands across
the Great Lakes and Rocky Mountains, with each of these populations
being connected to tens of thousands of wolves in Canada.
The first Trump administration recognized this successful recovery
and issued a delisting rule for gray wolves in the lower 48 States.
Unfortunately, this rule was vacated by a Federal judge in California
in a blatant instance of judicial activism.
Mr. Speaker, don't just take my word for it. The Biden administration
appealed the California judge's vacatur of the 2020 Trump rule,
arguing: ``The district court misunderstood the ESA's clear mandate and
compounded that error by imposing its own review of the science.''
By every sensible definition, the gray wolf is a recovered species,
and that recovery should be celebrated as a success of the ESA. Gray
wolf populations are healthy and thriving in every region in which they
are found.
The Great Lakes region has the largest concentration of gray wolves
in the lower 48 States, with approximately 4,200 wolves inhabiting
Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Moreover, this population is
connected to at least 12,000 to 14,000 wolves in central Canada. The
Western United States is also home to roughly 2,500 wolves, including
already delisted populations in Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, and
Wyoming. This population is connected to over 15,000 wolves in western
Canada.
The Biden administration's own science determined that wolves in the
Western United States had a healthy abundance, retained genetic
diversity, could respond to high-mortality events, and maintained
adaptive capacity. Most of these wolves reside in States where they
have already been delisted.
The science is clear. Gray wolves have recovered in the lower 48
States, and it is time to return their management to the States, which
have managed and will continue to manage wolf populations responsibly.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the bill, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are here in D.C. during the final week before the
holidays. Families back home are struggling with the increasing costs
of groceries, housing affordability, natural disaster recovery, and
healthcare. That is what we should be working on.
Instead, what has Republican leadership scheduled this week: a bill
that is routinely used in Congress to kill time on the floor and that
will go nowhere in the Senate.
H.R. 845, the Pet and Livestock Protection Act, would strip Federal
Endangered Species Act protection from gray wolves and block courts
from reviewing that decision. This bill would force the Department of
the Interior to re-issue a 2020 Trump rule to delist the gray wolves
that was struck down by a Federal court in 2022.
Why was it struck down? A Republican-appointed judge found that it
failed to use the best available science, didn't consider threats to
wolves outside core populations, and ignored the needs across their
entire range--findings all in violation of the Endangered Species Act.
Instead of accepting that decision, this bill doubles down on bad
science and even prevents courts from weighing in.
If you are sure wolves have recovered, then there is no need to block
judicial review. However, that is not the case here. Instead, my
colleagues want to remove Endangered Species Act protections because of
politics instead of science. That is not how the Endangered Species Act
works.
Wolves are an Endangered Species Act success story. Their population
has increased from fewer than 1,000 animals to over 6,000 today, but
recovery remains fragile and incomplete. Wildlife management should be
based on science and collaboration. Our natural heritage and the health
of our ecosystems are worth protecting for future generations.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, and I
am looking forward to hearing further discussions from my colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Ms. Boebert), the lead sponsor of this legislation.
Ms. BOEBERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for helping to lead on
this issue. I thank my colleague, Representative Tom Tiffany, who has
also been instrumental in this piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, Colorado is at the center of our Nation for wolf
battles. That is why Congressman Tom Tiffany and I introduced H.R. 845,
the Pet and Livestock Protection Act.
My bill delists the gray wolf from the Federal Endangered Species
List and returns the issue of wolf management to the States and Tribal
wildlife agencies.
This doesn't mean that wolves will not be managed. It just means that
the Federal Government will step aside, and we will have proper State
management. I think we believe in federalism here and the Tenth
Amendment and trust our States to do the right thing.
Leftists want to eliminate hunting, lock up our lands, further
restrict gun rights, and pander to the interests of extreme
environmentalists who don't understand our rural way of life.
In 2020, in Colorado, Denver and Boulder voted to reintroduce gray
wolves west of the Continental Divide. This ballot-box biology has led
Colorado to rush through the importation of Canadian gray wolves and
has set them loose in our State, despite numerous protests and
questions about the legality of this dysfunctional and

[[Page H6051]]

chaotic approach, putting predators over people.
These predators do not obey arbitrary boundaries. Sure, Colorado may
say that they will be introduced west of the Continental Divide, but
that doesn't keep them west, and that doesn't necessarily keep them in
Colorado, either, as we have seen.
Importing foreign predators into our State has received pushback from
our Tribes, energy operators, and our farmers and ranchers. ESA
restrictions prohibit ranchers and pet owners from protecting their
livestock and pets, as ranchers who shoot at, injure, or kill protected
wolves that are stalking sheep or cattle face potential prosecution.
Unfortunately, wolves, again, don't see State lines. They don't know
the difference between State, Federal, Tribal, or private land. It is
in their nature to travel great distances in pursuit of prey, whether
that is deer, elk, sheep, cattle, or even our pets. It has been well
documented that wolves don't only hunt to satisfy their hunger. They
also hunt for sport.
In March of this year, one of the Canadian wolves attacked and killed
a working cattle dog in Jackson County, Colorado, neighboring one of
the counties I represent in my district. Last year, a gray wolf from
the Great Lakes region was found over 1,000 miles away in Elbert
County, east of the Continental Divide, in Colorado's Fourth District,
which I represent.
Colorado's agricultural producers have lost $580,000 in just one year
from wolves already introduced. We should listen to our farmers and
ranchers and finally delist the gray wolf.

{time} 1150

Gray wolves were first listed under the ESA in 1967. That was 58
years ago. Since then, delisting the gray wolves has been supported by
the Obama, Trump, and even Biden administrations.
In November 2020, scientists and nonpartisan career employees at the
Department of the Interior once again found gray wolves were fully
recovered and once again issued a rule that returned management of the
gray wolf populations to State and Tribal wildlife agencies, as it
should be.
Unfortunately, frivolous litigation was filed by environmental
extremists, and an activist California judge pandered to them by
vacating the 2020 rule and unilaterally relisting the gray wolf by
judicial fiat.
Mr. Speaker, the science is crystal clear on this issue: Gray wolves
should no longer be on the Endangered Species List. We can no longer
put farmers, ranchers, and even our pets in harm's way by using
taxpayer dollars to protect a species that has been fully recovered. It
is time for the Federal Government to get out of the way and allow the
State and Tribal wildlife agencies to manage this species.
Again, just as my colleague on the other side of the aisle agrees,
this is an Endangered Species Act success story.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of my bill.
Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, when my colleagues say an activist judge overturned
this, it was a Republican-appointed judge who found, again, that it
failed to use the best available science.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service just canceled the first-ever
nationwide gray wolf recovery plan, which was due this month. This
comprehensive, science-based plan would have finally provided a
holistic approach to wolf recovery with all stakeholders at the table.
This is the type of solution that the courts have been seeking after
invalidating five of the six previous attempts to delist wolves.
Unfortunately, H.R. 845 is part of a pattern. Instead of investing
time and money into supporting proven paths of success, we are voting
on far-reaching and unscientific proposals that don't actually solve
the problem and won't make it into law. H.R. 845 would also fragment
and make wolf management harder.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs.
Dingell).
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today, we are witnessing an unprecedented
extinction crisis with 1 million species at risk of disappearing
forever in coming decades.
As the co-chair of the Endangered Species Act Caucus, protecting our
Nation's wildlife is one of my top priorities. I am deeply concerned
that the provisions included in this bill will cause our country to
backtrack on the progress we have made. That is why I have to be
opposed today to the bill on the floor, the so-called Pet and Livestock
Protection Act.
There has been a lot of discussion about the gray wolf. Let's talk
about the listing of the gray wolf under the Endangered Species Act.
While progress has been made in certain regions, the reality is clear:
Gray wolves have not yet achieved full recovery, and removing Federal
protections would be premature and dangerous.
Today, wolves occupy only a fraction of their historic range. Large
areas of suitable habitat remain unoccupied, and many existing
populations are small, isolated, and genetically vulnerable.
True recovery under the Endangered Species Act requires not just
survival in a few regions, but long-term security across a significant
portion of the species' range.
We also know from experience what happens when protections are lifted
too soon. After previous delisting efforts, several States moved
quickly to authorize aggressive hunting and trapping seasons. In some
cases, wolf populations declined sharply within 1 single year. These
setbacks erase decades of conservation progress and create instability,
rather than sound wildlife management.
Gray wolves play a vital role in maintaining healthy ecosystems. As
apex predators, they help regulate prey populations, reduce
overgrazing, and promote the recovery of forests and watersheds. These
ecological benefits support biodiversity and contribute to healthier
landscapes that benefit hunters, farmers, outdoor recreation, and rural
communities alike.
Some argue that delisting is necessary to address conflicts with
livestock in local communities, but science tells a different story.
Broad lethal control does not reliably reduce livestock losses and can
actually increase conflicts by disrupting pack structure. Nonlethal
tools, such as range riders, fladry, improved husbandry practices, and
fair compensation programs have proven to be far more effective and
deserve continued investment.
The Endangered Species Act is one of the most successful conservation
laws in our Nation's history. It sets clear science-based standards for
recovery and requires that threats be adequately addressed before
protections are removed.
Delisting gray wolves without enforceable, science-based State
management plans undermines both the intent of the law and public
trust.
This decision is about more than one species. It is about whether we
let politics override science or whether we uphold our responsibility
to protect wildlife for future generations.
Until gray wolves are truly recovered, connected across the range,
and protected by durable management plans, Federal protections must
remain in place. That is why attempts to delist the gray wolves through
congressional action are opposed by scientists, conservation groups,
and the majority of Americans across the political spectrum.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose delisting and to
stand with science, conservation, and the rule of law.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to state again: The gray wolf is an ESA recovery
success story. We should be celebrating this.
While gray wolves might not currently occupy all of their historic
range, they do not meet the criteria for listing under the ESA. This
was confirmed by the Biden administration, as with previous
administrations before.
Most species are not found throughout their historic range. Elk and
black bears, for example, are still absent from much of their historic
range, but they are not listed under the ESA.
According to my colleague's argument, the wolf can't be totally
recovered until it is back in its entire historic range. Mr. Speaker,
the Northeast United States is part of the historic range of the gray
wolf. If what I

[[Page H6052]]

am hearing is correct, are we promoting restoring the wolf to the
Northeastern United States, within metropolitan and suburban areas,
where packs of wolves can range 100 miles a day? Is that what we want
to make the criteria before we say gray wolves are recovered?
The scientists at the Fish and Wildlife Service in the Biden
administration, along with those in the Trump administration, the Obama
administration, and the Bush administration, have said that the gray
wolf is recovered.
This is just another push to continue a top-down Federal approach to
wildlife management that does little to actually help wildlife.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Tiffany).
Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the gentlewoman from Michigan,
if she wants to do a ride-along with me and deliver wolves to Madison,
Wisconsin, part of their previous range, I would be happy to do that if
she would join in that process.

