U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives
During a heated House debate, Rep. Pete Stauber (R-KY) and opponents like Emily Randall (D-WA) clashed over H.R. 498, banning Medicaid-funded gender-affirming care for minors, with Stauber citing irreversible outcomes like Chloe Cole’s case—testosterone at 12, double mastectomy by 15—while Democrats accused Republicans of stripping life-saving treatment amid ACA funding neglect. Meanwhile, H.R. 4776 (Speed Act) passed narrowly (206-211) after procedural battles, with critics like Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA) warning it weakens NEPA protections for disadvantaged communities while supporters claimed it cuts red tape for critical infrastructure. Stauber dismissed redistribution schemes to fix healthcare costs, pushing instead for "free market reforms," framing the ACA as a flawed system needing overhaul. The episode underscores deep divides on medical autonomy, environmental law, and partisan healthcare priorities, revealing how legislative battles reflect broader cultural and ethical conflicts. [Automatically generated summary]
Children suffering from gender dysphoria deserve care and 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, clinical monitoring over time.
So what does this bill even do?
The Do No Harm in Medicaid Act draws a very clear moral line.
The government will not participate in, endorse, or normalize irreversible gender surgeries and chemical interventions on minors.
It's codifying President Trump's agenda to protect our children and keep them healthy.
It says it won't be complicit.
Medicaid won't fund this abomination.
But contrary to 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 of the concerns that have been made.
It's not about hate.
It's not about politics.
It's about protecting kids when adults fail them.
It's an easy vote.
I urge my colleagues to support the Do No Harm Act.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to Ranking Member Pallone for yielding.
I rise to oppose the deceptively titled Do No Harm Act.
Health care costs are about to skyrocket for millions of Americans across the country, but instead of solving that crisis, we're here with a bill that has politicians interfering in personal health care decisions and outrageously putting into law provisions that will essentially ban a type of health care that Republicans have decided they don't like.
Personal health care 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 will put discrimination into law because it would allow the exact same care for cisgender youth.
You know, 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, and 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've 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 solution to make health care more affordable.
Congress should be focused on fixing the expiring ACA subsidies, addressing the rising cost of health care, and addressing affordability issues, which is what I'm hearing about at home.
We should not be working on this bill that would interfere in personal health care decisions that are between their patients, between patients and their own health care providers.
Mr. Speaker, this bill will cause not prevent harm, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.
Mr. Speaker, I've 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, I don't know, throw something, which I will not do because I am a professional human being.
But I have to wonder how many actually actual trans people and the families of trans kids anyone on the other side of the aisle 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 like taking in the hatred from the floor of the House of Representatives.
The kids and the 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 health care access for LGBTQ kids and trans kids.
We have fought to ensure that every young person, every young person, has the ability to make health care decisions that are right for them in consultation with their parents and their doctors.
And it is true, medically directed care in consultation with a doctor.
The American people have told us over and 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 that they can access.
But that is what is happening right now.
They are trying to strip away life-saving 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 or Idaho or Florida because parents want their children to survive.
And this effort not only to cut Medicaid coverage, but to try and ban access for children's time zone.
It is evil to seek to deny life-saving care from children who are more at risk than any others.
I spend a lot of time in LGBTQ clubs and high schools talking to young people who are shocked when I come in and tell them that as a queer woman, I'm a member of Congress.
And they say, do you know any trans people your age?
Because 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 they listen 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.
I think it's very clear that I'm not going to vote for this bill, and I would urge all of my colleagues to join me.
I don't know how much time the other question was asked: if we had ever bothered speaking to trans kids, the answer is absolutely yes.
Maybe that's why I'm so passionate about this.
Because it turns out there's 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's a 1% remorse rate.
These studies are based on nonsense.
They're not even based on a pool of participants that are minors.
They were told that these things are just a pause button, that it's reversible, that this is just the standard of care.
Standard of care based on what?
Based on junk science.
You cannot base standards of care on junk science.
And now the science is caught up.
The cast review study, the systematic review, which is the gold standard of any kind of study because it looks at all of the different studies methodically.
And then the 300-page review that HHS just did.
I've had them on my podcast twice to talk about their experiences.
Chloe Cole just spoke at a Department of HHS 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's a tomboy.
She has older brothers.
She likes sports.
And she's confused.
And so doctors tell her that, well, you're a boy.
And they convince her parents of the same.
She's put on puberty blockers and soon on high levels of testosterone.
And by age 15, a double mastectomy.
She's not sure if she can ever have kids.
And she definitely can't feed her children normally.
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 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 health care and paying rent or afford groceries.
Instead of allowing a bipartisan vote to lower health care costs, Republicans have chosen to bring forward H.R. 498, which completely ignores the affordability crisis and needlessly targets transgender children.
And 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 health care decisions should be made by his family and his doctors, not by politicians.
But 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 health care 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.
So, first, before I yield to my friend, I just want to say I've asked, I guess since we've been meeting this year, about the extension of the tax credits they keep bringing up.
And remember, they're talking about the extension of the tax credits that they set to expire.
And so, the question I've asked, and nobody's 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, and nobody's ever explained to me why the Democrats made the decision to end the enhanced subsidies that they're talking about and calling on shut the government down for 43 days when they chose to end them.
And then coming here today and talking about we need to have a vote on it when they chose to end them.
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, a fall from a bike, a broken arm on the playground.
Parents rush into 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.
And 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, 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.
And 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, 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 health care we need, including gender-affirming care, is an essential right for all people.
To Cole and every person who is trans or non-binary, 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.
Health care is a human right, and parents are 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 prayed 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.
Health care 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 the agenda that strips health care away from vulnerable children.
And shame on anyone who votes to deny care to families trying to do right by their kids.
I rise in strong opposition to this incredibly cruel bill.
As prices skyrocket, as Republicans strip away health care 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.
And 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.
And the most common form of gender-affirming care for young people is medications that simply pause puberty and have been used safely for decades.
So 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 did 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 towards them?
We should be protecting every family's right to make the decisions that they need to make for their child's well-being.
And 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's something to fear from them.
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're doing.
Excuse me.
We are represented.
We are here to represent our districts, and I still believe I'm the member that gets the most votes of any member of Congress anywhere in the country.
So 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.
And what the majority 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?
Again, it's been stated that these so-called treatments are safe and effective and save lives.
And so I ask again, cite your sources.
Cite your sources.
You won't, because you know that I know all of the sources that you're going to cite.
And you know what I'm going to say about them.
About the problems with their methodology, about the pool of participants they used, about how short those studies were, about how most of them didn't even apply to minors.
You know what I'm going to say, and so you won't cite your sources.
But I'll cite mine.
We have systematic reviews that have been published and accepted throughout the scientific community.
That's why the rest of the Western world is reversing their stance on this, and the United States needs to also, 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.
I hadn't originally planned to talk about this, but today, December 18th, 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 love extended to everyone in our community and across the globe.
As a father of two, I want nothing more for my kids than them to be happy and to reach their potential.
And as a representative in this body, in the House of Representatives, we all should want nothing more for our kids than every kid in America to reach their full potential and be comfortable in their personal identity.
And that's why I rise so strongly in opposition to H.R. 498.
And I ask my colleagues on the other side, what are you afraid of?
This harmful bill would prohibit state Medicaid programs from providing life-saving, life-saving 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 families' medical decisions from the halls of this chamber.
Shame on them.
My Republican colleagues want to veto in what health services are available to children and their families.
Even if you live in my state, 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, 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.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
I urge my colleagues, like I have done, to talk to people, 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.
I'm 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 just affects children.
And it's very specific.
And I think my friend from Texas is going to talk about it, but I would like for my friend from Illinois or anybody to read through what's specifically identified as prohibited in this bill and say which of those saved someone's life.
It is permanent surgery to change someone.
It's very limited what's in this bill.
And I will yield three minutes to my good friend from Texas.
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's no evidence to suggest that.
All of the reviews, all of the studies, all the systematic reviews, which systematic reviews 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.
Paper published in the British Journal of Medicine examined the landscape.
61 systematic studies concluded there is great uncertainty about the effects of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries in young people.
And on suicide risk, there's 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 reduce 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 every medical society supports this, and so, okay, we just have to listen to them.
While that's true, it's because of ideological pressure rather than scientific evidence.
And we know that these studies that they're 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, quote, low.
The study called for more research, particularly on adolescents.
The same review concluded it was about impossible, 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, quote, evidence regarding the psychosocial and cognitive impact of hormonal treatments for transgender adolescents is generally lacking.
Look, I could keep going.
The point here is you've got a problem, and it's 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's a good idea or not.
Now, if your argument was, hey, you know, give them more fruit or something, you know, that's not really harmful, so that would be fine.
We wouldn't be arguing about it.
But you're talking about double mastectomies.
You're talking about puberty blockers and hormonal therapies that permanently change the physiology of a young person before they're old enough to even understand what they might want in 20 years.
That is the most irresponsible type of policymaking one can imagine, the most irresponsible type of medicine that one can imagine.
I rise in opposition today to H.R. 498, the so-called Do No Harm in Medicaid Act, and 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's going to mean a 15% cut next year in Florida that they're going to have to work on, and trying to insert themselves into deeply personal medical decisions.
But, 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 health care hike for 20 million Americans.
That's what people want us to be talking about here today before their premiums double, triple, 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.
Affordability, biggest thing in the nation right now.
And my district has the second most Obamacare of any district.
275,000 people will see their health care double or triple.
And so this should be the priority right now.
Mr. Speaker, all America wants for Christmas is a three-year ACA tax credit extension.
And I'm hoping we could get it together.
And so I've 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 rule is permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill.
My amendment would include a clean three-year extension of the enhanced premium tax credits just in time for Christmas.
And I ask for unanimous consent to insert into the record the text of this amendment.
And I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to recommit.
Since that's the motion to recommit, maybe it'd be a good opportunity for my friends on the other side of the aisle to let the country know why they decided to let these tax credits expire in the same bill that they have permanent tax credits for the Green New Deal.
And so, I don't know, you'd have to think maybe they want to take the money from the tax credits and spend it on the Green New Deal, unless there's a better explanation than that.
Mr. Speaker, I just heard my colleagues across the aisle give a lecture about irresponsible policymaking.
I want to remind this body that we are seven days from Christmas, and 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.
And in many cases, many of you are planning to leave in the next several hours.
And this is the bill that you're running.
This is the bill that you're running.
Not a bill to save the health care of millions of Americans.
This is your bill one week before Christmas to take health care away from LGBTQ kids in the United States.
I mean, it is hard to believe that this is what you're doing with your majority.