{time} 1200

I just want to address one thing in regards to the gentlewoman from
Oregon. We have got really good news, what she talked about in regards
to inflation. I urge her to watch CNN this morning with the inflation
numbers that have come out that are the lowest since 2021. That is good
news, as we end 2025, and it is really good news as we go into 2026
that the Pet and Livestock Protection Act is going to pass out of the
House of Representatives today.
Federal protections were established a couple decades ago, and there
are hundreds of wolves in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan. Now,
there are over 4,000 wolves. Talk about inflation. It has hit the wolf
population. Also, if you go back to 2015, 26 of the most eminent
wildlife biologists in the upper Midwest urged these judges to delist
the wolf, take them off the Endangered Species Act, because the wolf is
recovered as the data has shown.
Populations have been bouncing back and forth between being listed
and delisted, and this bill provides a permanent solution, returning
the population management back to the States.
As everyone in Wisconsin knows, this is something we have seen far
too often, most recently when the judge in Oakland, California, vacated
the 2020 delisting rule and unilaterally put it back on the ESA list by
judicial fiat.
Wisconsinites know best when it comes to managing Wisconsin's wolf
population, and it is long past time that we empowered Wisconsinites to
be able to manage the gray wolf population once again.
The chairman handled it in a very positive manner. This is a recovery
success under the Endangered Species Act.
This is the graphic representation of what is happening, the carnage
that is happening across our States, in rural areas, where pets and
livestock are being slaughtered because the wolf is not being managed.
If you talk to any sportsman, they will tell you the wolf belongs on
the landscape, but when you do not manage a wildlife population, this
is what happens, the slaughter continues of people's pets and
livestock.
Gray wolf delisting has been supported by four Presidents. Even the
Biden administration's Fish and Wildlife Service asked the Federal
appeals court last fall to reinstate the rule.
The gray wolf has been the latest recovery success, with significant
populations in the Rocky Mountains and western Great Lakes.
There is something else we should all remember. When a species is
removed from the ESA list, it is something we should celebrate.
From farmers to pet owners to sportsmen and -women, delisting the
gray wolf is of paramount importance to rural America.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bean of Florida). The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Speaker, in order to maintain our rural way of life,
the wolf needs to be delisted. It is past time to return management to
the States. This is a legislative fix we can do.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' I urge the United
States Senate to pass this bill when it comes over to them.
Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I appreciate the words of my good friend from Wisconsin. I invite him
to come to my district where the manufacturers in my district are
paying more for goods that they have to import to build things in the
U.S. and my farmers and wine producers and exporters are losing their
markets and have less money to pay for things where the prices have
risen for their Thanksgiving, Christmas dinner, and presents. But you
are welcome to come.
Also, the issue with H.R. 845, after the 2020 delisting, in Wisconsin
30 percent of its wolf population was killed in just 4 days. Idaho
passed a law allowing the killing of up to 90 percent of wolves,
including the pups. Montana removed wolf protections around Yellowstone
raising bag limits and expanded trapping, killing many of the beloved
wolves that tourists travel from around the world to see.
The ecological consequences matter. Wolves are a keystone species
critical to healthy ecosystems. When reintroduced to Yellowstone in
1995, they provided benefits throughout the entire ecosystem.
Wolves changed elk behavior, allowing willows and aspens to recover.
They brought back beaver, whose dams create habitats for fish,
amphibians, and birds. One study found a 1,500 percent increase in the
willow growth, surpassing 82 percent of trophic cascades in global
analysis. Recently, we have seen evidence that wolves are helping to
protect deer and elk populations from the spread of chronic wasting
disease, a horrifying neurological disease rampaging through the States
and causing real problems for hunters.
The State of Oregon has worked to lead the way in wolf recovery, but
there is only so much we can do if neighboring wolf populations are
wiped out.
We want to see recovery, get the environmental benefits, and also
make sure that our ranchers are compensated for any losses that occur.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Beyer), my good friend.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, as co-chair of the House Endangered Species
Caucus, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 845.
This bill, formerly called the Trust in Science Act, has gone under a
rebrand since the best available science contradicts this politically
motivated bill.
I am here to remind the American people of some key facts underlying
this bill. First, a small reminder, people are predators, too. In fact,
we are the most successful apex predator of all time.
This bill has the deeply unpopular Project 2025's name all over this.
Look at page 534, part 3, section 16, where delisting the gray wolf is
listed as the second highest priority for the Department of the
Interior, just behind delisting the grizzly bear.

Despite the Trump administration's incompetence and chaos, we have
not forgotten about the direction coming from Project 2025 and the
damage already done to our country.
Second, this bill fails to recognize the status of gray wolves today,
taking us back to an outdated rulemaking that didn't hold up in court.
It is important to recognize State-by-State differences in wolf
recovery but also in State-sanctioned predation. What does the best
available recovery science say today? That is what we should be
supporting.
Gray wolf recovery goals are outdated, and they need to be updated.
That is what we should be working on instead of this extinction effort.
That is what this is: permission to once again reduce the wolf
population in the lower 48 to zero.
We know that premature delisting hinders the ability of gray wolves
to be delisted legitimately.
Today, wolves continue to face ongoing serious threats to their
survival, including poaching, habitat loss, and the patchwork of
inconsistent State mismanagement.
The protections of the ESA have allowed gray wolf populations across
the country to stabilize and regain

[[Page H6053]]

strength. If delisted nationally, gray wolves will once again be hunted
and trapped to the point of extinction.
If we actually wanted to trust the science, we see that the gray wolf
has made progress in their recovery but also that wolves in the
Northern Rocky Mountains are being killed in dramatic numbers, even the
celebrated Yellowstone National Park's gray wolves.
The Biden administration recognized this and put forth a National
Wolf Recovery Plan that was supposed to be released last week on
December 12. This highly anticipated plan would have developed a
comprehensive nationwide recovery plan that would have engaged the
public to help develop a unified recovery approach based on scientific
evidence. Unfortunately, the Trump administration hastily announced its
cancellation last November.
By the way, the only reason Canadian wolves were necessary is because
we had killed every last lower 48 wolf.
Finally, I have to address the spurious argument that protecting pets
and livestock somehow is ample justification for delisting the wolves.
In Montana, Mr. Speaker, fewer than 60 livestock out of almost 3
million are killed every year by wolves. That is one loss for every
50,000 cows or sheep. That is a very tiny loss ratio compared to deaths
by accident, lightning, freezing temperatures, and all of the other
natural hazards that come from living outside 365 days a year, not to
mention that most of these animals are being raised to be slaughtered.
The numbers don't look much different in Wyoming or Idaho. Ranchers are
compensated very generously for losses related to wolves, always more
than market value, sometimes three times the value of the animal lost.
Mr. Speaker, State Farm reported that 93,000 dogs--not 5 or 10--
93,000 were hit by cars in 2022, yet no one has suggested banishing
automobiles.
I love dogs. Most of us do. We know how smart and complicated and
ferociously loyal they are. They are just wolves we have tamed. There
is abundant evidence that wolf families are more like human families
than any other species. Wolves and men have evolved together over the
millennia, one reason wolves show up in all our most important stories,
poems, and songs.
When we kill all the wolves, we kill something in our own humanity.
We deny our connection to nature and what is beautiful and glorious.
How can we proclaim the wonder of existence, the generosity of a
loving God, and then hate the charismatic creatures he has also given
to this world.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to kill this bill.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The whole State of Virginia was at one time gray wolf habitat.
Washington, D.C. had gray wolves. When are we going to turn them loose
here on the Mall or Old Town or whatever part of Virginia?

{time} 1210

This is a problem that seems to get exported to rural areas, and
people turn a blind eye to what happens in the rural areas.
Also, there is a difference between desiring fewer wolves and
desiring no wolves. States where wolves have already been delisted have
a proven track record of success which has been confirmed by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. This bill does not prohibit the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service from listing the wolf in the future if it
determines a listing is warranted.
However, as the service has confirmed multiple times, the gray wolf
currently does not meet that criteria.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Stauber).
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the newly formed follow the
science caucus, I rise today in strong support of a bill I am proud to
cosponsor, H.R. 845, the Pets and Livestock Protection Act.
It has been proven time and time again that the gray wolf is not
endangered and, in fact, has fully recovered.
When the gray wolf was listed as threatened in Minnesota under the
Endangered Species Act in 1978, a recovery goal of 1,250 to 1,400
wolves was set.
Today, according to data from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, we have over 2,700
wolves in Minnesota. However, as my constituents will tell you, Mr.
Speaker, that is a severe undercount. It is more like 5,000 to 7,000 in
Minnesota.
Over one-half of the gray wolves across the lower 48 are in
Minnesota, and most of them can be found in my district.
The gray wolf might be one of the greatest success stories of the
ESA, and it is one that should be celebrated. Now that the species has
recovered, it is time to delist. That is not just my opinion. It is a
bipartisan view that has been held by several Presidential
administrations on both sides of the aisle.
In 2009, the Bush administration delisted the gray wolves. Activist
groups sued to relist.
In 2013, the Obama administration delisted the gray wolves. Activist
groups sued to delist.
In 2020, the Trump administration delisted gray wolves. Activist
groups sued to relist.
Just last year, the Biden administration even agreed, when they chose
to defend the Trump administration's 2020 delisting rule.
Presidents Bush, Obama, Trump, and even Biden, trusted the science
and sought to do the right thing. It is activist groups, with the help
of activist judges, who continue to choose to disregard the science and
fight to keep these unnecessary protections in place.
As a result, my constituents have to face growing wolf populations in
their backyards each and every day.
Mr. Speaker, look at this photo right here to my right. Just last
month in Ely, Minnesota, a wolf was seen in the school parking lot in
the middle of the day. It was just feet from the schoolhouse door. Mr.
Speaker, because of the gray wolf's listing status, nothing could be
done to protect the lives of the students there. The broken ESA is
putting my constituents' lives at risk.
Simply said, it is beyond time that the gray wolf is delisted under
the ESA. Unfortunately, as long as activists are willing to abuse our
Federal Court system to weaponize the ESA, I am afraid an
administrative delisting will never be possible. There is only one
alternative, Mr. Speaker. Congress needs to act and finally vote in
legislation to delist the gray wolves.
As a hunter in northern Minnesota, last year I held several townhalls
on the gray wolf and the concerns of the delisting. Hunters for
Hunters, Hunter Nation, and other pro-hunting groups supported this
endeavor.
Mr. Speaker, if you look at trail cams, for example, you will see a
nice, beautiful, in this case, 8-point buck. Ten minutes later, on the
same trail, same trail cam, comes the wolf.
Who knows what happened to that big, beautiful buck.
The fact of the matter is that we should celebrate the ESA's
accomplishment. The gray wolf has recovered. Let the States manage it.
They can be more nimble than the Federal Government.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this
important piece of legislation.
Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that wolf-livestock
conflicts do happen and that ranchers deserve support when there is a
wolf problem. We already have tools that work to address these
conflicts, but this bill does nothing to improve them or to help our
ranchers.
H.R. 845 has no funding for conflict mitigation, no support for
nonlethal deterrents, and no additional compensation for losses. If we
want to delist wolves responsibly, then we need to give Fish and
Wildlife Service the resources and direction it needs to work
collaboratively, respond to science, and invest in conflict prevention.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Huffman), who is the ranking member.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Oregon for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is right. If we want to talk about the
occasional conflicts that exist between livestock and pets and any
predators, that is a legitimate conversation. However, what we are
hearing from across the aisle is really jumping the shark, if you will
forgive another predator metaphor, Mr. Speaker.

[[Page H6054]]

We are being led to believe that packs of wolves are about to descend
on urban areas in New England and Madison, Wisconsin, and that they are
looming outside of schools.
I think my colleagues across the aisle need to understand: The
American people are a little smarter than that. They are kind of going
to see through this Little Red Riding Hood meets chupacabra narrative
the gentleman was trying to spin to scare people about wolves.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell you the way it actually works. The
Endangered Species Act does not prevent wildlife managers from
intervening any time a wolf or any other predator threatens property or
human beings. In fact, just a few weeks ago in Northern California, I
believe it was the Sierra Valley, a pack of wolves from one of our
packs there had begun preying on cattle in an area where they are
concentrated because of the way they move through the State, and the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife came in and took some. I
think they took five or six of them, killed them. There was no ESA
lawsuit, and there was no violation of the law.

A little reality check on what we just heard from my colleague from
Minnesota, that there was nothing anyone could do about this scary
chupacabra wolf in the school parking lot. That is nonsense. That is
not the way the ESA works.
Now, let's be clear. This bill is not about protecting pets or
livestock. It is about politics overriding science, and the
consequences of doing that are disastrous. The precedent set by this
bill would be very troubling. It would tell wildlife scientists that
their expertise doesn't matter. It tells Tribal nations that their
voices can be ignored, and it tells the American people they no longer
have the right to challenge unlawful government actions.
The ESA is simple and effective. It ensures decisions are grounded in
science. That is the heart of it, and this bill throws that principle
out the window. It mandates a nationwide delisting of gray wolves, and
it explicitly blocks judicial review. It would prevent courts from
doing their job to determine whether a government action even complies
with the law.
Now, we don't have to speculate about what happens when protections
for gray wolves are lifted because we have seen it play out.
In the State of Wisconsin where hunters like the group, Hunter
Nation, which is led by Ted Nugent and Don Jr. on the board, swept in
as soon as the wolf hunting season was open. Quickly they did that,
despite objections from Tribes in the region. The result was
devastating. Mr. Speaker, 218 wolves, about 20 percent of the State's
population, were wiped out. By the end of the season, 30 percent were
killed--nearly twice as many wolves as the State had authorized.
Over the course of about 60 hours, thousands of hunters, including
some unlicensed hunters, participated in coordinating hunting groups,
engaged in a dangerous terrorizing campaign against the wolves using
bait and wolf calls. They hunted at night. They used dogs. Mr. Speaker,
188 wolves were taken by dogs. They killed 130 wolf pups that were less
than 2 years old. This is not thoughtful, science-based management of
the State's wolf population. This is not celebrating the recovery of
the wolf as we keep hearing in this debate.
This week we received a letter from the Wisconsin Tribes who had sued
to try to stop that hunt. In the letter, they object to this bill
today. They point out the inadequacy of existing State-level regulatory
mechanisms that led to that disaster in Wisconsin.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from six Wisconsin
Tribes.
December 17, 2025.
Dear Congressperson: We, the federally recognized bands of
Ojibwe in Wisconsin, oppose the legislation proposed by Rep.
Lauren Boebert (R-CO) to delist gray wolves and believe that
the gray wolf should remain protected under the Endangered
Species Act (``ESA''). We write to inform you of our
continued opposition to proposed legislation that would
direct the Secretary of the Interior to reissue final rules
relating to delisting the gray wolf under the ESA,
particularly where judicial review of the rule would be
barred.
The Pet and Livestock Protection Act, H.R. 845, would
impact our rights and treaty-protected resources. The treaty-
protected resources of the Ojibwe bands include gray wolves
in the territory ceded to the United States under the
Treaties of 1837 and 1842 (``ceded territory''), which has
become the northern third of the State of Wisconsin. We
previously expressed this opposition to lawmakers, including
Sen. Baldwin and Sen. Johnson when they proposed legislation
to delist the gray wolf in 2022.
One of the requirements for a finding of recovery and
delisting under the ESA is a determination that the species
in question is no longer imperiled by ``the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms.'' 16 U.S.C.
Sec. 1533(a)(1)(D). However, Wisconsin's February 2021 wolf
hunt resulted in the deaths of almost twice the number of
wolves allowed to be killed by the state. This debacle
clearly demonstrated that Wisconsin's existing regulatory
mechanisms are not up to the task of enabling effective
management of the state's wolf population. If the gray wolf
is delisted, and the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (``WDNFR'') implements another hunt as required
under Wisconsin law, Wisconsin's problematic legal framework
for regulation and oversight of state-licensed wolf hunters
and trappers will again threaten the wolves and Ojibwe treaty
rights.
This misguided legislation continues a long history of
disproportionately targeting the gray wolf--the first
endangered species ever to be legislatively delisted by
Congress. This proposed legislation also disregards the fact
that many Americans nationwide believe that wolves should
remain protected. In 2013 for example, approximately one
million Americans voiced opposition to the proposal to strip
endangered species protections from gray wolves. In addition,
widespread public opposition to the wolf hunt has been
routinely disregarded by the WDNR Board, making federal
protections even more important.
Our position still stands that legislation to delist the
gray wolf is misguided and continues to disregard strong
tribal opposition to delisting, as well as widespread
opposition from the general public.
Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Lac Courte
Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Lac du
Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Red Cliff
Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Sokaogon Chippewa
Community, St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin.

{time} 1220

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, Tribes support continued protection for
wolves. Seventy-eight percent of Americans support continued protection
for wolves. They want to see living wolf pups in Yellowstone, not news
stories about tortured wolves in bars or wolf hunts with dogs. I urge
my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
I would also like to just move to some additional remarks that are
part of our motion to recommit.
The entire debate so far has shown why Members of Congress have no
business in listing and delisting decisions. We are not scientific
experts. We are not objective scientists tasked with assessing
population numbers, recovery goals, and continued threats to the
species.
That is why the ESA properly leaves those questions to actual
experts, not politicians. For that reason, we shouldn't be passing this
bill at all, but if Republicans are going to go down this road, then
there should at least be some guardrails in place that are based on
actual science.
For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to
recommit this bill back to committee.
If the House rules permitted, I would have offered this motion with
an important amendment to this bill. We were not allowed to do that.
My amendment is straightforward. The NRA gets to have this bill and
its little hunting spree, but if Ted Nugent and Don Jr. and all the
other folks who need to do this to prove their manhood actually go
where scientists have warned us about and take the wolf population down
below science-based recovery standards, then the Secretary of the
Interior would have to issue an emergency regulation temporarily
restoring Federal protection in that instance.
This would provide a necessary backstop if Congress legislatively
delists the gray wolf and it careens right back toward extinction
again, which we know it would.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment into the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion
to recommit. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion
to recommit in a few moments and keeping amodicum of actual science in
the Endangered Species Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.

[[Page H6055]]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question: Which will it be? What is the good
science?
As I have mentioned before, the Obama administration, the Bush
administration, the first Trump administration, the Biden
administration all said the wolf has been recovered. The experts, the
scientists at U.S. Fish and Wildlife have said it has been recovered.
Yet my friends argue it has not been recovered because there are some
places where its native range is that the wolf is not there. I remind
everyone, we are in gray wolf territory, historical gray wolf
territory.
Mr. Speaker, like many, like you probably and myself, I have walked
around D.C. at night, and this is a rat-infested city. I think there
would be at least a little bit of food for the wolves if we were to
turn a pack loose on The Mall. However, what happens when they eat all
the rats? What do they go after next?
Now, this is a preposterous situation because I don't think anybody
really wants a pack of wolves on The Mall. However, if you go down the
logic trail that my colleagues are making, the wolf is not recovered
until it is back in its historic range.
Why do we want to sit in a big city where wolves once were and say:
We want wolves, just not in our backyard. We want them out in the
Midwest or West where it is somebody else's problem, but we don't want
those problems here because it makes no sense to put wolves back here
in the big cities and across the Northeast.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
LaMalfa), where they have a lot of wolves.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Arkansas for
yielding.
It is amazing here. I represent the northeast corner of California
where the wolves are being inflicted upon the people and the wildlife
of that area. The stuff I hear coming from the other side of the aisle
about recovering the wolves and even the mocking, yes, it is real.
There are wolves that are encroaching on elementary schools in
Siskiyou County, the Little Shasta Elementary School. This isn't some
``Little Red Riding Hood'' story. This isn't some made-up deal. It is
very real, and they are coming closer and closer to town all over the
northeast part of California.
My colleague from the north coast, when he mocks us like that, I am
wondering if this Proposition 50 in California kicks in, and he ends up
representing my constituents up there that are fighting against this,
and I am their only voice in the echo chamber of California against
this: Are you going to have townhalls up there? Are you going to go
into Modoc County, Siskiyou County, Sierra Valley, and tell them this
is a ``Red Riding Hood'' story about the wolves devouring their
livestock, eating up all their wildlife?
The mocking. Why is it they can't stand the people that produce the
food, the lumber that comes from my part of the State, from the West,
from the rural parts of America? Is it they want all of their beef--I
guess if they don't eat beef, they might be able to have this
conversation--if they want their beef to be imported from somewhere
else, if they don't want it produced here, under our standards, why is
it they hate my constituents who are just trying to provide the urban
people with what they need?
We don't need a hell of a lot, just coming from the urban area, I
tell you what. If the gentleman wants to cater only to Marin County and
have this population continue to devastate our people up there and rein
in just a little bit the misinterpretation of the Endangered Species
Act over the 50 years--yeah, it was well-intentioned when it came out.
It was a temporary tool. It never was meant to be a life sentence or
even a death sentence for livestock and for people's livelihoods up
here in this area here or all over the West. This is a clear example of
how the ESA has drifted a long ways from that end.

It is high time that people have tools, especially my home State of
California, where they have no tools until the fish and game finally
decides to come in.
Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Bentz).
Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 845.
The bill would address at least some of the injury and injustice being
inflicted on my State and my constituents by the inappropriate and
unfair enforcement of the Endangered Species Act as it has been applied
in the reintroduction of the gray wolf.
This injustice is apparent in the Federal Government's inability to
manage and control the killing, the maiming, and the terrorizing of
thousands of head of livestock across my district and the rest of the
United States and in the failure of the government to properly pay for
the cost of its decision to reintroduce the wolf.
I will address the lack of management first.
Let me begin my discussion of failed management by showing several
pictures which are graphic illustrations of the lurking reality that
many of my ranching families must deal with every single day.
As you can see, there is nothing refined about how a wolf goes about
feeding itself. You can only imagine the feelings of the rancher when
he or she finds their livestock torn apart or dying. You can try to
imagine the anger they feel, knowing that they are legally prevented
from stopping that wolf before it causes this pain and horror for their
cattle and calves and stopping these wolves from doing this over and
over again and again.
I have held meeting after meeting across my district listening over
and over to stories about wolves attacking herds, scattering to the
four winds terrified cattle and calves, and ignoring the sad hazing
efforts that we heard about earlier from across the aisle that
livestock owners are reduced to using under the law to try to protect
their livelihoods.
The fury, the anger, the frustration, the fear that a wolf may at
some point attack a child, which it came close to doing earlier last
year while children in my district were waiting for a schoolbus, is
totally understandable and why we are on this floor sharing the reality
of the wolf in America today.
If we are to protect those who are trying their best to feed this
country, to make a living, to keep their communities viable and safe,
to put out range fires, to pay their taxes, and continue to be
productive parts of this Nation, we must manage the wolf. This means we
must delist the wolf and move management of these creatures back to the
States. Remember, this is exactly what the Democratic Obama and Biden
administrations and Republican Bush and Trump administrations have
agreed needed to be done literally years ago. The wolf listed status
continues only because of judicial fiat.
Let me turn to the actual cost of reintroduction of the wolf and the
need for those who have created this cost to be responsible for paying
for it.
University studies show that the annual cost of the wolf to the
cattle business as of a few years ago was estimated to be $128 million.
That is each year. This number is far higher now that cattle prices are
higher.
Many think the only cost of the wolf is the killing of the livestock,
but the impact of the primal fear and terror cattle understandably feel
when a wolf is near has dramatic and serious impacts on weight gain and
on pregnancy rates. These losses in production are real, and they are
serious. In a time when even the President is concerned about beef
prices, these losses affect everyone by causing a reduction in the size
of America's cattle herd and, of course, their productivity.