This is one of the most powerful bodies in the world, and you have canceled votes to take away health care from LGBTQ plus kids.
If passed, this bill would prohibit young people in communities all across the United States and low-income families from receiving life-saving care.
And I want to say that I am proud to come from a state from New Mexico that has protected gender-affirming care and which stands with the LGBTQ plus and trans community and their families.
And let me tell you that, yes, this is necessary care and it is care that keeps kids alive.
It's about mental health.
It's about self-harm.
It's about reducing suicides.
It's 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.
And so I say if you are actually concerned about the welfare of children, if you are actually concerned about health care 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.
unidentified
You all are going to get on a plane and go home in a couple of hours while millions of Americans lose their health care.
I will remind that we did have a bill yesterday that passed.
I don't really got any Democrat support.
As you look at the enhanced tax credits that they set to expire to pay for the Green New Deal, so the moral calls here that people are bringing up, they chose to put Green New Deal tax credits over extended premium tax credit.
That's obvious.
It's in the same bill.
One like they voted for one bill, then the other.
It's in the same bill.
But at the same time, yesterday, we have estimated half the people that we know from a GAO study there was waste, fraud, and abuse in the marketplace in Obamacare marketplace that we wanted to fix.
It went to the Senate.
It got taken out during the reconciliation bill.
We put cost share reductions that were estimated to lower premiums in the marketplace by 12.7% when it went to the Senate.
The Democrats challenged that in the Senate and took it out.
We also know there's another 163 million Americans that get their health care from their employer, which they did nothing in offering nothing to assist and help, which we did yesterday.
We know most of the people in the small business marketplace, in the marketplace are small businessmen and women who we're allowing them to have to buy in the individual marketplace because they work for themselves and they don't have a big employer with a big employer pool.
We allow them in yesterday's bill to band together so they can buy with across their associations.
So instead of being a car dealer with 20 employees, you can be 100 car dealers with 20 times 100 employees.
And so they have a bigger pool so they can get cheaper rates for their employees.
So we are, we did have a bill that passed yesterday without a single Democrat vote that lowers premiums in the marketplace and premiums for every working American.
And I will now yield two minutes to my friend from Texas.
Chairman here just did a great job debunking a lie just told that this was the only bill we're doing this week.
No, it's not.
It's an important bill, but everything he just listed was also pretty important to lower people's health care costs.
And I don't know why there was no Democrat support for it.
But now I want to debunk some more lies.
Again, that this idea of puberty blockers on children is safe and effective.
Let me read you 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 and animal loss and cracked teeth, spinal disc degeneration and chronic joint pain, seizures, migraines, suicidal thoughts.
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 already three times more likely than the general population to experience anxiety and depression and neurodevelopmental disorders.
So why would you make it worse?
Stop talking about compassion.
You're the ones doing the opposite of compassion by tricking these kids into thinking that this might be their answer.
It's not.
Therapy is.
Look, there was another claim made that this tramples on states' rights.
So I guess we need to have a quick civics lesson.
We're talking about federal funding, Medicaid funding provided by the federal government.
And so the federal government can put restrictions on what that money is used for.
It is not a trampling of states' rights.
It's not a trampling of doctors' rights.
You know, it would be like, let me ask you guys something.
My daughter, she picks up my fake eyes and she goes, I, aye, aye.
She's two.
She puts it on.
Maybe when she's 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 she identifies as monocular, just as I am, just like her daddy.
You would say that's insane.
You would call that absolutely insane, and it would be insane.
And here's the reality.
The scary part about that analogy, it's actually a lot less 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.
I just have to correct two comments that were by my Republican colleagues.
First, the sponsor of the bill said that we are just talking about federal funds.
Well, the fact of the matter is we're not just talking about federal funds because this bill prevents states like Washington State, we had two people speak about this, to use state funds for gender-affirming care for minors.
So it's not just the prohibition on federal funds.
Also, my chairman from Kentucky kept saying that the health care bill that the Republicans put on the floor yesterday would lower costs and somehow address the health care 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.
And those expire January 1st.
Now, I just wanted to, I know the sponsor from Texas also mentioned medical professional organizations which oppose this bill, and there are many.
But I wanted to enter into the record, I'd ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from four of those organizations.
One is the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Physicians, and the American Psychiatric Association.
I'm just going to read certain sections of it, but I'd ask unanimous consent to.
Thank you.
Now, they say that we, the undersigned medical professional organizations, write in strong opposition to the bill.
Health care for transgender young people is individualized, age-appropriate, provided according to long-standing 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.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, Ranking Member.
I've been watching this debate and I wanted to say just one thing, which is, Mr. Speaker, I remember when the Republican Party was about small government and local control and personal liberties.
Those were foundations of the party that I grew up with.
I wasn't a Republican, but I admired those things about the party, and it seems as if you all have strayed, Mr. Speaker, from those core tenets, personal liberty, states' rights, local control, leaving people alone.
And we're talking about children here, kids who get bullied, who have the highest suicide rates of any other group of kids, and now politicians are bullying them.
Look, I just want to say that I totally oppose this bill.
I think these decisions should be left with parents and physicians.
But more than anything else, I want to mention today that the Republicans need to do the right thing and bring up the Jeffreys discharge petition that would extend the tax credits under the ACA for three more years.
They should not allow them to expire on January 1st.
It should be brought up now.
I oppose this bill, and I ask that the Speaker bring up the discharge petition now.
I would like for anyone to read through the list of the specific things that are prohibiting 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, all right, I think this is good for a minor to have.
On the Medicaid, states, we have this issue with people, states providing illegal Medicaid to people who are here illegally, is that the Medicaid administration, it's the same dollars.
It's commingled.
If you're going to operate something through Medicaid, unless then you say, well, we're going to use federal dollars for this procedure, but state dollars for that procedure.
It's the same administration doing.
And we tried to fix that in the big, beautiful bill.
It was struck down by the Democrats and the Senate.
We think that is wrong.
And I will yield the balance of my time to my friend from Texas.
In closing, let's just summarize what we've heard today.
We've heard that so-called gender-affirming care is necessary and effective and prevents suicides and helps vulnerable children.
No one can cite any sources for that claim.
You can cite letters from certain associations that are ideologically driven.
Funny, because again, I'll read you again the quote from the American Academy of Pediatrics when they did a review.
They said, quote, evidence regarding the psychosocial and cognitive impact of hormonal treatments for transgender adolescents is generally lacking.
So look, I get that their leadership is saying one thing, but the scientists are all saying something else.
And so 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're going through something tough, whether that's gender dysphoria or teenage angst or depression or anxiety.
Keep talking about compassion.
I'm talking about compassion too.
And 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 and studies that say, well, they won't have any remorse.
They'll be fine.
Puberty blockers are like a pause button.
No, they're not.
There was a study in Britain that showed 96 to 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 decision.
They are in lawsuits with the doctors who did this to them.
And that should just tell us, that alone should tell us, hey, let's just take a pause here, folks.
Let's just take a pause on this ideology because there's no evidence that it works and there's plenty of evidence to show that it's extreme in nature because it's permanent.
And you wouldn't do this for any other body part.
You can't just identify as one arm to just ask the doctor to cut off their 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're not going to do it because that would be malpractice and it would be insane.
Tell me how this is any different.
I've asked you to cite your sources many times.
No one has.
I've 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.
And let me remind everyone, 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's all it does.
To not vote for this is to truly vote against your own constituents and truly vote against the American people's wishes and vote against common sense.
The science is settled on this.
There is no benefits to what you're claiming.
I don't know why you keep fighting this battle.
It's a losing battle.
I hope many of you will change your mind and come across the aisle and vote for this bill.
This really doesn't have to be a partisan issue at all.
It should be an issue of common sense and science and true compassion for children.
The House is in the committee of the whole House on the State of the Union for further consideration of H.R. 4776, which the clerk will report by title.
A bill to amend the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to clarify ambiguous provisions and facilitate a more efficient, effective, and timely environmental review process.
When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, a request for a recorded vote on amendment number six, printed in House Report 119-410, offered by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Roy, had been postponed.
And just pursuant to Clause 6 of Rule 18, proceedings will now resume on these amendments, printed in House Report 119-410, on which the further proceedings were postponed in the following order.
The chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote that the first vote in after the first vote in this series.
The unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment number one printed in House Report 119-410 by the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Clyde, on which further proceedings were postponed, on which the A's have prevailed by a voice vote.
Those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted.
A sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered.
Members will record their votes by electronic device.
This will be a 15-minute vote.
unidentified
Thank you.
And the House holding its first and only vote series of the day before the holiday recess.
Right now, lawmakers are voting on an amendment to H.R. 4776, which streamlines federal environmental reviews for infrastructure and energy projects.
Offered by Congressman Andrew Clyde, it aims to clarify that the bill language direct harm does not include emotional, aesthetic, or recreational harm.
While members are voting, we'll show debate on the measure from earlier.
Today, in support of H.R. 4776, the Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development Act, the SPEAD Act is a focused, bipartisan effort to restore common sense and accountability to federal permitting by reforming the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA.
When Congress passed NEPA in 1969, it did so with the best of intentions.
It directed federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of major federal actions.
Unfortunately, what was meant to facilitate responsible development has been twisted into a bureaucratic bottleneck that delays investments in the infrastructure and technologies that make our country run.
The first Trump administration found that the average NEPA environmental impact statement between 2013 and 2018 totaled 575 pages and took 4.7 years to complete.
A quarter of them took six years or more, a glacial pace that cost the economy more than $100 billion a year.
And what reward do project sponsors get for preserving through this slog?
Too often, a gauntlet of premeditated predatory lawsuits.
Nationally, NEPA is the most litigated environmental statute.
And according to the Breakthrough Institute, just 10 environmental organizations are responsible for 35 percent of all NEPA lawsuits.
On average, it takes over four years to resolve NEPA-related litigation on EISs.
I doubt there is a single member of the House who has not heard of a NEPA horror story from a family construction company or a local official back home.
Today, the word NEPA is more synonymous with red tape and waste than genuine environmental protection.
The SPEAD Act would restore NEPA to its original aim of intentional, sustainable economic development.
The legislation fixes three major problems that over the decades have turned NEPA into a bureaucratic black hole.
First, it restricts NEPA lawsuits to parties that are actually impacted by a project, aligning judicial remedies with the procedural nature of NEPA while establishing reasonable filing deadlines to prevent litigation from being used as an indefinite delay tactic.
Second, it clarifies what projects must go through NEPA, ensuring that only projects with significant federal involvement trigger review.