{time} 1230

In recognition of this damage caused by the wolf, laws have been
enacted, some in the big, beautiful bill and some at the State level,
to try to bring at least some ESA reimbursement equity into play by
providing some payment to the owners for the death of cattle caused by
wolves, but these programs come nowhere close to offsetting the very
real loss.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that the rancher would be absolutely
happier if he or she could completely avoid these losses that lead to
asking for justice under these programs.
If we are to properly, fairly, and logically manage the wolf, we must
pass Congresswoman Boebert and Congressman Tiffany's bill, H.R. 845,
the Pet and Livestock Protection Act.

[[Page H6056]]

This bill would federally delist the wolf and allow States to
actually manage wolf populations--not exterminate, manage. If we are to
properly allocate responsibility for the monetary cost of the wolf--
that is, the cost of the Endangered Species Act--America itself must
pay for the consequences of this law. That means Congress must manage
the problem and appropriate dollars to pay for it.
Mr. Speaker, let's begin by passing this bill.
Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Crank).
Mr. CRANK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Pet and Livestock
Protection Act, which I am a cosponsor of, led by my friends,
Representative Boebert and Representative Tiffany.
The truth is, Congress should not have to step in to delist the gray
wolf, but here we are. That is because the Endangered Species Act
listing process no longer works as it was intended to do.
The gray wolf has exceeded recovery goals. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, has
repeatedly concluded that the species should be delisted. Yet, every
time, radical, litigious groups step in to block that decision.
They ignore science. They ignore facts. They ignore the law. They
don't want recovery. They want permanent Federal control.
Meanwhile, wolves are wreaking unchecked havoc on ranchers, farmers,
wildlife, and rural communities, which are paying the price.
In the State of Wyoming, since they reintroduced the wolf, their
moose population has decreased by 80 percent. Why are we choosing
wolves over moose in the State of Wyoming?
I spend more time in wolf country than probably many of the Members
on this House floor. The elk populations are being decimated. They are
starved. I hear my colleagues on the other side talking about how in 4
days, they killed 30 wolves. Do you know what? That is called wildlife
management. You can do that.
When you have a hunting season for deer and set a goal to kill 200
deer, there are 200 deer killed in a week. It is wildlife management.
That is what we do. That is what the professionals do and do
exceedingly well.
I find it interesting that it is the people in this Chamber who don't
have wolves in their district who want wolves in other people's
districts.
Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I will just clarify. I said that in
4 days, 30 percent of the wolf population was killed, 30 percent, not
30 wolves.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arkansas has 3 minutes
remaining.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Hurd).
Mr. HURD of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am an original cosponsor of the
Pet and Livestock Protection Act because it delists the gray wolf under
the Endangered Species Act. This gives wildlife managers more control
in States while protecting domestic animals from wolf attacks.
For years, Republican and Democratic administrations alike under
Presidents Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden have all reached the same
conclusion: The gray wolf population is healthy, has exceeded all
recovery goals, can sustain life from a variety of threats, and should
be delisted.
The Endangered Species Act was never meant to be a permanent listing
statute. It was designed to recover species, and once recovery is
achieved, to step back. That is not what is happening.
Environmental groups have repeatedly run to courts to block
delisting, ignoring the science and overriding bipartisan agency
findings. The cost is regulatory whiplash, uncertainty, and paralysis
while ranchers, landowners, and rural communities pay the price.
Mr. Speaker, I will respond to something that was said at the
beginning of this debate. One of my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle criticized this Congress for discussing wolves and said we should
be focused on affordability.
First of all, we have been and are voting on bills that improve life
and make it more affordable for every American, but here is the thing:
For the ranchers, outfitters, and rural Coloradans I represent, this is
affordability. This is their livelihood. This is how food gets to
tables across America, whether you live in a small town or in the
largest city. This is a way of life that America depends on, and it
deserves respect, not dismissal.
H.R. 845 is supported by science. It respects each State's
circumstances. It delivers protection for rural America.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this bill.
Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 845 delists the gray wolf across the United States
and blocks judicial review of the delisting. This is an antiscience
bill that prioritizes politics ahead of species conservation.
This bill will result in hundreds of unnecessary and indiscriminate
wolf kills while doing very little to address the legitimate conflicts
between some wolves and livestock. I will work with anyone on
addressing those legitimate conflicts.
We have tools and funding available to address those concerns--not
enough, but we have those--without undermining the progress we have
made to recover this iconic species.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 845, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the facts and the science are clear. The gray wolf is a
recovered species. It is time for America to celebrate that, and
Congress needs to act to make that happen.
By passing this bill, Congress would be celebrating an ESA success
story and endorsing the bipartisan policy of four successive
Presidential administrations--namely, to trust the science and delist
the gray wolf.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Boebert and Congressman Tiffany
for their strong leadership on this important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 951, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Huffman of California moves to recommit the bill H.R.
845 to the Committee on Natural Resources.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Huffman is as follows:
Mr. Huffman moves to recommit the bill H.R. 845 to the
Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith, with the following
amendment:
Add at the end the following:

SEC. 4. EXCESSIVE WOLF LOSSES.

If, at any time, the Secretary of the Interior finds the
unsustainable harvest of gray wolves or another factor has
reduced the gray wolf population below recovery thresholds,
the Secretary shall, not later than 7 days after the date on
which the Secretary makes such finding, with respect to the
gray wolf--
(1) issue an emergency regulation under section 4(b)(7) of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(7)) to
temporarily restore Federal protections; and
(2) initiate a species status review.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. HUFFMAN. 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 will be postponed.

[[Page H6057]]

{time} 1240
DO NO HARM IN MEDICAID ACT

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 953, I call up
the bill (H.R. 498) to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
prohibit Federal Medicaid funding for gender transition procedures for
minors, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 953, the bill
is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 498

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Do No Harm in Medicaid
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITING FEDERAL MEDICAID FUNDING FOR GENDER
TRANSITION FOR MINORS.

(a) In General.--Section 1903(i) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1396b(i)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (26), by striking ``; or'' and inserting a
semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (27), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (27) the following new
paragraph: ``(28) with respect to any amount expended for
specified gender procedures under section 1905(kk) to an
individual under 18 years of age enrolled in a State plan (or
waiver of such plan), including any amounts expended for the
administration of a State program that furnishes specified
procedures and drugs to individuals under 18 years of age.''.
(4) in the flush left matter at the end, by striking ``and
(18),'' and inserting ``(18), and (28)''.
(b) Prohibiting Federal Medicaid Funding for Gender
Transitions for Minors.--Section 1905 of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(KK) Prohibiting federal medicaid funding for gender
transitions for minors.--
``(A) For purposes of section 1903(i)(28), except as
provided in subparagraph (B), the term `specified gender
transition procedures' means, with respect to an individual,
any of the following when performed for the purpose of
intentionally changing the body of such individual (including
by disrupting the body's development, inhibiting its natural
functions, or modifying its appearance) to no longer
correspond to the individual's sex:
``(i) Performing any surgery, including--

``(I) castration;
``(II) sterilization;
``(III) orchiectomy;
``(IV) scrotoplasty;
``(V) vasectomy;
``(VI) tubal ligation;
``(VII) hysterectomy;
``(VIII) oophorectomy;
``(IX) ovariectomy;
``(X) metoidioplasty;
``(XI) clitoroplasty;
``(XII) reconstruction of the fixed part of the urethra
with or without a metoidioplasty or a phalloplasty;
``(XIII) penectomy;
``(XIV) phalloplasty;
``(XV) vaginoplasty;
``(XVI) vaginectomy;
``(XVII) vulvoplasty;
``(XVIII) reduction thyrochondroplasty;
``(XIX) chondrolaryngoplasty;
``(XX) mastectomy; and
``(XXI) any plastic, cosmetic, or aesthetic surgery that
feminizes or masculinizes the facial or other physiological
features of an individual.

``(ii) Any placement of chest implants to create feminine
breasts or any placement of erection or testicular
prosetheses.
``(iii) Any placement of fat or artificial implants in the
gluteal region.
``(iv) Administering, supplying, prescribing, dispensing,
distributing, or otherwise conveying to an individual
medications, including--

``(I) gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues or
other puberty-blocking drugs to stop or delay normal puberty;
and
``(II) testosterone, estrogen, progesterone or other
androgens to an individual at doses that are
supraphysiologic, greater or more potent than would normally
be produced endogenously in a healthy individual of the same
age and sex.

``(B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the
following when furnished to an individual by a health care
provider with the consent of such individual's parent or
legal guardian:
``(i) Puberty suppression or blocking prescription drugs
for the purpose of normalizing puberty for an individual
experiencing precocious puberty.
``(ii) Appropriate and medically necessary procedures or
treatments to correct for--

``(I) a medically verifiable genetic disorder of sex
development, including--

``(aa) 46,XX chromosomes with virilization;
``(bb) 46,XY chromosome with undervirilization; and
``(cc) both ovarian and testicular tissue;

``(II) sex chromosome structure, sexsteroid hormone
production, or sex hormone action, if determined to be
abnormal for a healthy individual of the same sex and age by
a physician through genetic or biochemical testing;
``(III) infection, disease, injury, or disorder caused or
exacerbated by a previous procedure described in subparagraph
(A), or a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical
illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the
individual in imminent danger of death or impairment of a
major bodily function unless the procedure is performed, not
including procedures performed for the alleviation of mental
distress; or
``(IV) procedures to restore or reconstruct the body of the
individual in order to correspond to the individual's sex
after one or more previous procedures described in
subparagraph (A), which may include the removal of a pseudo
phallus or breast augmentation.

``(C) Sex.--For purposes of subparagraph(A), the term `sex'
means either male or female, as biologically determined and
defined by clause (i) and clause (ii).
``(i) Female.--The term `female' means an individual who
naturally has, had, will have, or would have, but for a
developmental or genetic anomaly or historical accident, the
reproductive system that at some point produces, transports,
and utilizes eggs for fertilization.
``(ii) Male.--The term `male' means an individual who
naturally has, had, will have, or would have, but for a
developmental or genetic anomaly or historical accident, the
reproductive system that at some point produces, transports,
and utilizes sperm for fertilization.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour,
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie) and the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie).