And third, it codifies and strengthens key aspects of the Supreme Court's seven-county decision from this past May, clarifying the scope of environmental review under NEPA.
The SPEED Act is project neutral.
Its reforms will ensure a fair, predictable process and a level playing field for federal projects across all agencies and industries.
It's also timely.
U.S. energy demand is projected to rise by 35 to 50 percent by 2040.
Data centers alone could see their energy consumption triple in the next five years.
The electricity we will need to power AI computing for civilian and military use is a national imperative.
Every day, NEPA red tape is becoming more and more of an obstacle to American security and prosperity.
By restoring NEPA to its original intent, the SPEEDE Act will expedite infrastructure projects, bring down prices, and help Americans realize the energy dominance and mineral abundance our natural resources promise.
That's why a coalition of more than 300 industry associations, businesses, and trade groups from all 50 states in Puerto Rico support this legislation.
They know the SPEAD Act means jobs, fairness, growth, and a safer, more affordable future.
I want to thank the gentleman from Maine, Mr. Golden, for his partnership in this effort.
I would also like to thank the many members from across the aisle who have engaged in a productive manner to develop and improve this legislation.
Madam Chair, the SPEAD Act will deliver the energy and infrastructure Americans need.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
This is our last day in session before Republicans close up shop and send everyone home for a couple of weeks.
The majority could be using this time to do something, provide actual solutions to the health care cliff the country is about to go off, address the affordable cost of all manner of goods and utilities that have been set in motion by their wrong-headed policies.
But no, instead of doing anything to help Americans make ends meet, we are here on the floor giving more gifts to big oil, multi-billion dollar foreign mining corporations and special interests like the NRA.
So I guess Merry Christmas to all of them and a big lump of coal for everyone else.
To no one's surprise, Republicans have been working all year on handouts to big oil that were written for and by the oil and gas industry.
The first bill up on our Christmas list is for polluters.
It has been at the top of their wish list for as long as I've been in this Congress.
It is the SPEED Act, which is being sold to us as permitting reform.
And a spoiler alert, it is not permitting reform.
The bill takes a sledgehammer to the National Environmental Policy Act, one of our foundational environmental laws.
NEPA was enacted in 1970 on a bipartisan basis to require federal agencies to do something that seems very basic, to understand the consequences of their actions and to listen to the affected American communities before approving major proposed projects.
It's often described as telling agencies that they need to look before they leap.
Now, I'm not opposed to reforms to make NEPA and other laws work better, to make them more efficient, especially for the build out of the stuff we need, clean energy and essential infrastructure.
But we can do that while maintaining appropriate environmental protections, respecting tribal consultation, and protecting community input.
The SPEEDE Act does great damage to all of those things.
Instead, it abandons transparency and accountability while ignoring the single biggest permitting problem facing the energy sector right now, the Trump administration's all-out war against wind and solar, which includes a total refusal to permit these projects.
Now, from the beginning, Democrats across Capitol Hill have expressed a willingness to negotiate on permitting reform, including changes to NEPA.
But the first thing we needed to see was an end to the crazy, arbitrary war on clean energy that is needlessly driving up energy costs for millions of Americans.
And I hope you'll just take a look at this spaghetti mess behind me, because this is what Republicans have done to the permitting process for wind and solar projects.
On July 15th, Secretary of Interior Doug Bergham signed a memo listing 69 individual actions that require his personal sign-off.
Of course, this requirement only applies to wind and solar projects, not to fossil fuels.
But I'll name just a few of the things that now require Secretary Bergham to pause his global tour promoting fossil fuels all over the world and give personal sign-off.
If you need a temporary use permit for anything, if you need a national trail system impact evaluation, if you need visual impact analysis, the Secretary of Interior himself has to take a look at what you're proposing and sign off 69 times if you want to actually get a permit for a wind and solar project.
This is madness.
And since the memo's enactment, there has been only one single solar project all year long.
that has been approved.
It was just yesterday, and it happened only after heavy lobbying from the Republican governor of Nevada, who told the Interior Department that it wasn't just that project.
There are actually 33 gigawatts of solar and storage projects that are in limbo right now because of this log jam that they have created.
And they're going to be key to supplying affordable, reliable energy to meet increased load growth.
So to be clear, this is just one project that has made it through the gauntlet.
And it was fully approved, by the way, under the Biden administration.
But then the Trump folks came along and put the brakes on that project.
That's where we are.
That is the context for this conversation where my friends across the aisle claim to care so much about an efficient permitting process.
I think most Republicans would agree that, at least privately, I think they would agree, that wind and solar are essential parts of the energy mix, despite the President's war against them.
And that is why at Markup, Chair Westerman did incorporate a few Democratic ideas that at least attempted to provide some permitting certainty for projects of all kinds.
Now, those amendments didn't come anywhere close to actually providing certainty for wind and solar projects in the face of the administration's crazy war on clean energy.
The amendment would not get clean energy permits moving again, and it did nothing to help projects that the administration had already pulled the plug on.
But even that largely cosmetic step was too much for the Freedom Caucus, and so they struck again.
They demanded that the Rules Committee attach language to further stall clean energy permitting and to make it even easier for the Trump administration to continue blocking wind and solar projects in order to bring the Speed Act to the floor today.
That was the condition for our being here debating this bill on the floor right now.
So a bad bill got worse.
So bad that the American Clean Power Association pulled its support, joining the Solar Energy Industries Association in opposing the bill.
And for months, we heard from Chair Westerman, exhibit A for why Democrats should feel comfortable supporting this bill.
The American Clean Power Association supports it.
Well, that support has now curdled into opposition.
But you know who still supports it?
The American Petroleum Institute and the coke-backed Americans for Prosperity, who put out a statement immediately after the Freedom Caucus made the bill worse to announce their great affection and support for this bill.
The bill has lost any claim for advancing tech-neutral energy policy if it ever had one.
And trust me when I say that even if the House passes this bill today, it is going nowhere in the Senate.
What a missed opportunity to tackle a serious issue that Democrats were very interested in working in good faith to find some solutions on.
I strongly oppose this bill and reserve the balance of my time.
unidentified
The gentleman of reserves, the gentleman from Arkansas is recognized.
I'm glad my colleague across the aisle is so good at reading the mind of the Senate, but I know this legislation has bipartisan support in the House and the Senate, and we've got over 375 organizations from all industries and all 50 states that support this legislation.
And also, I think my friend made the case for why we need the SPEED Act.
If we want to stop administrative ping-pong, then Congress has to act.
And the SPEED Act is the bill to give us permit certainty so that we can build all across our countries in all different segments.
One area of the country that's been adversely affected by bad permitting is my friend from northern Minnesota, the gentleman, Mr. Stauber, whose district has a lot of mining resources that can't be tapped because of permitting restraints and administrative ping-pong.
I yield the gentleman who is the chair of the Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals, three minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4776, which I am proud to co-sponsor.
I want to begin by commending two of my good friends, Republican Chairman Bruce Westerman of the Natural Resources Committee and Democrat Representative Jared Golden, for their work in developing a sensible, bipartisan, and balanced permitting reform package that will allow us to build all kinds of important projects around this great country.
Our permitting system is broken and has been broken for a long while.
It's almost as if our current permitting system is designed to block projects rather than build them.
This is something that all of us on both sides of the aisle should be able to agree on.
The bill before us today is not designed to cut corners or weaken our permitting system.
It doesn't weaken environmental standards like the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, or Endangered Species Act, which are the basis of our environmental protection here in the United States.
This legislation is simply meant to address NEPA, which I would like to remind my colleagues is a process statute.
NEPA has been weaponized for over a half a century, virtually from day one.
In fact, the first lawsuit utilized to block a project under NEPA was filed a mere weeks after the statute was signed into law.
And since then, NEPA has created a cottage industry for attorneys who have made a living suing to block good projects.
The bill before us today is meant to streamline the NEPA process and close the loopholes that are constantly used to block good projects.
Projects that we need to modernize our infrastructure, ensure we have clean water, generate the energy that drives our economy, access to critical minerals we need to compete on the world stage, and so much more.
Thanks to NEPA, our broken permitting system, it takes 29 years on average to permit and build a new mine in the United States.
That's not okay.
I don't think a day goes by where I don't hear from a constituent about their permitting woes.
And I figure that's the case for most of my colleagues in this chamber on both sides of the aisle.
In northern Minnesota, the issue of permitting is particularly acute.
Not only is our broken permitting system used to block important critical mining projects like Twin Metals, New Range, and Talon, but it's used to block simple core infrastructure projects that we can all agree on, like water infrastructure or roads or bridges.
In northern Minnesota, our cold winters lead us to having a short construction window, much shorter than the rest of the country.
When a water infrastructure project or road or bridge project gets delayed and they miss that construction window, it delays the projects months and adds hundreds of thousands of dollars to the project.
And you know what, Mr. Speaker?
You know who pays for those costs?
The local taxpayer, not those who are weaponizing loopholes in our permitting system to block these necessary projects.
Our constituents have to deal with the shortfalls of our broken permitting system far too long.
And it's about time we address it.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
unidentified
I yield back.
The gentleman in reserves, the gentleman from California, is recognized.
Mr. Chairman, I need to provide some translation services for those who may not be fluent in Orwellian distortion.
When my colleague says that this legislation only deals with NEPA, that it doesn't touch the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, or Endangered Species Act, what that really means is that within the four corners of this particular bill, they're not gutting those other laws.
But rest assured, they're working separately to gut those other laws.
In fact, just last week, Republicans attacked long-standing Clean Water Act protections.
And just yesterday, the Natural Resources Committee had a markup that advanced their legislation to gut the Endangered Species Act.
So for those who want to see a complete annihilation of environmental protections across the board, rest assured our Republican friends are doing that, just not all of it within the four corners of this bill.
There's another translation I think that's needed.
You heard from my friend from Arkansas that they want to end the administrative ping-pong process.
What they really mean by that, if you actually read this bill, is that they want the 69 individual steps that Secretary Bergum has imposed on all solar and wind projects to remain in place.
I guess that's not administrative ping-pong, but I think it's an important part of the translation.
And then finally, we heard that this legislation is about restoring NEPA's original intent to just be a procedure bill.
It's important to understand that NEPA does require procedure, but it requires meaningful procedure for a very important purpose, making sure that government actions consider the impacts of what they're doing and include communities with transparency and accountability so we can protect the environment and so we can actually protect human health and other values.
When you strip all of that out and leave NEPA as a box-checking exercise, which is what this bill does, that is not preserving the original intent of NEPA.
With that, I'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from Washington, Ms. Randall.