General Leave

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H.R. 498.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 498, the Do No Harm in
Medicaid Act. This bill helps support our fellow hardworking Americans
whose valuable and finite tax dollars should not continue to fund
medically unnecessary care under the Medicaid program.
It is our duty as Members of Congress to focus hard-earned taxpayer
dollars on care that is medically necessary to improve the health of
Americans. H.R. 498, Do No Harm in Medicaid Act, does just that. It
prohibits Federal dollars from going toward specified gender transition
procedures for individuals under 18.
My fellow House Republicans, particularly my colleagues on the Energy
and Commerce Committee, have worked diligently this Congress to
eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicaid program and the
Working Families Tax Cut Act.
Our goal is to eliminate unnecessary and improper procedures and
strengthen Medicaid for expectant mothers and children, low-income
seniors, and individuals with disabilities.
The CBO estimates this bill would save taxpayers $445 million over a
decade. I want to make it abundantly clear that it in no way prevents
minors from accessing medical care that they truly need. It just simply
prohibits the use of Medicaid funding on specified procedures that are
medically unnecessary.
This critical legislation builds upon our work in the Working
Families Tax Cut Act to create a more sustainable Medicaid program. I
ask my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is shamelessly bold for Republicans to bring a bill
to the floor called the Do No Harm in Medicaid Act. That is today's
Republican Party. They simply lack any shame.
They say that they are doing no harm to Medicaid when their big, ugly
bill earlier this year cut nearly $1 trillion from the Medicaid
program. That is a huge cut that will leave millions of low-income
families without any health coverage at all.
We already see the devastating effects of their big, ugly bill.
States,

[[Page H6058]]

which are already facing budget shortfalls, stare down a reduction of
as much as 20 percent of their Federal Medicaid funding. They are being
left with an impossible challenge.
We are seeing across-the-board cuts that are crippling hospitals,
maternity units, home care providers, and clinics. We are seeing
healthcare providers close their doors and cut their services. We are
seeing States scale back benefits, leaving those who are able to keep
their Medicaid coverage with less of the healthcare that they need.
Now, even with all of that, Republicans have the audacity to bring a
bill to the floor that they claim is about doing no harm in Medicaid.
That is not what this is about.
H.R. 498 is an extreme attack on medically necessary healthcare for
children. The bill bans Medicaid funding for gender-affirming care for
minors and strips States of even more Medicaid funding if they choose
to cover this medically necessary care with their own State dollars.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans are once again reaching into the doctor's
office and taking deeply personal and private medical questions out of
the hands of doctors, parents, and patients. They are putting it into
their own hands, as if anyone wants politicians making medical
decisions for them and their children.
As Members of Congress, we ought to be focused on bringing down
healthcare costs and ensuring people have access to the healthcare they
need, not getting in the way of doctors and parents who know what is
best for their patients and their children.
The reality is this floor debate is nothing more than political
theater, aimed at distracting from the devastating healthcare crisis
Republicans created and are making worse every day.
They are trying to distract from the fact that their healthcare cuts
are going to strip healthcare away from 15 million Americans and close
hospitals all across the Nation. They are trying to distract from the
fact that they are letting the Affordable Care Act's enhanced premium
tax credits expire on January 1.
Republican inaction is driving up healthcare costs for more than 20
million Americans who are facing double, triple, or even quadruple
premium increases.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans can't distract from this cruelty. I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
I also call on Speaker Johnson to immediately bring up the Jeffries
discharge petition that now has the support of a majority of House
Members and that would extend the ACA premium tax credits for 3 years.
A majority of this House--Democrat and Republican--wants to act to
extend these tax credits. It is time for Speaker Johnson to bring that
bill to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Mrs. Miller).
Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support
of H.R. 498, the Do No Harm in Medicaid Act.

Medicaid was designed as a safety net to be used only by U.S.
citizens when they fall onto hard times and need medical support. It
was never intended to bankroll irreversible, gender-mutilating
surgeries on vulnerable children. Yet, today, this program is being
exploited by the far left, preying on young children to advance their
radical trans agenda.
Adolescence is a vulnerable time for boys and girls. They are growing
into the young men and women that God intended them to be. What these
children really need is love and wise counsel, not taxpayer-funded
permanent chemical sterilization, mutilating surgeries, or activists
profiting from their confusion.
The most egregious actor is none other than Planned Parenthood, the
leading abortion provider in the Nation and now the leading provider of
these dangerous procedures. The Do No Harm in Medicaid Act shields
innocent children from predatory companies and stops Medicaid from
being weaponized against our next generation.
Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has no business paying for the
destruction of children's bodies, and the American people should never
be complicit in it. I thank my colleagues for leading this bill, and I
urge all to vote ``yes.''
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Takano), the chair of the Congressional Equality
Caucus.
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this hateful
legislation. The so-called Do No Harm in Medicaid Act prohibits
Medicaid from spending funds on medically necessary care like puberty
blockers and gender-affirming hormone treatment for transgender
individuals under 18.
This is Congress seeking to ban healthcare for the most vulnerable
among us. Republicans are working to ban parents from providing their
trans children on Medicaid with necessary healthcare. These types of
decisions should be made between families and their physicians. Yet,
here we are, letting politicians in Washington, D.C., tell parents
across America that they know how to raise their trans youth.
Transgender people need consistent access to essential and medically
necessary care like everyone else. This care makes it possible for
transgender people to live safely and authentically as themselves.
I have spoken with countless families about the impact of this
lifesaving care and what it has done for their children. I have also
spoken with doctors that have provided this safe and effective care.
The healthcare that trans youth receive is a decision that they should
be able to make in consultation with their parents, therapists, and
doctors, not by politicians.

{time} 1250

Medical care for transgender youth is safe and effective and is
supported by every major medical association, representing more than
1.3 million U.S. doctors.
The hypocrisy of this legislation is staggering. The bill bans
Medicaid from covering medical care for transgender youth but allows
for the same exact care for nontransgender youth. The proof is here in
black and white. Republicans are seeking specifically to target
transgender youth, and trans people are less than 1 percent of the
population.
Republicans are targeting the wrong 1 percent. This is not the 1
percent that is trying to take away the healthcare of all Americans. I
call on the Speaker to bring the Affordable Care Act tax credits to the
floor now, today, and save healthcare for 22 million Americans.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Do
No Harm in Medicaid Act, which will ensure that taxpayer dollars are
not funding the evil practice of transgender child mutilation. I thank
my colleagues from Texas and from Kentucky for sponsoring this
important bill.
As a father of eight myself, I know that we all want our children to
grow up healthy, supported, and empowered. Children should not be
subjected to a medical system that pushes life-altering medical
procedures and hormone treatments that are incredibly harmful.
As a family doctor for over 25 years, I took an oath to do no harm
and provide my patients of all ages evidence-supported treatment plans.
That is why, as a Utah State senator, I led the way in 2023 by passing
Utah's landmark legislation that banned transgender treatments and
procedures for minors.
As a result, I faced death threats, and my house was vandalized by
woke activists, as demonstrated to my left. I am not deterred. That is
why I am staunchly committed to getting this right and finding Federal
solutions, as I did in Utah, that will protect America's children.
At the core of the practice of medicine is that we do not subject the
patient to unnecessary and dangerous medical treatments. When it comes
to gender-transition interventions, puberty blockers, hormones like
testosterone and estrogen, and surgical procedures, the evidence shows
that this is the wrong approach to getting these kids the help that
they need.
The most comprehensive and authoritative review of these practices
was conducted in the United Kingdom by Dr. Hilary Cass. Her 2024 ``Cass
Review'' concluded that the scientific evidence supporting such
interventions is

[[Page H6059]]

remarkably weak. There is no strong, long-term evidence showing that
puberty blockers and transgender surgeries improve long-term mental or
physical health outcomes for minors, nor is there robust data on their
safety or impact on development.
In the United States, the Department of Health and Human Services
released a peer-reviewed report last month titled: ``Treatment for
Pediatric Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence and Best Practices.''
This study concluded that harms from treatments, including these
puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries are significant,
long-term, and frequently underrecognized in clinical research. The
evidence for these interventions in minors is weak and insufficiently
checked, particularly for outcomes like fertility, psychological well-
being, and quality of life.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Utah.
Mr. KENNEDY of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to protect the children
of Utah and commend the 25 other States that have stood up for their
kids, as well. I urge all of my colleagues to follow the scientific
evidence and stop funding these horrific procedures on kids.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Tonko), who is the ranking member of our Environment
Subcommittee.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pallone) for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is the latest in a long line of cruel and
calculated Republican actions to erase and endanger LGBTQ+ people,
especially trans youth, by using fear as a political weapon.
Let's be clear. Kids trying to live authentically are not a threat.
Families seeking care are not political pawns, and the providers
committed to their oath to do no harm are no extremists.
Every major U.S. medical group agrees that healthcare for trans youth
is safe, effective, and necessary.
This care can reduce anxiety, reduce depression and suicide risk, and
help young people thrive. If any other treatment lowered suicidal
ideation at the same rate, we would call it a miracle. The ability is
that we have an opportunity here to help our kids live as their true
and healthy selves, and that is a miracle.
Yet instead of us celebrating or expanding access to lifesaving care,
we are debating the bill that would prevent families from getting their
children the care that they need. It is, frankly, embarrassing.
Politicians should not be telling parents how to raise their own
children.
Mr. Speaker, I will fight bills like this with everything I have
because equality and dignity and justice are not up for debate.
I stand with the trans community in New York-20 and beyond, and I
urge my colleagues to reject this bill.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Crenshaw), the sponsor of the legislation and member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to have sponsored this
legislation and have fought this battle for many years.
I think we could actually get it done this time. I am not sure that
my colleagues even believe what they are saying. I think they know that
their constituents don't believe it.

Let's not forget that, in the 1930s, the medical community believed
that lobotomies could cure psychosis. They also believed that
electroshock therapy could do the same. They even gave the lobotomy
inventor a Nobel Prize in 1949. Then the science caught up with the
ideology, and medicine was changed for the better.
Today's great sin in medicine is perhaps one of the worst that we
have seen in human history. It is a sick and twisted ideology paired
with a social media-fueled social contagion that has actually
normalized the ultimate lie, which is that biological gender does not
matter and can even be changed. Here is the greatest sin: that this lie
also applies to children.
There are some very simple, fundamental truths in life: Men are men,
women are women, and children are innocent. They can't be told that
they are in the wrong body.
Mutilating children is wrong. Irreversible treatments on children who
need therapy is wrong. These truths are very obvious to the vast
majority of Americans, and it takes an incredible amount of propaganda
and institutional coercion to get an entire society to even question
these truths. Yet that is exactly what has happened.
Mr. Speaker, polls indicate that more than 70 percent of Americans
support a full ban on puberty blockers for minors. That is from places
like The Washington Post.
Imagine if the question had been asked differently. That is just
about puberty blockers. What if they had been asked about double
mastectomies on 12-year-old girls. I think the number would be probably
approximately 90 percent, maybe higher.
Mr. Speaker, I am not arguing with my colleagues. I am pleading with
Members to understand this. Their constituents don't want children to
undergo gender transformations. They don't.
Their constituents know that kids are too young to understand the
consequences of permanent physiological changes. I think my colleagues
know it, too.
Even if my colleagues are uncertain about that, I think they can be
rest assured that they definitely don't want their tax dollars to pay
for it, which is all this bill does.
This debate is so often buried under euphemisms. There is gender-
affirming care. There is a medical consensus. There is a standard of
care.
Strip away the language. Here is the reality: Healthy children are
being placed on drugs that halt normal development, sterilize them,
permanently alter their bodies before they are even old enough to vote
or drink or get a tattoo.
These are kids suffering from teenage angst, and I don't deny the
existence of gender dysphoria. However, psychotherapy is the answer to
that, not permanent hormonal changes or surgical mutilations. That is
not compassion. That is not medicine. That is an abomination.
We are told that questioning this practice puts children at risk and
that if we don't medicalize a child's distress, they will take their
own life. That claim has been debunked. It is not supported by science.
Studies from all over the world have proven it false, and those who
continue to promulgate it should be ashamed.
The highest quality medical reviews have consistently found no clear
evidence that puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or surgeries reduce
suicide risk in minors--none. Yet we are told to suspend our moral
judgment, suspend scientific skepticism, and accept irreversible harm
as the default response to childhood stress. That is not how
responsible medicine works.
Puberty blockers are not approved by the FDA for treating gender
dysphoria. They were never designed to interrupt normal puberty in
otherwise healthy children. Cross-sex hormones can permanently
compromise fertility. Surgeries irreversibly alter healthy organs.
These are not neutral acts.

{time} 1300

These are life-altering decisions imposed on minors whose brains,
identities, and bodies are still developing.
We are told that treatments are reversible. That claim is very false.
International health authorities have concluded that suppressing
puberty often locks children into a pathway toward permanent medical
transition. Nearly every child placed on puberty blockers proceeds with
the cross-sex hormones. The so-called pause button that almost always
leads to irreversible outcomes is not a pause. It is a trap.
While activists insist this is settled science, the rest of the world
is pulling the emergency brake. The United Kingdom now limits puberty
blockers. Sweden and Finland have sharply restricted their use.
France's medical authorities warn of serious risks to bone development
and fertility. Those lying, depraved activists reviewed the same
evidence and said, No, we are good with it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Children suffering from gender dysphoria deserve care,

[[Page H6060]]

dignity, and clinical compassion, but that compassion does not mean
pushing them on a medical pathway that leads to irreversible physical
harm.
The answer is in evidence-based psychotherapy care, therapy, family
support, and clinical monitoring over time.
What does this bill even do? The Do No Harm in Medicaid Act draws a
very clear moral line that the government will not participate in,
endorse, or normalize irreversible gender surgeries and chemical
interventions on minors.
It is codifying President Trump's agenda to protect our children and
keep them healthy. It says he won't be complicit.
Medicaid won't fund this abomination, but contrary to what many of
the claims are, it preserves narrow exceptions for genuine medical
conditions, like early onset puberty, disorders of sex development, and
treatment of complications.
This was a very carefully crafted bill that addresses all the
concerns that have been raised. It is not about hate. It is not about
politics. It is about protecting kids when adults fail them. It is an
easy vote.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Do No Harm in
Medicaid Act, please.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Pallone for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the deceptively titled Do No Harm in
Medicaid Act.
Healthcare costs are about to skyrocket for millions of Americans
across the country, but instead of solving that crisis, we are here
with a bill that has politicians interfering with personal healthcare
decisions and outrageously putting into law provisions that will
essentially ban the type of healthcare that Republicans have decided
they don't like. Personal healthcare decisions should be made by
patients and providers, not by politicians.
This bill attacks the rights of States by banning Medicaid from
covering any medical care for transgender youth, and it would put
discrimination into law because it would allow the same exact care for
cisgender youth.
The history of gender diverse people goes back to ancient cultures,
and why this House majority is so obsessed with a very small group of
vulnerable people baffles me. Transgender people deserve the same
protections as everyone else, including the ability to access medically
necessary care. They certainly don't deserve this bill.
Research shows that health insurance coverage for transgender people
is affordable and cost-effective.
This legislation is about discrimination, and we have seen this
playbook time and time again. Republicans are fear-mongering about the
trans community to divert attention from the fact that they have no
real solutions to make healthcare more affordable.
Congress should be focused on fixing the expiring ACA subsidies,
addressing the rising costs of healthcare, and addressing affordability
issues, which is what I am hearing about at home. We should not be
working on this bill that would interfere in personal healthcare
decisions that are between patients and their own healthcare providers.
Mr. Speaker, this bill will cause, not prevent, harm, and I urge my
colleagues to reject it.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Washington State (Ms. Randall).
Ms. RANDALL. Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here listening to the
remarks on the floor, and I have to admit that I find myself torn
between heartbroken tears and the urge to throw something, which I will
not do because I am a professional human being.
I have to wonder how many actual trans people and families of trans
kids anyone on the other side of the aisles knows, how many
conversations anyone has had with parents who are staying up late
worried about whether that night is the night that their child is going
to take their life because they feel so unsupported and so unloved and
are taking in the hatred from the floor of the House of
Representatives.
The kids and parents in my community live their lives in terror, and
they have it the best, because Washington State is a place where we
have fought to protect healthcare access for LGBTQ kids and trans kids.
We have fought to ensure that every young person has the ability to
make healthcare decisions that are right for them, in consultation with
their parents and their doctors. It is true medically directed care in
consultation with a doctor.
The American people have told us over and over that they don't want
politicians in the doctor's office. They don't want politicians making
decisions about what kind of medical care they can access, but that is
what is happening right now.

They are trying to strip away lifesaving care from children who are
moving to my State at higher and higher rates. Almost every week, I
hear of a family who has moved from Texas, Idaho, or Florida because
the parents want their children to survive.
This effort not only to cut Medicaid coverage but to try to ban
access for children--
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Washington.
Ms. RANDALL. Mr. Speaker, this behavior is appalling. It is
dangerous. It is evil. It is evil to seek to deny lifesaving care for
children who are more at risk than any others.
I spend a lot of time in LGBTQ clubs in high schools, talking to
young people who are shocked when I come in and tell them that, as a
queer woman, I am a Member of Congress. They say: Do you know any trans
people your age? They don't believe that they will make it to 40. They
don't believe that they will make it to 50 or 60. They don't believe
that they have a future because they are watching the floor and
listening to the words that come out of our mouths, and they know that
half of the people in this Chamber do not care if they survive.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is very clear that I am not going to vote for
this bill, and I urge all of my colleagues to join me.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Crenshaw).
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I don't need much time.
The question was asked if we had ever bothered speaking to trans
kids. The answer is absolutely yes. Maybe that is why I am so
passionate about this. It turns out there are hundreds and hundreds,
thousands perhaps, of trans kids who were coerced by radicalized
doctors. Their parents were lied to.
Their parents were given studies that said there is a 1 percent
remorse rate. These studies are based on nonsense. They are not even
based on a pool of participants that are minors. They were told that
these things are just a pause button, that it is reversible, that this
is just a standard of care. Standard of care based on what? Based on
junk science. We cannot base standards of care on junk science.
Now, the science has caught up: the Cass Review study, the systematic
review, which is the gold standard of any kind of study because it
looks at all the different studies methodically, and then the 300-page
review that HHS just did.
I have had them on my podcast twice to talk about their experiences.
Chloe Cole spoke at the Department of Health and Human Services just
now, about an hour ago. Chloe Cole, at 12 years old, was going through
what a lot of 12-year-olds are going through. She is a tomboy. She has
older brothers. She likes sports. She is confused. Doctors tell her
that she is a boy. They convinced her parents of the same. She is put
on puberty blockers and soon on high levels of testosterone. By age 15,
she has a double mastectomy. She is not sure if she can ever have kids,
and she definitely can't feed her children normally.
Yes, we have talked to them. Maybe my colleagues on the other side
should, too.

{time} 1310

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Chu).
Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 498, the so-called
Do No Harm in Medicaid Act.
Yesterday, four Republicans stood with Democrats and signed a
discharge

[[Page H6061]]

petition to force a vote on a clean extension of ACA premium tax
credits, but Republican leadership is refusing to immediately bring
that bill to the floor.
Now, 22 million Americans will see their premiums skyrocket, and our
constituents will be forced to decide between healthcare and paying
rent or affording groceries.
Instead of allowing a bipartisan vote to lower healthcare costs,
Republicans have chosen to bring forward H.R. 498, which completely
ignores the affordability crisis and needlessly targets transgender
children.
That includes my nephew, Lee, who is currently transitioning. He is a
child. He is loved, and like every other child in this country, the
healthcare decisions should be made by his family and his doctors, not
by politicians.
H.R. 498 would strip Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming care for
trans youth, care that is medically necessary, evidence-based, and
supported by every major medical association in this country.
This bill will endanger lives, and it will do nothing to bring down
skyrocketing healthcare costs or address any real issues facing working
Americans. Instead, it denies medically necessary care simply because
that care goes to a trans child.
As vice chair of the Equality Caucus, I will always fight to protect
the dignity, safety, and humanity of the trans community.
Lee deserves better. Our children deserve better, and the entire
trans community deserves better.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my friend, I have asked,
since we have been meeting this year, about the extension of the tax
credits they keep bringing up. Remember, they are talking about the
extension of the tax credits that they set to expire.
So the question I have asked, and nobody has been able to answer, Mr.
Speaker, is: Why did you set them to expire? Remember, they were set to
expire in the Inflation Reduction Act, or the Green New Deal.
Within the Inflation Reduction Act, tax cuts were made so-called
permanent, although they were replaced in another bill, but they set
these to expire. Nobody has ever explained to me why the Democrats made
the decision to end the enhanced subsidies that they are talking about
and shutting the government down for 43 days, when they chose to end
them, and then coming in here today talking about we need to have a
vote on it, when they chose to end them. They never explained why they
chose to end them.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Crenshaw).
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I will not be long. I will just ask a
simple question, because the statement was made that all the science
suggests that these procedures are medically necessary.
Can they cite their sources? Show me the studies. I cited mine. Cite
their sources.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley).
Ms. PRESSLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
legislation. Every parent wants to keep their child safe, wants their
child to grow without pain, to sleep through the night without fear or
suffering. But when our children are growing up, it is inevitable that
they will need medical care, from a fall from a bike or a fall on the
playground.
Parents rush to the doctor's office. They bandage scraped knees. They
hold their child's hand and wipe away tears while their pediatrician
lays out a plan. In these moments, that urgent question on that
parent's mind is: What does my child need to be okay?
A broken bone, asthma, gender dysphoria, diabetes, whatever the
presenting issue is, a treatment plan takes shape.
For some families, what their children need to be okay is access to
gender-affirming care. They need care that is safe, evidence-based, and
recognized as essential by every major medical association; care, that
for some children, is the difference between despair and hope, between
isolation and community, between surviving and thriving.
Yet today, we are debating a bill that would tell parents on Medicaid
that their child's pain is unworthy of care, that their doctor's
judgment does not matter, and that politicians know better than parents
sitting in exam rooms.
Cole, a young person from Massachusetts, wrote to me and said:
Transgender people deserve the same chance to thrive and live
fulfilling lives as everyone else. Having the freedom to control our
bodies and seek the healthcare we need, including gender-affirming
care, is an essential right for all people.
I agree.
To Cole and every person who is trans or nonbinary, let me speak
plainly: You belong. You are enough, and you deserve to show up in this
world as your full, authentic self. You deserve to grow up. You deserve
to grow old.
Healthcare is a human right, and parents doing everything they can to
make sure their child is okay deserve support, not interference, and
certainly not cruelty.
I don't know what God y'all pray to, but the one that I know is a
loving God, and He does not discriminate. His love does not
discriminate. He loves all the children, including the trans children.
Healthcare is a human right, and parents doing everything they can to
make sure their child is okay deserve support.
Shame on this bill. Shame on an agenda that strips healthcare away
from vulnerable children, and shame on anyone who votes to deny care to
families trying to do right by their kids.