Because of the Trump administration's policies, families in my district and districts across the country are struggling to afford their heating and electricity bills.
Yes, we need more transmission and clean energy projects, and it's true that the permitting process is making that more difficult.
But how can anyone think that this administration, the Trump administration, is a good faith partner in permitting reform?
They've fired federal workers and illegally canceled funding Congress already approved, including over $1 billion for clean energy projects in Washington State that had strong community support, a long-anticipated hydrogen hub in the South Sound, solar projects across the state and the country, and freight and drainage improvements in the trucking industry that would lower the cost of goods and decrease our environmental impact.
We could have been lowering costs, and we could have done it in partnership with environmental leaders, community leaders, and the leaders of tribal nations.
Tribes deserve to be meaningfully consulted on projects that affect their lands, water, and resources.
No exception.
That's why I offered two amendments.
One, to give tribes sufficient time to engage in the permitting process, and another, to ensure the offshore oil and gas drilling projects rubber-stamped by H.R. 1, July's big ugly law, still have to consider community feedback.
But Republicans blocked my amendments, which is why I'm voting no on the Speed Act, a bill that doesn't address the challenges my neighbors are experiencing.
Mr. Chair, I yield one minute to the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Bennett.
unidentified
The gentleman from Oregon is recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The purpose of process is to create a predictable sequence of steps to achieve an outcome consistent with substantive law.
When process is allowed to intrude, the purpose of the law itself is perverted.
As philosopher Franz Kafica described it, the process becomes punishment.
You aren't guilty or innocent yet.
You are simply processed until you run out of money, time, or sanity.
Procedure exists to serve substantive rights, not to supplant them.
As the Supreme Court stated in the Seven County case, NEPA is a purely procedural statute, not a mandate for a particular result.
This bill, H.R. 4776, is designed to create sideboards on process so that rote compliance is no longer the purpose of what we're about, but instead we focus on progress for this nation.
I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4776, the Speed Act.
For more than 50 years, the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, as it's called, has been the bedrock of conservation law and preserved the environment, human health, and the people's voice, the people's voice, and policy decisions.
The Speed Act would limit the public review process and, quite frankly, would undermine the original intent of NEPA.
I do understand the need to complete permitting and federal decision-making process more quickly than is happening.
But we cannot do so at the cost of public input and transparency.
I happen to know, I happen to have lived with the original author of NEPA.
And what he did when this was passed, and this is called the Magna Carta of environmental laws around the world, is make sure that when something is going into someone's community, the public has a right to input.
Now, I said yesterday, I told my chair, this isn't the Ten Commandments.
We should work together and try to help make it better, but not at the expense of the public.
One of the most significant causes of permitting delays is limited capacity at the agencies that handles NEPA reviews.
The Speed Act does nothing to address recent cuts to staffing and funding at these agencies, which is going to further slow down project permitting.
I remain open to working on a bipartisan permitting reform, but it must be done to protect the original intent of NEPA.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 476.
And Mr. Speaker, I yield back.
unidentified
The gentleman in reserves, the gentleman from Arkansas is recognized.
I rise in strong support of the Speed Act and the work that Chairman Westerman and a bipartisan coalition of members of Congress have done to bring a bill to the floor that actually focuses on letting us build things in America again.
And by the way, to lower the cost of those projects that we want to bring.
So, you know, in the past, you would see years recently, it takes 10 years or longer to build things that used to take only two years.
Why?
Not because of trying to push things to the side.
This bill still requires, by the way, Mr. Speaker, that we comply with all the state and local laws that are in place.
We still would have to comply with federal laws that are in place.
But what it does is it finally brings common sense by cutting red tape, Mr. Speaker.
Red tape that dramatically increases the cost, in some cases, just makes it economically unfeasible to do projects, to build roads, to build bridges, to build pipelines, to move energy to lower costs for families, to build housing.
This bill will allow us to bring more affordable housing to the marketplace in an environmentally protected way, by the way.
Those laws are still in place, but they just can't be abused as has been the case over decades.
When the law was created in the 1960s, the intent was never that NEPA would be used to stop projects.
It would be that you would review these projects like you review any other laws.
Endangered Species Act, which unfortunately has been heavily abused too.
And we're going to reform that as well.
All the other laws that are so abused to stop projects from being built in America.
Some people say, why can some of these other countries build a road or a bridge in 16 months and it takes us 10 years to do it in America?
It's because we have allowed these laws like NEPA to become so heavily abused where people that have no relation to the project can file lawsuit after lawsuit that have nothing to do with the project.
They just want to slow down and stop the project.
How about we bring common sense back into permitting?
That's what the SPEED Act does.
Again, do these people not trust the states that still have to permit at the local and state level, along with all the other federal permits that need to take place?
You know, we used to build things in America at rapid speed.
We can do it again.
And we will do it again with the SPEED Act.
Let's allow America to do all the great innovative things it used to do.
Look at AI, what artificial intelligence is allowing us to bring.
But we need to upgrade our electricity system.
We need to build more power plants, not just for families, but for innovation.
And it's almost impossible to do if we don't reform some of these outdated regulations that have been abused.
Everybody knows they've been abused.
And until we update our laws, we're not going to be able to build things again in America in a timely way.
Let's get things done in two years, not 10 years, or never.
Many of these projects get shelved, just never get built.
Really, they do get built.
They get built in other countries because our laws haven't been updated the way they need to to allow us to build things again in an economical way.
Lower the cost of building houses in America.
Lower the cost of building roads and bridges in America.
Lower the cost of building energy projects in America while still respecting environmental laws, but just removing the red tape that are killing our ability to innovate.
This is a great bill that needs to happen.
I'm so glad Chairman Westerman did the work to build a bipartisan coalition to get things done in America again.
Let's get the Speed Act passed, Mr. Speaker.
With that, I yield back to Valence Mentime.
unidentified
Reserve.
The gentleman of reserves, the gentleman from California is recognized.
The unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number five, printed in House Report 119-410 by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Roy, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the AIs prevailed by voice vote.
Those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted.
A sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered.
Members will record their votes by electronic device.
This will be a two-minute vote.
unidentified
And lawmakers voting on another amendment to H.R. 4776, which streamlines federal environmental reviews for infrastructure and energy projects.
This amendment is the first of two that will be voted on, offered by Congressman Scott Perry, clarifying that the environmental review only applies to the effects that lead the agency or cooperating federal agencies have the legal authority to regulate.
Also, a short time ago, the White House announced the Board of Trustees at the Kennedy Center voted to rename the institution the Trump Kennedy Center.
We'll hear from the President live this evening at 6 p.m. Eastern on the C-SPAN networks.
While members vote, we'll show more debate on the measure from earlier.
Many of which are in the SPEAD Act are meaningless if the executive branch is allowed to revoke issued permits for no good reason or if the permitting process can be subjected to political gamesmanship.
The language added to the SPEAD Act at markup would have restricted some of the political interference with issued permits, and that was a great start to solving the problem.
It wasn't everything we needed, but it was a lot, and I was confident that a bipartisan bill was well within reach.
And I was really disappointed this week that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, after seeing that good bipartisan progress, decided to force this bill in the other direction this week to satisfy grievances and score political points instead of what's best for the country.
And all of the above energy strategies, what we were after, that took a big hit this week.
Giving Donald Trump or any president the ability to decide what gets permitting reform, which would be the effect of the partisan amendment added to the Speed Act behind closed doors, significantly reduces certainty for investment in America.
That provision codifies a broken permitting status quo instead of setting a level playing field for everyone.
Energy producers, investors, and communities want to know that investment in America, regardless of the electrons powering that investment, is safe from the swing of the political pendulum.
And unfortunately, that goal has not yet been achieved.
We need to get permitting reform done in this Congress.
I look forward to working with my colleagues across the aisle in the Senate to craft a bipartisan product that could become law.
This is not the final draft, and there's more work to do.
unidentified
I yield back.
The gentleman in reserves, the gentleman from Arkansas is recognized.
Mr. Chair, I recognize the gentleman from Michigan who's on the Natural Resources Committee and also the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee, Mr. Wahlberg, for two minutes.
As the member who represents half of NEPA's original authors district, I rise in strong support of the Speed Act.
This bipartisan common sense legislation will streamline our permitting process, making it faster, more predictable, and more accountable.
Currently, our broken permitting process delays critical energy, infrastructure, and manufacturing projects for years.
This not only hurts workers, but raises costs for hardworking families and makes us more dependent on foreign countries, including our adversaries.
In Michigan, we need access to reliable energy to meet our growing demands, increase affordability, and help us compete.
However, these essential projects can't move forward if our permitting process is holding us back.
The Speed Act addresses these issues by streamlining reviews, setting clear timelines, and improving coordination across agencies.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation helps us build again in this country, from energy projects to manufacturing facilities.
America is entering a golden age of energy dominance thanks to President Trump's policies and the working families' tax cuts that Republicans passed earlier this year.
The Speed Act builds on this progress by cutting bureaucratic red tape, bringing back good-paying jobs, and revitalizing our infrastructure and our energy sectors.
We must restore common sense to our permitting process so we can unleash American energy and lower costs for hardworking Michiganders.
For all those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote yes.
The unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number six, printed in House Report 119-410 by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Roy, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
Those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted.
A sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered.
Members will record their votes by electronic device.
This will be a two-minute vote.
unidentified
And lawmakers voting on the last amendment to H.R. 4776, which streamlines federal environmental reviews for infrastructure and energy projects.
This amendment, offered by Congressman Chip Roy, defines further what significant effects would trigger an environmental impact statement.
As members vote, we'll take you back to debate on the underlying bill.
Agencies from considering those factors.
This law says ignorance is bliss.
That's why I offered an amendment to widen the scope of review to ensure that agencies weigh all relevant facts and subsequent consequences.
If we have information, we should use it.
Republicans refuse to accept that amendment in the Rules Committee.
Rather than supporting agencies with the funding and staffing they need to process applications faster, Republicans just want them to look the other way.
Most Americans believe any job worth doing is worth doing right, even if it takes a little more time.
But cutting corners today means we're going to have to clean up disasters tomorrow.
And those costs won't fall on us, Mr. Chairman.
They'll fall on the communities we're supposed to protect.
I urge my colleagues to vote no, and I yield back.
The committee will rise informally to receive a message.
Messages, Mr. Sir.
The House will be in order.
The Chair will receive a message.
Mr. Speaker, messages from the Senate.
Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Secretary.
I've been directed by the Senate to inform the House that the Senate has agreed to the House amendment to the Bill S 1071, an act to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to disinter the remains of Fernando V. Cotta from Fort Sam Houston National Cemetery, Texas, and for other purposes.
Mr. Chair, I yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from Utah, Ms. Mallory.
unidentified
The gentlelady from Utah is recognized.
Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4776, the Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development Act, known as the SPEAD Act.
There being no further amendments under the rule, the committee rises.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union has had under consideration H.R. 4776.
And pursuant to House Resolution 951, I report the bill as amended by that resolution and by House Resolution 953 back to the House.
unidentified
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union reports that the Committee has had under consideration the bill H.R. 4776 and pursuant to House Resolution 951 reports the bill back as amended by that resolution by House Resolution 953 back to the House.
Under the rule of the previous question is ordered, the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill.
A bill to amend the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to clarify ambiguous provisions and facilitate a more efficient, effective, and timely environmental review process.
unidentified
House will be in order.
The House will be in order.
For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Nevada seek recognition?
Those favoring a vote by the A's and A's will rise.
Sufficient number having arisen, the A's and A's are ordered members to record their votes by electronic device.
Members are advised.
Members are advised that all remaining votes are two-minute votes.
This will be a two-minute vote.
Pursuant to Clause 9 of Rule 20, this two-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by two-minute votes on passage of the bill if ordered.
The motion to recommit on H.R. 1366, passage of H.R. 1366 if ordered.
The motion to recommit on H.R. 845, passage of 845 if ordered.
The motion to recommit on H.R. 498 and passage of H.R. 498 if ordered.
This is a two-minute vote.
And the House voting to send the federal permitting reform bill, known as the Speed Act, back to committee.
The legislation streamlines federal environmental reviews for infrastructure and energy projects.
And a final vote is expected next.
Also, a short time ago, the White House announcing the Board of Trustees at the Kennedy Center has voted to rename the institution the Trump Kennedy Center.
Earlier this year, President Trump fired members of the board and named himself the center's chairman.
Jake Sherman with Punch Bowl News writes that the building is statutorily named the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts by Congress.
That legislation did not give the board the authority to change the name.
We'll hear from President Trump this evening at 6 p.m. Eastern.
We'll bring you live coverage as he signs the National Defense Authorization Act.
While members here on the House floor continue voting, we'll show more of the debate on the bill.
Part in the public review process and potentially challenge a project are no longer qualifying for them to be part of the public review and legal challenge process.
If that is not lowering environmental standards, I don't know what is.
But another aspect of this bill should be considered specifically, allowing broad exemptions for grants, loans, and other financial assistance, which this bill does, means that large federally backed projects could avoid triggering a NEPA review, even when those impacts could be very significant.
And this includes projects like many federal highways, which were one of the reasons, the original reasons, the NEPA was passed, because they often ran right through disadvantaged communities.
And those communities didn't even know about the proposed projects, let alone have an ability to require consideration of environmental impacts.
So if you just take a look at this image here, this is what happens to transportation projects without NEPA.
And so when we hear that this is not about lowering environmental standards...
Simply stated, and as the court found, there is no reason a rail project should fail because project opponents don't like the commodity that will be shipped on that rail line.
An examination of other lawsuits filed under NEPA confirms the frivolous nature of many of them.
In the last decade, circuit courts witnessed a 56% increase in NEPA appeals.
NGOs instigated over 70% of these challenges, with just 10 organizations filing many of those cases.
In these cases, agencies won roughly 80 percent of the challenges to both environmental assessments and EISs.
In other words, agencies are seldom faulted for inadequate environmental review, yet NGOs capitalize on the six-year statute limitations to file a lawsuit to slow projects down, increase costs, and finance their organizations through EAJA funds.
In recognition of this reality and in line with the seven counties' decision, this bill clarifies the role of the court over this purely procedural statute and places shot clocks on when lawsuits must be filed and decided.
The SPEAD Act is project agnostic, which I believe is well reflected in its bipartisan nature, and I am proud to be one of its co-sponsors.
Permitting impacts every aspect of our economy.
When the system is broken, it is broken for everyone.
The Speed Act will provide the certainty that the system currently lacks and which American industries need.
Thank you, Chairman Westerman, for your strong leadership on this crucial piece of legislation.
I urge all my colleagues to support it, and I yield back.
We hear it over and over again from the other side.
NEPA should just be a purely procedural law.
Well, a lot of really important things are procedural.
MRIs, x-rays, any number of things.
Those are procedures, but you don't turn the power off and reduce that very important procedure to a meaningless exercise.
That's what this legislation would do.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield three minutes to the gentlelady from Nevada, Ms. Lee.
unidentified
The gentlelady from Nevada is recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In Nevada, the sun shines more than 300 days a year, and solar is among the cheapest and most abundant sources of energy, not only in my state, but around the country.
That's why I'm leading 30 of my colleagues in championing the most supported amendment to the Speed Act by far to save solar and wind from this administration's war on clean energy.
On July 5th, the nays are 196.
The majority voting in the affirmative.
The bill is passed without objection.
The motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
Pursuant to clause 8 of Rule 20, the unfinished business is a question on agreeing to the motion to recommit on H.R. 1366, offered by the gentlewoman from New Mexico, Ms. Fernandez, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
Motion to recommit H.R. 1366, offered by Ms. Ledger Fernandez.
unidentified
Question is on agreeing to the motion to recommit.
Members will record their votes by electronic device.
This is a two-minute vote.
In a procedural vote here on H.R. 1366, it's a bill that allows mining companies to store waste on public lands that do not contain economically viable minerals.
While they're in this vote, we'll show remarks by Democrats during their press conference earlier today on attempts to extend health insurance subsidies.
All year, Democrats have been united in sounding the alarm on the health care crisis that Republicans are creating in this country.
It started with Republicans' budget and their big ugly bill, the largest cut in health care in U.S. history.
And now, Speaker Johnson's refusal to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits.
Of course, we know that this is nothing new for Republicans.
For more than a decade, they have been hell-bent on repealing the Affordable Care Act without putting forward an alternative in its place.
And as we saw this week, nothing has changed with House Republican leadership, but something has changed within their own ranks.
Yesterday, four House Republicans finally joined with Democrats on our discharge petition to force a vote on a clean three-year extension of the Affordable Care Act tax credits.
House Democrats know that Americans cannot afford to pay an extra thousand dollars every year for their health care, especially in this economy.
And when people don't have health insurance, they don't stop getting sick.
They don't stop needing medication.
They don't stop needing care for them and their kids.
And as Leader Jeffries has said all along, this is the only real plan on the table to ensure that Americans' premiums don't skyrocket by the end of the year.
We have the votes.
We have the momentum.
We have the American people on our side.
Let's not waste another second.
Speaker Johnson, bring this bill to the floor right now.
In health is the most shocking and the most inhuman.
And the first year of this administration has certainly been shocking and inhuman.
At every turn, Trump and his loyalists in the House have chosen injustice.
They have made the morally corrupt choice to take health care away from people who work hard for a living to fund tax cuts for the very wealthiest.
They were so eager to pass these permanent tax cuts for the billionaire class, they called us back from recess in July, all at the expense of the health and financial security of working families.
That is how they have chosen to lead.
The Republicans chose to shut down government.
They chose to leave town rather than negotiate with us on a solution.
They chose to ignore skyrocketing premiums.
They chose to build a ballroom for their cronies rather than build a strong middle class.
But thanks to the unity of this caucus, the leadership of Hakeem Jeffries, and the resolve of the American people, Democrats have secured a vote on extending the ACA tax credits.
The only question that remains is when.
And I humbly suggest it should be today.
So, Speaker Johnson, don't send us home without a vote.
Put this bill on the floor.
The American people are watching and they deserve a vote.
And now, it is my great pleasure to introduce our leader, Hakeem Jeffries.
unidentified
This vote, the ayes are 219, the nays are 198.
A majority voting affirmative.
The bill is passed without objection.
The motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
The unfinished, pursuant to clause 8 of Rule 20, the unfinished business is a question on agreeing to the motion to recommit on H.R. 845, offered by the gentleman from California, Mr. Huffman, on which the A's and Nays were ordered.
Motion to recommit H.R. 845, offered by Mr. Huffman of California.
unidentified
Question is on agreeing to the motion to recommit.
Members will record their votes by electronic device.
This will be a two-minute vote.
And the eighth of 11 votes now underway in the House, this one requiring the Interior Department reissue a Trump administration rule to remove the gray wool from the endangered species list.
This procedural vote would send the bill back to committee.
We'll take you back now to the Democrats press conference outside the Capitol earlier.
Deserve a vote on the Affordable Care Act tax credit legislation and deserve that vote today.
No more excuses, no more delay, no more burying your head in the sand.
Under no circumstances should the House of Representatives adjourn until we successfully extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits for tens of millions of Americans.
The American people deserve a vote today, not tomorrow, not next week, not next year, today.
Republicans have had all year to address this health care situation.
But they've been too busy trying to jam their extreme agenda down the throats of the American people.
Republicans have been too busy enacting reckless tariffs that increase costs on everyday Americans by thousands of dollars per year.
Republicans have been too busy gutting the health care of the American people.
Republicans have been too busy ripping food from the mouths of hungry children, seniors, and veterans.
Republicans have been too busy enacting massive tax breaks for their billionaire donors.
And Republicans have been too busy treating the Congress like it's a wholly owned subsidiary of the Trump cartel.
Let me be clear about something.
We ain't down with any of that.
House Democrats aren't here to bend the knee to Donald Trump.
We're here to bend the arc of the moral universe toward justice.
Those favoring a vote by the A's and Nays will rise.
Official number having arisen.
The A's and Nays are ordered.
Members will record their votes by electronic device.
This is a two-minute vote.
And a final vote now on legislation requiring the Interior Department reissue a Trump administration rule to remove the gray wolf from the endangered species list.
While they vote, we'll take showing you more now at the Democrats press conference outside the Capitol earlier.
Not too complicated in the wealthiest country in the history of the world.
We believe that when you work hard and play by the rules, you should be able to live the good life.
Good paying job, good housing, good health care, good education for your children, and a good retirement, which means keep your hands off our Social Security and our Medicare at all times.
And Democrats believe in this great country, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, that access to high-quality health care can't simply be a privilege that's only available to the wealthy, the well-off, and the well-connected.
We believe as Democrats that in this great country, health care that's affordable and accessible is a right that should be available to every single American.
That's what we believe, and that's what we're fighting hard to achieve.
Now, unfortunately, all year, the American people have been dealing with this Republican health care crisis that is devastating everyday Americans.
And we're here to call it out.
We're here to provide a moment of clarity.