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Washington (Ms. Jayapal).
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
incredibly cruel bill.
As prices skyrocket, as Republicans strip away healthcare from
Americans across this country, strip away basic support for American
families, what are we using floor time for today? A cruel attack
against trans children that does nothing to lower anyone's costs and
does everything to put a target on the backs of our vulnerable kids and
families.
I understand that there is fear that has been promoted by the
majority around trans kids and what happens and what this process is. I
understand that we have to explain this to people.
But let me be very clear about something. The medical science is
clear. The decisions that have been made by trans kids and their
families are decisions that have taken months, years sometimes, to go
through, consultation with parents, with medical providers, with
therapists, before ever providing the medical care.
The most common form of gender-affirming care for young people is
medications that simply pause puberty and have been used safely for
decades.
Why do my colleagues across the aisle, so-called limited-government
people, suddenly want government to get in the way of the decisions
that parents and their kids make together? Why do they want to stop
children from getting medical care that has been proven to be safe and
effective and helps them to live happily, helps them to live, just
live?
Why is the majority attacking vulnerable trans kids and raising the
level of fear and hatred toward them?
We should be protecting every family's right to make the decisions
that they need to make for their child's well-being.
Let me tell you something. What is happening on this floor and in
this Congress around this issue is so incredibly dangerous. Trans kids
are walking around with mace in their pockets because they are being
attacked by people because the majority is insisting there is something
to fear from them.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Moore of Utah.) The time of the
gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Washington.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I will not stand for these kinds of
attacks. The condescension that is coming from the other side--have you
talked to your constituents? Do you really know? You don't really know
what you are doing.
Excuse me. We are here to represent our districts, and I still
believe I am the Member that gets the most votes of any Member of
Congress anywhere in the country. Don't tell me I don't know how to
represent my district.
What you are doing today, what this majority is doing today, is
making life dangerous for kids. What the majority

[[Page H6062]]

is doing today is getting in the way of families and parents and kids
making the decisions that they need to make so that they can live, so
that they don't commit suicide.
What parent in this body or anywhere in this country wouldn't do
anything for their children? What parent doesn't want their kids to
live?
This is dangerous. You are putting our kids at risk, and I will not
stand for it. The American people won't stand for it. Vote ``no'' on
this horrific and cruel bill.

{time} 1320

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman the Texas
(Mr. Crenshaw).
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, again, it has been stated that these so-
called treatments are safe and effective and save lives. I ask the
gentlewoman again: Cite your sources. Cite your sources.
You won't. That is because you know that I know all of the sources
that you are going to cite. You know what I am going to say about them:
about the problems with their methodology; about the pool of
participants they use; about how short those studies were; and about
how most of them didn't even apply to minors.
You know what I am going to say, and so you won't cite your sources.
Mr. Speaker, I will cite mine. We have systematic reviews that have
been published and accepted throughout the scientific community. That
is why the rest of the Western world is reversing their stance on this,
and the United States needs to also.
That is because I couldn't tell if that speech about harming kids was
about our bill or about the act of conducting irreversible
physiological changes on children who are going through gender
dysphoria.
Yes, we are trying to protect kids. We are trying to love our kids.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains on our
side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 11 minutes
remaining.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Schneider).
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Mr. Speaker, I hadn't originally planned to talk about
this, but today, December 18, is the anniversary of my grandfather's
passing 51 years ago.
My grandfather Emil and his wife, Molly, had 18 grandchildren. What
made them extraordinary is that they saw the grace of every one of
their grandchildren and wanted each and every one of their
grandchildren to reach their full potential. What made them truly
special is that that love extended to everyone in our community and
across the globe.
As a father of two, I want nothing more for my kids than for them to
be happy and to reach their potential.
As a Representative in this body in the House of Representatives, we
all should want nothing more for our kids than for every kid in America
to reach their full potential and be comfortable in their personal
identity.
That is why I rise so strongly in opposition to H.R. 498.
I ask my colleagues on the other side: What are you afraid of?
This harmful bill would prohibit State Medicaid programs from
providing lifesaving gender-affirming care to individuals under the age
of 18. It not only bars the use of Federal funds to States for this
care but prohibits States from using their own money to provide it.
My Republican colleagues want to insert themselves into the practice
of medicine and make a family's medical decision from the Halls of this
Chamber. Shame on them.
My Republican colleagues want a veto in what health services are
available to children and their families.
Mr. Speaker, even if you live in my State of Illinois where the State
legislature signed into law protections for gender-affirming care, this
body would still prevent that access.
This bill purposely targets kids, children, and only kids. These are
decisions that should be made by the patient, their parents and
guardians, and the medical providers providing the care to give these
kids the chance to reach their potential and to be comfortable in who
they are as Americans.
Without access to these services, my Republican colleagues are
putting children's lives at risk, and it is despicable.
I oppose this bill, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. I
urge my colleagues, as I have done, to talk to people and to talk to
families to hear the stories of how this care has saved lives and to
get their noses out of the business of individuals, their families, and
their medical providers.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I am glad my friend from Illinois pointed
out this only affects children because adults can make their decisions.
We don't take any decisions away from adults. This affects children.
It is very specific. I think my friend from Texas is going to talk
about it. I would like for my friend from Illinois, or anybody, to read
through what is specifically identified as prohibited in this bill and
say which of those saves someone's life. It is permanent surgery to
change someone. It is very limited what is in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Crenshaw).
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, this claim is made over and over, that
allowing gender-affirming care, as they call it, is saving lives. The
problem with that claim is that there is no evidence to suggest that.
All of the reviews, all of the studies, all of the systematic
reviews--a systematic review means a systematic review of all of the
studies--show that there can be no clear line drawn between suicide
rates and doing this kind of care.
A paper published in the British Medical Journal examined the
landscape. Mr. Speaker, 61 systematic studies concluded there is great
uncertainty about the effects of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones,
and surgeries in young people.
On suicide risk, there is no clear evidence that these medical
interventions prevent suicide. A 2020 study analyzing trans-identifying
patients of all ages over 40-plus years found that suicides occur at
every stage of medical transition.
A 2021 systematic review concluded that based on available data, no
conclusions can be drawn about whether hormones, puberty blockers, or
surgeries reduced suicide risk.
Again, in 2024, another independent review found that Britain's post-
2020 restriction of puberty blockers did not cause a rise in suicides
despite many of the lies told on social media by activists.

They keep saying that every medical society supports this--and, so,
okay, then, we have to listen to them. Well, that is true. It is
because of ideological pressure rather than scientific evidence. We
know that these studies that they are citing are based on low-quality
evidence, small sample sizes, and very high risk of bias.
A Johns Hopkins systematic review found that the evidence supporting
claims that hormonal treatments may improve quality of life,
depression, and anxiety among transgender patients was ``low.'' The
study called for more research, particularly on adolescents.
The same review concluded that it was about impossible--this is Johns
Hopkins--it was about impossible to draw conclusions about the effects
of hormone therapy on suicide risk.
Even a review published by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which
institutionally has supported gender transition, admits that ``evidence
regarding the psychosocial and cognitive impact of hormonal treatments
for transgender adolescents is generally lacking.''
I could keep going. The point here, Mr. Speaker, is you have got a
problem, and it is a gender dysphoric problem. We know that a kid is
going through something hard. And you want to take the most extreme
possible medical intervention to deal with that while the science says
we have no idea whether that is a good idea or not.
That is what the actual scientific consensus says.
Now, if the argument was: Hey, give them more fruit or something,
then that is not really harmful. That would be fine. We wouldn't be
arguing about it, but the minority is talking about double
mastectomies. They are talking about puberty blockers and hormonal
therapies that permanently change the physiology of a young person
before they are old enough to even understand what they might want in
20 years.

[[Page H6063]]

That is the most irresponsible type of policymaking one can imagine.
It is the most irresponsible type of medicine that one can imagine.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Soto), who is a member of our committee.
Mr. SOTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition today to H.R. 498, the
so-called Do No Harm in Medicaid Act, and I urge my colleagues to
support my motion to recommit.
H.R. 498 is an unnecessary ban on Medicaid funding. Instead, we see
what Republicans are doing: a $1-trillion cut to Medicaid in the big,
ugly law that is going to mean a 15 percent cut next year in Florida
that they are going to have to work on and trying to insert themselves
into deeply personal medical decisions.
Mr. Speaker, there was a Christmas miracle this week. We saw four
Republicans join us in a discharge petition to get at what the American
people really want to vote on. They want us to vote on extending the
enhanced premium tax credits for the ACA to stop a huge healthcare hike
for 20 million Americans. That is what people want us to be talking
about here today, before their premiums double, triple, and even
quadruple.
They don't want us to be delving into these culture war issues when
we have real work to do to fund Medicaid and to extend the ACA tax
credits.

{time} 1330

Affordability is the biggest thing in the Nation right now. My
district has the second most ObamaCare of any district. In my district,
275,000 people will see their healthcare double or triple, so this
should be the priority right now.
Mr. Speaker, all America wants for Christmas is a 3-year ACA tax
credit extension, and I am hoping we can get it together. I have given
us an opportunity.
For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to
recommit this bill back to committee. If the rules permitted, I would
have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill.
My amendment would include a clean 3-year extension of the enhanced
premium tax credits, just in time for Christmas.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. SOTO. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion
to recommit.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Since that is the motion to recommit, maybe it would be a good
opportunity for my friends on the other side of the aisle to let the
country know when they decided to let these tax credits expire in the
same bill that they have permanent tax credits for the Green New Deal.
I don't know, you would have to think maybe they want to take the money
from the tax credits and spend it on the Green New Deal. Unless there
is a better explanation than that, that is exactly what the bill did.
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on my side of
the aisle.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky has 11 minutes
remaining.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).
Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I just heard my colleagues across the
aisle give a lecture about irresponsible policymaking. I remind this
body that we are 7 days from Christmas. We were scheduled to take votes
tomorrow, but the Speaker and my Republican colleagues are in such a
hurry to get out of town before the holidays that you have canceled
votes tomorrow and are leaving town. In many cases, many of you are
planning to leave in the next several hours, and this is the bill that
you are running? This is the bill that you are running, not a bill to
save the healthcare of millions of Americans? This is your bill 1 week
before Christmas, to take healthcare away from LGBTQ kids in the United
States?
I mean, it is hard to believe that this is what you are doing with
your majority. This is one of the most powerful bodies in the world,
and you have canceled votes, to take away healthcare from LGBTQ+ kids.
If passed, this bill would prohibit young people in communities all
across the United States, in low-income families, from receiving
lifesaving care. I am proud to come from a State, New Mexico, that has
protected gender-affirming care and which stands with the LGBTQ+ and
trans community and their families.
Let me tell you that, yes, this is necessary care, and it is care
that keeps kids alive. It is about mental health. It is about self-
harm. It is about reducing suicides. It is about making sure that human
beings, young people, have access to care that is essential for them to
live their lives.
In addition to this, this bill tramples on the so-called States'
rights that you tell us every day you want to protect by penalizing
States that would take their own resources to ensure that kids have
access to care.
If you are actually concerned about the welfare of children, if you
are actually concerned about healthcare in this country and its costs,
and if you are actually sincere about your care for the American
people, then bring a vote on the Affordable Care Act extension to this
floor now.
The American people are tired of these games. You all are going to
get on a plane and go home in a couple of hours while millions of
Americans lose their healthcare, and this is the bill that you are
running on the floor before you do that? Shame on you. It is
disgraceful.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their
comments to the Chair.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentlewoman that we did have a bill
yesterday that passed. It hardly got any Democratic support. If you
look at the enhanced tax credits that they set to expire to pay for the
Green New Deal, so the moral cause that people are bringing up, they
chose to put Green New Deal tax credits over extended premium tax
credits. That is obvious. It is in the same bill. It wasn't like they
voted for one bill and then another.
At the same time, yesterday, we estimated a good half of the people
on--we know, from a GAO study, there is waste, fraud, and abuse in the
ObamaCare marketplace that we wanted to fix. It went to the Senate, and
it got taken out during the reconciliation bill.
We put in cost-share reductions that were estimated to lower premiums
in the marketplace by 12.7 percent. When it went to the Senate, the
Democrats challenged it in the Senate and took it out.
We also know there are another 163 million Americans who get their
healthcare from their employers, which they offered nothing to assist
and help, which we did yesterday. We know most of the people in the
marketplace are small business men and women who have to buy in the
individual marketplace because they work for themselves and don't have
a big employer with a big employee pool. We allowed them, in
yesterday's bill, to band together so they can buy across their
associations. Instead of being a car dealer with 20 employees, you can
be 100 car dealers, with 20 times 100 employees, so they have a bigger
pool and can get cheaper rates for their employees.