Republicans have enacted the largest cut to Medicaid in American history.
Hospitals, nursing homes, and community-based health centers are closing all across the country, including in rural America, because of toxic Republican policies in their one big ugly bill.
Republicans have launched an all-out assault on the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institute of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, on vaccine availability for children and on public health.
And because of the Republican refusal to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits, tens of millions of Americans are at risk of being unable to go see a doctor when they need one.
The Republican health care crisis is unacceptable, unconscionable, and un-American.
And our message to Mike Johnson is clear: you can run, but you cannot hide.
The American people are horrified.
Republican leaders are petrified.
But House Democrats are unified, standing up on behalf of the American people to protect their health care.
Bans Passed: Gender-Affirming Care00:06:37
unidentified
And so, with the A's of 211, the Nays are 204, majority voting in the affirmative.
The bill is passed.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
Pursuant to clause 8 of Rule 20, the unfinished business, there's a question on agreeing to the motion to recommit on H.R. 498 offered by the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Soto, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. Speaker, I've 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, I don't know, throw something, which I will not do because I am a professional human being.
But I have to wonder how many actually actual trans people and the families of trans kids anyone on the other side of the aisle 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 like taking in the hatred from the floor of the House of Representatives.
The kids and the 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 health care access for LGBTQ kids and trans kids.
We have fought to ensure that every young person, every young person, has the ability to make health care decisions that are right for them in consultation with their parents and their doctors.
And it is true medically directed care in consultation with a doctor.
The American people have told us over and 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 that they could access.
But that is what is happening right now.
They are trying to strip away life-saving 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 or Idaho or Florida because parents want their children to survive.
And this effort not only to cut Medicaid coverage.
The question was asked: if we had ever bothered speaking to trans kids, the answer is absolutely yes.
Maybe that's why I'm so passionate about this.
Because it turns out there's 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's a 1% remorse rate.
These studies are based on nonsense.
They're not even based on a pool of participants that are minors.
They were told that these things are just a pause button, that it's reversible, that this is just the standard of care.
Standard of care based on what?
Based on junk science.
You cannot base standards of care on junk science.
And now the science is caught up.
The cast review study, the systematic review, which is the gold standard of any kind of study because it looks at all of the different studies methodically.
And then the 300-page review that HHS just did.
I've had them on my podcast twice to talk about their experiences.
Chloe Cole just spoke at a Department of HHS 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's a tomboy, she has older brothers, she likes sports, and she's confused.
And so doctors tell her that, well, you're a boy.
And they convince her parents of the same.
She's put on puberty blockers and soon on high levels of testosterone.
And by age 15, a double mastectomy.
She's not sure if she can ever have kids.
And she definitely can't feed her children normally.
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 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 health care and paying rent or afford groceries.
Instead of allowing a bipartisan vote to lower health care costs, Republicans have chosen to bring forward H.R. 498, which completely ignores the affordability crisis and needlessly targets transgender children.
unidentified
On this vote, the A's are 215, the nays are 201.
The bill is passed, and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
The Speaker's Rooms, Washington, D.C., December 18, 2025.
I hereby designate the period from Thursday, December 18th, 2025, through Monday, January 5th, 2026, as a district work period under clause 13 of Rule 1.
Signed sincerely, Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House of Representatives.
The Honourable the Speaker, House of Representatives, sir, on December 18, 2025, pursuant to section 3307 of Title 40, United States Code, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure met in an open session with a quorum being present to consider three resolutions included in the General Services Administration's capital investment leasing programs.
I have enclosed copies of the resolutions adopted by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on December 18, 2025.
Signed sincerely, Sam Braves, Chairman.
unidentified
Referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
Chair, request for one minute speeches.
For what purposes the gentlewoman from Wyoming seek recognition?
Without objection, the gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized for one minute.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor Wyoming Highway Patrol dispatcher Chris McGuire, who served our state for 35 years.
Chris handled split-second decisions, juggled multiple emergencies at once, and saved lives on Wyoming's highways.
She coordinated responses during snowstorms, rescued stranded motorists, and managed Amber alerts, all while training new dispatchers and supporting her colleagues.
Dispatching is not a job for everyone.
It demands focus, courage, and the ability to stay calm under intense pressure.
Chris worked 60-hour weeks, often sacrificing time with her family, yet she never waived in her commitment to keeping our communities safe.
Public service is more than a job.
It is a calling, and Chris inspires all of us who serve and reminds us of the unseen heroes who protect our families every day.
Wyoming thanks Chris McGuire for her remarkable career and unwavering service.
Thank you, and I yield back.
unidentified
The gentlewoman yields.
For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Virgin Island seek recognition?
The Medical Executive Committee wrote an open letter to the community and to CMS detailing adverse conditions in our hospitals, shortages of supplies, medication, equipment, staff, patient placement challenges.
This crisis reflects systemic failures that compromise the ability to deliver appropriate care.
These conditions did not develop overnight.
Our two hospitals still operate under Medicare reimbursement formulas from 1982 and 1996.
While I continue fighting for Medicare rebasing, fortunately, we've secured permanent increases in Medicaid funding from 55 to 83 percent and over 1.7 billion in FEMA obligations to rebuild our hospitals.
But Congress and the administration must do more.
Virgin Islanders deserve the same access, dignity, and quality of care as every American citizen.
We will not stop fighting until our health care system receives the federal support required to deliver standard care.
I yield back.
unidentified
For what purpose does the gentleman from Florida seek recognition?
Today, I have the extraordinary privilege of honoring Elias Sussman, a man whose life spans a century of American history and whose service continues to inspire and guide us.
At 100 years young, Mr. Sussman's story began in Brooklyn, New York, where he was born on October 28, 1925.
He was inducted into the U.S. Army in December 1943.
Driven by dedication, he volunteered for jump school and rigor training, earning the rank of technician, fifth grade, and becoming a vital part of the airborne forces.
As a member of the 17th Airborne Division, he saw heavy action fighting in the Battle of the Bulge and participating in Operation Varsity, the mass parachute drops, into Germany.
His heroism reached beyond combat.
After landing, his unit liberated American prisoner of war camps and moving to what he thought was a nearby labor camp.
He freed Jewish survivors suffering from extreme hunger, sharing every ration that he had to sustain himself.
This act of profound compassion is the true hallmark of his service.
Returning home from the war, he was honourably discharged in April of 1946.
Mr. Sussman's journey from the streets of New York to the front lines of freedom is an enduring inspiration to us all.
Thank you, Elias Sussman, for your sacrifice, your bravery, and your incredible 100 years of life.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back.
unidentified
The gentleman yields.
For what purpose does the gentleman from New York seek recognition?
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks.
Without objection, the gentleman from New York is recognized for one minute.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to hold Republican leadership accountable for their unwillingness to extend the ACA-enhanced premium tax credits.
I am a proud co-sponsor of the Health Care Affordability Act and Protecting Health Care and Lowering Costs Act, both permanently extend these credits.
My colleagues in the Democratic caucus have fought tirelessly to extend these subsidies.
But what has the Republican leadership done?
They put out a 111-page health care bill that doesn't contain a single word about ACA credits.
What their bill does do is cause 100,000 more people to become uninsured.
Without extending these credits, a 60-year-old couple in my district will see their premiums increased by $13,000 and an average family of four by $17,000.
You can pull all the stunts you want to make it look like you're working on health care costs, but Americans are not buying it.
As we barrel toward the December 31st expiration date, the people of Westchester and the Bronx need to know that I, along with my colleagues, will fight for your access to affordable health care, something every American deserves.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I yield back.
unidentified
The gentleman yields.
For what purpose is the gentleman from Virginia seat recognition?
Without objection, the gentleman from Virginia is recognized for one minute.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Liberty University women's soccer team on their 3-0 victory over the Missouri State Bears to claim the 2025 Conference USA Women's Soccer Championship.
Ivy Garner was named the CUSA Player of the Year and Championship Offensive MVP.
Lauren Little earned honors as the CUSA Defensive Player of the Year and Championship Defensive MVP and midfield Bree Myers and forward Lauren Flax were selected to the CUSA All-Tournament team.
This title marks Liberty's second conference USA crown in three seasons and secures them an automatic advancement to the NCAA tournament.
I commend these student athletes, their coaches, and the entire program that exemplifies excellence, dedication, and team spirit.
Their success brings honor to Liberty University who trains Champions for Christ, Virginia's fifth congressional district and the Commonwealth of Virginia.
I yield back.
The gentleman yields.
For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Florida seek recognition?
Without objection, the gentleman from Florida is recognized for one minute.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with deep concern for the recent anti-Semit attack in Bondi Beach, Australia.
This tragedy reminds us that hate does not recognize borders.
Hatred towards the Jewish people is not confined to one nation or to a one moment.
It is a global threat and it resurfaces everywhere.
It demands a response from everyone.
Anti-Semitic events in the United States have reached historic highs in recent years.
In Florida alone, reports have increased from 269 to 353 within only one year.
But what we need to realize is that America is an interfaith nation, with Christian Jews, Muslims, and people of all beliefs have helped shape this country.
And when one community is targeted, all communities are at risk.
Anti-Semitism has no place in Australia, no place in the United States, and no place in this world.
We must condemn anti-Semitism loudly and reject all forms of hatred.
We must respond to hate with unity.
We must meet fear with courage.
And we must choose to lead with justice and dignity for every single person every single day.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back.
unidentified
The gentlewoman yields.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Indiana seek recognition?
Mr. Speaker, I seek permission to address the House for one minute and advise me to stand myself.
Without objection, the gentleman from Indiana is recognized for one minute.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Steve Reeder, a dedicated local historian, the chair of the social studies department at Monrovia High School.
He has taught at the Monrovia High School for over 25 years.
Steve spent nearly two years researching and writing Our Town, a book that chronicles the history of Monrovia and the surrounding areas in Morgan County.
He first undertook the project to help his students with pride and have pride in their community.
Our town was published earlier this year.
Steve and his students have also helped with the installation of several local history markers in the community.
In addition to putting published, Steve has honored by the Week TV with their Golden Apple Award, which recognizes exceptional teachers in central Indiana.
I thank him for his decades of educating children and for supporting Morgan County communities.
And I yield back.
For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Maryland seek recognition?
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the important role interns and fellows play on Capitol Hill and in the district offices and the important contributions they make each and every day to this institution.
Every semester, young people from across the country come to intern and be part of Democracy in Action.
Their enthusiasm, service, and optimism infuses our office with hope, energy, and much-needed help.
Today, I lift up all my interns, but most especially my communications fellow, Claire Sakowitz, who has well served our office for the past seven months.
Her strong work ethic and multimedia talents have brought my team's messages to life, especially during the government shutdown when our constituents needed to connect with us most.
She even had to step into our comm role when our comms director was absent for jury duty.
She will soon return to Northeastern to complete her studies, but we know her future is bright.
But in sum, to Claire and to all of our interns and fellows across the entire bit of Congress, we are thankful for your contributions, your enthusiasm, and heart for public service.
Thank you, and I yield back.
unidentified
Gentlewoman Yields, for what purpose does the gentleman from North Carolina seek recognition?
Ask to address the House for one minute.
Without objection, the gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for one minute.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise to recognize three outstanding high school football teams from North Carolina's 14th congressional district who brought home state championships.
From my home county of Cleveland County, congratulations to the Crest High School Chargers, the 5A state champions.
These young men showed grit, discipline, and heart all season.
Also from my home county, Shelby High School, which earned the 3A title, continuing a proud tradition of excellence, proving that Cleveland County is a football home.
In northern Mecklenburg County, Hough High School captured the 8A championship.
This incredible achievement reflects the talent and determination of communities like Cornelius.
However, these victories actually reflect much more than athletic skill.
They reflect the support of coaches, parents, teachers, and communities who stand behind these teams.
These young athletes made us very proud to represent the best of the 14th Congressional District.
Congratulations to all three teams.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back.
The gentleman yields.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Massachusetts seek recognition?
Without objection, the gentlewoman from Massachusetts is recognized for one minute.
Mr. Speaker, the wealth of our nation is the health of our people.
And yet, Republicans are doing everything in their power to make families sicker.
They want to deny children food, ban abortion care, and obstruct the extension of the Affordable Care Act subsidies.
This is dire for folks in my district, where a three-mile radius life expectancy drops by 30 years.
For my constituent, Paula, whose husband lost his job and became ill, the ACA has been their lifeline, carrying them through years of uncertainty as she became his caregiver.
This is a health care crisis Republicans created, and it is intersectional.
The Republicans are using abortion, once again, abortion care as a political bargaining chip.
The truth?
Republicans will send premiums sky-high just to stop families from using their own money on a plan that covers abortion.
They're not just putting health care out of reach for millions, they're further restricting reproductive care.
The shame and the sham of it all.
Mr. Speaker, we have the votes to extend these subsidies and save health care for our constituents.
The House must vote on it now.
unidentified
The gentlewoman yields.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Indiana seek recognition?
Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to address the House for one minute.
Without objection, the gentleman from Indiana is recognized for one minute.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to recognize the courageous men and women from the Indiana National Guard that are here to serve in Washington, D.C. On December the 6th, about 300 service members from Indiana deployed to our nation's capital.
They've already started their mission in D.C. to keep our streets safe and free from violent criminals.
I'm especially thankful to these men and women for serving during the holidays.
These Hoosiers will miss cherished times celebrating Christmas and New Year's with family and friends to restore order in D.C. While these Hoosiers just began their mission here, this deployment is just another one of the ways on a long list Indiana troops have supported our country.
In 2024, Indiana National Guardsmen deployed to Texas to secure our border, and earlier this year, 400 National Guardsmen returned from their mission in the Middle East.
The Indiana National Guardsmen continue to pour out their time and talents to serve our nation.
So to the Indiana National Guard, your dedication to serving our country continues to make all of us in Indiana very proud.
Thank you and God bless you.
I'll yield back.
The gentleman yields.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Rhode Island seek recognition?
With that objection, the gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for one minute.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of a great Rhode Islander, A.T. Wall.
A.T. was a dedicated husband, father, and criminal justice leader.
After a life-changing internship with the juvenile justice system in New Haven while an undergraduate at Yale, he dedicated his career to making the Rhode Island Department of Corrections more just and restorative.
During his lengthy tenure, A.T. founded groundbreaking programs offering medication-assisted treatment for inmates struggling with substance use disorders and training service dogs for disabled veterans.
He dedicated his professional life to fostering second chances.
A man of deep faith and dedication, A.T. was always happy to lend a helping hand to anyone, including me.
My thoughts are with his wife Maria, his children Harrison, and my dear friend Ash, his grandchildren, and his extended family.
He will be missed.
I yield back.
The gentleman kneels.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Minnesota seek recognition and seek recognition?
As I travel across Michigan's 5th District, I've heard from many Michiganders who are thrilled about the economic relief that House Republicans are providing.
Earlier this year, we passed the Working Families Tax Cut Legislation, which is pro-family, pro-worker, and pro-Michigan.
This historic legislation empowers families by preventing residents of Michigan's 5th District from facing a 27% tax hike and increasing take-home pay by up to $11,700.
In addition, the legislation increases the child tax credit, strengthens paid family leave, and establishes savings accounts for newborns, allowing families to invest in their child's future from birth.
House Republicans have accomplished so much this year, but we're only just getting started.
I yield back.
unidentified
The gentleman Nields, for what purpose does the gentleman from North Carolina seek recognition?
Mr. Spricker, I ask for unanimous consent to address the House for one minute.
Without objection, the gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for one minute.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize a century of excellence by the Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority Incorporated Chi Omega Chapter located in Rocky Mount, North Carolina.
The Chi Omega chapter was chartered under the leadership of Anna Easter Brown, one of the original 16 founders of Alpha Sorority Incorporated.
The chapter is home of Ruth Anderson Smith, who has served as a member over 75 years and is 103 years old.
Three Chi Omega Pearls who've served over 65 years in membership with 12 over 50 years who are golden members.
100 years of membership, educational support, health advocacy, and steadfast commitment to our HBCUs and transforming lives and strengthening Eastern North Carolina.
Congratulations to everyone who came to celebrate this amazing celebration of 100 years.
unidentified
Mr. Speaker, I yoke back.
The gentleman yields.
For what purpose does the gentlewoman from North Carolina seek recognition?
Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart to pay tribute to the life of Tence Franklin Banks, who passed away this week at 75.
Tence was a gifted writer and was recognized for her contributions to preserving the history of Limbull Falls and Avery County by the North Carolina Society of Historians.
She's remembered by many as someone who had an impeccable memory, who believed that the preservation of local history was critical to pass on to future generations.
Tence was a friend and someone I admired greatly for her talents and warmth.
She, along with the entire Banks family, has a special place in my heart.
May God continue to provide comfort and care to the Banks family during this difficult time.
unidentified
I yield back.
The gentleman yields.
For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Ohio seek recognition?
I rise today to celebrate Norma Cynthony Cynthia Simon on her 100th birthday.
Her life exemplifies the power of education, of family, and service.
She was born on December 15th, 1925, in South America, Guyana's capital, Georgetown.
Ms. Simons devoted 35 years to learning and teaching as an educator.
She taught her children that education is a pathway to opportunity.
She is the mother of five, grandmother of 10, and great-grandmother of 14.
And I am very fortunate to have her great-granddaughter, Max Samoco-Hines, in my office, continuing her great-grandmother's legacy of public service.
So today, I say happy birthday to you and thank you for leaving us a great legacy.
I commend Ms. Simon on the occasion of her 100th birthday, and I yield back.
unidentified
The gentleman yields.
For what purpose is the gentleman from Pennsylvania seat recognition?
Mr. Speaker, I ask to the Secretary to address the House for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks.
Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for one minute.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and remember the life of Donald E. Olsimer Sr. of Sterling, Pennsylvania.
Born and raised in Scranton, Don devoted his life to serving his country, community, and family.
He was a U.S. Army veteran and served for 30 years in the Pennsylvania National Guard.
He rose to the rank of major, leading the National Guard units in Carbondale, Honesdale, Scranton, and the Toby Hanna Reserve Unit as a company commander.
He was elected to public service twice as a Wayne County Commissioner, served as a township supervisor, and was deeply involved in civic and charitable efforts throughout his community.
He owned and operated a local Christmas tree farm, founded a small insurance company, and was the co-founder of the Sterling Little League.
But most of all, he cherished the time he spent with his family.
It was an honor to know Don, and I know everyone who had the pleasure of meeting him feels the same way.
My thoughts and prayers go to Don's family and friends, including his son, Pennsylvania State Representative Jeff Ulsimer, as they grieve their loss and remember Don.
He will be greatly missed.
Thank you.
I yield back.
The gentleman yields.
For what purpose is the gentleman from Virginia seat recognition?
Mr. Speaker, happy holidays to everyone, but I rise because we have to do something about the non-immigrant visa process right now.
I have several constituents who want to see their families for the holidays, but unfortunately, this administration has put in place a new social media policy for anyone applying for a non-immigrant visa.
Essentially, they're scrubbing your social media to see if you agree with the president or not.
That's essentially what's happening.
It's not about dangers for our country.
If it was, it would go a lot faster than the many months that it's taking right now.
As I have many constituents, I have one, for instance, who traveled abroad for a consular appointment.
And when she came back, when she tried to come back, she was notified that because of this policy, they need four months to review her social media, including accounts that they had already deleted.
And so as a result, she faced the possibility of losing her job.
Her daughter, who's a U.S. citizen, is going to fall behind in school.
And there are serious consequences for so many families across the country.
And so we need to make sure we change this policy, make it better.
And most importantly, we need to get these visas approved.
I yield back.
unidentified
The gentleman yields.
For what purposes, gentlemen from Michigan, seat recognition?
Mr. Speaker, I seek consent to address the House for one minute to revise and extend.
Without objection, the gentleman from Michigan is recognized for one minute.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate William Bill Long on his retirement from MEMA, the Vehicle Suppliers Association.
As the representative for Michigan's 4th Congressional District, home to many of those hardworking MEMA members, I can attest to the lasting impact of Bill's leadership as president and CEO.
Bill Long has spent more than 40 years in the automotive and parts industry.
Prior to joining MEMA in 2012, he held executive roles at Eklund Incorporated, Dana Incorporated, and ProLiance International.
Appointed CEO in 2019, Bill helped redefine MEMA's mission, uniting vehicle aftermarket and original equipment suppliers and positioning the association as a strong, unified voice during a period of major industrial transformation.
His commitment and collaboration is evident in the partnerships he has built with automakers, technology leaders, research institutions, and government agencies and representatives.
Over the years, Bill has served on numerous boards and has earned widespread recognition and remains a respected figure in motorsports, including leadership roles with NASCAR and IndyCar.
He currently serves on the boards of the Automotive Hall of Fame and the Center for Automotive Research in Michigan.
Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring Bill Long's distinguished career and wishing him the very best in his well-deserved retirement.
unidentified
With that, I yield back.