We did have a bill that passed yesterday without a single Democratic
vote that lowered premiums in the marketplace and premiums for every
working American.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Crenshaw), my friend.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I love debunking lies in real time. It is
one of my favorite things to do.
The chairman just did a great job debunking a lie. We were just told
that this is the only bill we are doing this week. No, it is not. It is
an important bill, but everything he just listed was also pretty
important to lower people's healthcare costs. I don't know why there
was no Democratic support for it.
I want to debunk some more lies. Again, on this idea that puberty

[[Page H6064]]

blockers for children are safe and effective, let me read some more
facts. The Center for Investigative Reporting found that the FDA
received over 10,000 adverse event reports from women who took Lupron,
which is a common puberty blocker, off-label as children, to help them
grow taller. Reported side effects included brittle bones and
fractures, tooth enamel loss and cracked teeth, spinal disk
degeneration and chronic joint pain, seizures, migraines, suicidal
thoughts--so it is actually the opposite, isn't it?--cognitive issues,
and fertility problems.
The FDA ordered the manufacturer to add a warning label, noting that
children taking Lupron may develop new or worsened psychiatric
symptoms. Trans-identifying minors are already three times more likely
than the general population to experience anxiety, depression, and
neurodevelopmental disorders.
Why make it worse? Stop talking about compassion. They are the ones
doing the opposite of compassion by tricking these kids into thinking
that this might be their answer. It is not. Therapy is.
There was another claim made that this tramples on States' rights, so
I guess we need to have a quick civics lesson. We are talking about
Federal funding, Medicaid funding provided by the Federal Government.
The Federal Government can put restrictions on what that money is used
for. It is not a trampling of States' rights. It is not a trampling of
doctors' rights.
Let me ask something. My daughter picks up my fake eyes, and she
goes: ``Eye, eye, eye.'' She is 2. She puts it on. Maybe when she is
old enough to talk, she might identify as somebody with one eye. Should
I take her to the doctor and say: Hey, will you enucleate her eyeball
because, you know, she identifies as monocular just as I am, just like
her daddy.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, you would say that is insane. You would
call that absolutely insane, and it would be insane.
Here is the reality. The scary part about that analogy is that it is
actually a lot less troubling to lose an eye than it is to completely
change your gender. Completely changing your gender is a far more
invasive procedure than losing an eye. Trust me, I know.

{time} 1340

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 4 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Kentucky has 7 minutes remaining.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just have to correct two comments that were made by my
Republican colleagues.
First, the sponsor of the bill said that they are just talking about
Federal funds. The fact of the matter is, they are not just talking
about Federal funds because this bill prevents States like Washington
State--we had two people speak about this--from using State funds for
gender-affirming care for minors. It is not just a prohibition on
Federal funds.
Also, my chairman from Kentucky kept saying that the healthcare bill
that the Republicans put on the floor yesterday would lower costs and
somehow address the healthcare crisis. It does not. It does not lower
costs, and it certainly doesn't extend the tax credits that are
necessary under the Affordable Care Act to lower costs. Those expire
January 1.
Mr. Speaker, I know the sponsor from Texas also mentioned medical
professional organizations that oppose this bill, and there are many,
but I include in the Record a letter from four of those organizations:
American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists, American College of Physicians, and American Psychiatric
Association.
December 16, 2025.
Dear Members of Congress: We, the undersigned medical
professional organizations, write in strong opposition to
H.R. 3492 and H.R. 498. These bills would criminalize and
dismantle health care for transgender young people and as
such represent a direct threat to patient welfare. We urge
you to reject these extreme proposals.
Families must be able to make personal medical decisions
regarding the care of their child in consultation with
trained health professionals. H.R. 3492 threatens parents and
physicians with imprisonment for obtaining medically
necessary health care. Such a proposal harms the physical and
mental health and well-being of families and interferes with
parents' ability to make informed decisions in the best
interests of their child. It also creates an irresolvable
ethical conflict that makes it impossible to fulfill their
duty to put the needs of the patient first.
Health care for transgender young people is individualized,
age-appropriate, provided according to longstanding expert
clinical guidelines, and supported by leading American
medical organizations. Under existing guidelines, medical
interventions are provided only after careful screening and
joint decision-making including a patient, family, and their
care team. H.R. 498 would insert the federal government
between patients and physicians. It would also put this care
out of reach for families nationwide by prohibiting the use
of federal Medicaid funding for its provision and requiring
physicians to provide different care to patients based on the
health insurance they hold. Preventing anyone from obtaining
medically necessary care threatens their physical and mental
health and well-being and that of their families.
Our organizations are united in opposition to political
interference in the practice of medicine. The confidential
relationship between a patient, their caregiver, and a
physician is the foundation of clinical care. Physicians and
other health professionals should never be criminalized or
penalized for providing care consistent with evidence-based
guidelines and best clinical judgment, and the government
should not interfere. Physicians, not the federal government,
are best positioned to work with patients and their families
to address their unique medical and mental health care needs.
We urge lawmakers to oppose these harmful intrusions into
the patient-physician relationship and the provision of
medical care.
Sincerely,
American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of
Obstetricians & Gynecologists, American College of
Physicians, American Psychiatric Association.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am going to read certain sections of it.
They say: ``We, the undersigned medical professional organizations,
write in strong opposition to H.R. 3492.''
``Healthcare for transgender young people is individualized, age-
appropriate, provided according to longstanding expert clinical
guidelines, and supported by leading American medical organizations. .
. . Our organizations are united in opposition to political
interference in the practice of medicine. The confidential relationship
between a patient, their caregiver, and a physician is the foundation
of clinical care.''
Physicians and other health professionals should never be stopped
``from providing care consistent with evidence-based guidelines and
best clinical judgment, and the government should not interfere.
Physicians, not the Federal Government, are best positioned to work
with patients and their families to address their unique medical and
mental health care needs.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Landsman), a member of our committee.
Mr. LANDSMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have been watching this debate, and I
will say just one thing, which is, Mr. Speaker, I remember when the
Republican Party was about small government, local control, and
personal liberties. Those were the foundations of the party that I grew
up with.
I wasn't a Republican, but I admired those things about the party. It
seems as if they all have strayed, Mr. Speaker, from those core tenets
of personal liberty, States' rights, local control, leaving people
alone.
We are talking about children here, kids who get bullied, who have
the highest suicide rates of any other group of kids. Now, politicians
are bullying them and saying that they are going to pick on them, too.
It is wrong.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 30 seconds
remaining.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I will say that I totally oppose this bill. I think
these decisions should be left with parents and physicians, but more
than anything else, I will mention today that Republicans need to do
the right thing and bring up the Jeffries discharge petition that would
extend the tax credits under the ACA for 3 more years. They should not
allow them to expire on January 1. It should be brought up now.

[[Page H6065]]

I oppose this bill, and I ask that the Speaker bring up the discharge
petition now.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I invite anyone to read through the list of
the specific things that are prohibited in this bill from being
performed on minors and say which one they think is good for a minor to
have. Instead of reading through the list, I wish they would go through
the list and say which is good for a minor to have.
On Medicaid, we have this issue of States providing Medicaid to
people who are here illegally. That is the Medicaid administration. It
is the same dollars. It is commingled.
If you are going to operate something through Medicaid, unless you
say that you are going to use Federal dollars for this procedure but
State dollars for that procedure, it is the same administration doing
them.
We tried to fix that in the big, beautiful bill. It was struck down
by the Democrats in the Senate. We think that is wrong.
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky has 6 minutes
remaining.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Crenshaw), my friend.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, in closing, let's just summarize what we
have heard today.
We have heard that so-called gender-affirming care is necessary,
effective, prevents suicides, and helps vulnerable children. No one can
cite any sources for that claim. They can cite letters from certain
associations that are ideologically driven.
I will again read the quote from the American Academy of Pediatrics
when they did a review. On hormonal treatments for transgender
adolescents, APA said: ``Evidence regarding their psychosocial and
cognitive impact is generally lacking.'' I get that their leadership is
saying one thing, but the scientists are all saying something else.
As responsible policymakers, we might want to take a pause before we
just go on and assume that permanent physiological changes to children
are a good idea because they are going through something tough, whether
that is gender dysphoria, teenage angst, depression, or anxiety.
If you talk about compassion, I am talking about compassion, too.
Compassion is being a responsible adult in the room for that child who
doesn't know all of these things.
Compassion is not a doctor lying to a child's parents about junk
science in studies that say they won't have any remorse, that they will
be fine, that puberty blockers are like a pause button. No, they are
not. There was a study in Britain that showed 96 or 98 percent move on
to hormonal therapies. It is not a pause button at all.
Again, ask the thousands of trans kids who now vehemently regret
their decisions. They are in lawsuits with the doctors who did this to
them. That alone should tell us to take a pause here.
Let's just take a pause on this ideology because there is no evidence
that it works, and there is plenty of evidence to show that it is
extreme in nature because it is permanent.
They wouldn't do this for any other body part. You can't just
identify as one-armed and ask the doctor to cut off your arm. The
doctor won't do it, just like the doctor won't take out someone's eye
because they want to identify like me. They are not going to do it
because that would be malpractice and insane.

Tell me how this is any different. I have asked my colleagues to cite
their sources many times, but no one has. I have cited all of them.
This is about very simple common sense. The vast majority of
Americans agree that these treatments shouldn't even be done on minors.
Mr. Speaker, let me remind everyone that this bill doesn't even go
that far. It simply says that your tax dollars won't allow this to be
done on minors, just your Medicaid tax dollars. That is all it does.
To not vote for this is to truly vote against their own constituents,
truly vote against the American people's wishes, and vote against
common sense.
The science is settled on this. There is no benefit to what they are
claiming. I don't know why they keep fighting this battle. It is a
losing battle. I hope many of them will change their minds and come
across the aisle to vote for this bill.
This really doesn't have to be a partisan issue at all. It should be
an issue of common sense, science, and true compassion for children.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1350

The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 953, the previous question is ordered on
the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit

Mr. SOTO. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. SOTO of Florida moves to recommit the bill H.R. 498 to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Soto is as follows:

Mr. SOTO of Florida moves to recommit the bill H.R. 498 to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to
report the same back to the House forthwith with the
following amendment:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF ENHANCED HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM TAX
CREDIT.

(a) In General.--Section 36B(c)(1)(E) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
(1) by striking ``January 1, 2026'' and inserting ``January
1, 2029'', and
(2) by striking ``2025'' in the heading thereof and
inserting ``2028''.
(b) Applicable Percentages.--Section 36B(b)(3)(A)(iii) of
such Code is amended--
(1) by striking ``January 1, 2026'' and inserting ``January
1, 2029'', and
(2) by striking ``2025'' in the heading thereof and
inserting ``2028''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2025.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SOTO. 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 will be postponed.

____________________