The gentleman yields.
For what purpose is the gentlewoman from Virginia seat recognition?
ACA enhanced premium tax credits expire at the end of the year.
Without them, millions will not afford health care, I fear.
Small business owners and employees, gig workers, farmers, the self-employed too.
Without those tax credits, they don't know what they'll do.
The Speaker shrugged, saying, our work for the year is done.
But there's one bill we should pass before heading home.
Just one.
218 House members signed a petition to bring a three-year tax credit extension to the floor.
We should vote on it now before we head for the door.
We will vote in January, so don't give up the fight.
In the meantime, may your holiday season be merry and bright.
I yield back.
unidentified
The gentlewoman yields.
For what purpose is the gentleman from Mississippi seat recognition?
I ask unanimous consent to address the House for one minute.
Without objection, the gentleman from Mississippi is recognized for one minute.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding career, well-earned retirement for the Chief of Police of Biloxi Police Department, John Miller.
A Coast native, Chief Miller dedicated more than three decades of his life to protecting the people of Biloxi, Mississippi.
He joined the department in 1990 as a patrol officer and quickly distinguished himself through hard work and leadership.
Just five years later, he was selected for a special crimes unit where he rose to the ranks of sergeant and lieutenant serving in both the narcotics and criminal investigative units.
In December of 2009, John Miller was named Chief of Police, a role he carried with integrity, humility, and an unwavering commitment to his officers and to the community.
His compassion, dedication, and steady leadership were especially evident during one of the most challenging times in history of the Department of City of Biloxi, Hurricane Katrina.
Chief Miller set a tone for professionalism, resilience, and service that truly exemplifies what it means to be South Mississippi strong.
On behalf of a grateful community, I thank him for his service and wish him and his family the very best in his retirement.
Thank you, Chief.
And Mr. Speaker, I yield back.
The gentleman yields.
For what purpose is the gentlewoman from Ohio seat recognition?
Without objection, the gentleman from Ohio is recognized for one minute.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Michael L. Friedman of Toledo, Ohio, a devoted public servant, proud veteran of the 180th Fighter Wing, an indefatigable community leader whose half century of impact on Northwest Ohio will long endure.
Mike Friedman embodied service.
From his honorable duty in the United States Air Force and the Ohio Air National Guard's 180th Fighter Wing, to his tireless advocacy for working families through the American Federation of Government Employees, he lived by the values of responsibility, loyalty, and fairness.
He believed deeply in democracy.
Serving for decades as an Ohio Democratic Party state central committeeman and executive committee member, a national delegate, and even a presidential elector, all these roles that he carried out with conviction, heart, and perseverance.
Mike was also a storyteller.
His unmistakable voice brought people together across neighborhoods, union halls, veterans posts, and dinner tables.
And guided by his faith, Mike was grounded in love for his beautiful family and unwavering in his beliefs, he gave generously of himself to others.
America is stronger and more just because of citizens like Mike Friedman.
He lived, served, and cared so deeply.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I yield back.
unidentified
The gentlewoman yields.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Tennessee seek recognition?
I'll seek recognition to speak for one minute.
Without objection, the gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for one minute.
Today I learned that the Kennedy Center Board asked or said that the Kennedy Center be renamed the Trump Kennedy Center.
That's a sacrilege to a martyred, heroic, historic American president whose name was attached to the Kennedy Center for his support for cultural excellence in America and because he was an assassinated president who we all mourned on November 22nd through November 25 and thereafter because he gave his life for our country.
And the idea that Donald Trump would want his name to go before Kennedy's or even with Kennedy's is a sacrilege.
It should not be changed ever.
And it should go through this Congress who named it the Kennedy Center on a bill sponsored by in this House and signed by President Linda Johnson.
Stop this, Mr. Trump.
If you have any sense of dignity and honor, you would renounce this.
Don't say that you're honored.
You should renounce it.
John Kennedy's name stands before all others and the Kennedy Center should not be renamed.
I yield back the balance of my time.
unidentified
Chairman Yields, members are reminded to direct the remarks to the chair.
Mr. Chair, it should not be changed.
For what purpose does the gentleman from New Jersey seat recognition?
Without objection, the gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for one minute.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the new Republican health care legislation.
Instead of extending Affordable Care Act tax credits and keeping premiums from skyrocketing, House Republicans are pushing a plan that would force more than 20 million Americans to pay on average twice as much for the same coverage they have today.
And as a result, 4 million Americans will lose their insurance, while others are going to be forced to pay far more for far worse coverage.
Americans are already facing an affordability crisis.
The House Republican solution?
Cut a trillion dollars from health care, pass the largest cut to snap in history, and do nothing while Trump's tariffs raise costs across the board.
And when families are struggling every day to keep their heads above water, House Republicans are cutting all lifelines and throwing them a bag of bricks.
This is not how government is meant to work.
We need to uplift the American people and give them a fair shot at a good life that rewards hard work.
That is what House Democrats will always fight for, a government that works for you, the American people.
That is why we are forcing a vote to extend the ACA subsidies.
We should not leave D.C. until we have that vote.
But irregardless of what Republicans do, the American people need to know that House Democrats, when we are back in the majority, will fight for a health care system that works for all Americans.
For what purposes does the gentleman from Texas seek recognition?
Mr. Speaker, I ask for one minute to address the House.
Without objection, the gentleman from Texas is recognized for one minute.
Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, Brownsville native seaman Angelina Petra Resendes was tragically murdered while serving our nation at Naval Station Norfolk.
Angelina was a culinary specialist whose life and service to our country was cut short.
Recognition of Missing Service Members00:08:56
unidentified
Despite many warnings from her friends and family, her disappearance, the U.S. Navy mislabeled her as an unauthorized absence instead of the duty status whereabouts unknown.
This was tragic.
I was proud to honor Seaman Resendis by securing language in this year's NDAA to conduct oversight of the department's application of designation in cases involving missing service members who are later found deceased.
This is an important step towards ensuring that any service member who goes missing receives the proper classification and investigatory response to assure their life has every shot of living.
Today, I ask us to continue looking out for our service members at home and abroad to assure their safety and security.
And I yield back.
The gentleman yields.
For what purposes, gentlemen from California, seek recognition?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask for unanimous consent to address the House for one minute.
Without objection, the gentleman from California is recognized for one minute.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Ms. Harigawane Metiku Ayelu, a beloved community member from San Jose, California, who passed away in November.
Ms. Ayelu's life was defined by service, generosity, humility, and an unwavering commitment to uplifting the vulnerable.
Ms. Ayelu dedicated her professional life to caring for those made vulnerable by illness, age, or circumstance.
As a certified home care aid and home health aid, she provided essential care for our aging neighbors.
Guided by her faith and deep compassion, her service reached across continents as she organized aid and support programs for families in her native Ethiopia, including raising funds to build a facility for elders and individuals living with disabilities and illness.
Her volunteer energy and time commitment to the Makane Rama St. Gabriel Church was extraordinary and deeply appreciated by an entire community.
I recall visiting that very church when I attended her memorial and was moved by the sight of more than 1,000 neighbors who came out to pay their respects and pay homage to this remarkable woman.
May Ms. Ayelu's memory be a blessing.
Her life's work and values live on through her two daughters, Aden Kasaya and Rebecca Kasaya, and in the countless lives she uplifted through her compassion and service.
Many of us in Congress are calling for the immediate release of Mr. Ekram Imamolu, who is the mayor of Istanbul, Turkey.
Istanbul is Turkey's largest city, one of the world's great cities where 16 million people live and stands strong for democracy.
They elected Mr. Imamolu as their mayor three different times, and he's focused on improving public infrastructure and serving nutrition and health to the millions of kids who live in that city.
He was detained in March 2025, along with 106 other leaders in Istanbul.
The Turkish government has now seized his family business, suspended his Twitter account, revoked his college diploma, and banned any public images or posters of him.
I want to tell Mayor Imamolu that you have many people in the United States Congress closely following this outrage against democracy and the rule of law, and we are wishing your family happy holidays and we are working and demanding to see that you be released.
Thank you and I yield back.
unidentified
The gentleman yields.
For what purpose is the gentleman from California seat recognition?
Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of Ms. Norma Moy, who passed earlier this week at the young age of 92.
As a fourth-generation resident, Norma was Pasarobles, California in the 19th Congressional District.
She served her community in many ways, being on the boards for the Pioneer Day, the Historical Society, and of course as a leader in the Chamber of Commerce.
But where she was most impactful was due to her work as the founder and executive director of the Pasel Robles Main Street Association.
Under her leadership, downtown Pasel Robles transformed from vacant shorefront to a bustling hub of community.
She was a champion for local businesses, supporting her neighbors, helping them thrive and transform the local economy.
Thanks to her commitment to service, she lives on in every person who visits downtown, in the community, and the energy that is Pasel Robles.
As we mourn her loss, let us celebrate Norma Moy, her legacy of service, and let us do that by enjoying the town of Pasel Robles.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
unidentified
I yield back.
The gentleman yields.
Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3rd, 2025, the gentlewoman from Ohio, Ms. Kempter, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. Speaker, tonight it is a great honor to gather with our dear colleagues to focus on a modern-day conflict that will have major implications for this country and the world in the days and years to come.
The United States, for over a century, since our hard-fought victories with allies during World Wars I and II, learned the hard way.
Isolation is not in our nation's security interest.
Our nation is not the most populous nation on earth, with 340 million people.
But in every era, it seems, a constellation of dictatorships begins to upset world order.
These aggressors invade smaller nations first to conquer more territory and for their own narrow self-interest.
Dictatorships in today's world include Russia with 140 million people, China with 1,500,000,000 people, Iran with 92 million people, and North Korea with 26 million people.
This group of nations is a developing spiderweb of tyranny with four times the population of the United States.
Thus, alliances with free nations matter.
That is why Canada, Australia, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organizations matter.
Only together with allies can the free world offset predatory dictatorships.
Following World War I, slowly and at great cost, a constellation of allies began to emerge.
Leaders of surviving nations created what has come to be called the Free World.
But this alliance of liberty was very hard-fought, and it champions freedom, not dictatorship.
Foundational is a rule of law with institutions of justice, ensuring individual rights, not repression by dictators or conquest by aggressors, thugs, and murderers.
Our nation did not seek to be leader of the free world.
Rather, our forebears grew this association with the realization that cataclysmic wars were not in the interests of humanity nor the United States of America.
President Woodrow Wilson created the League of Nations after World War I, which three decades later transformed into the United Nations, an institution to collectively assemble world leaders to promote understanding and peace so as to avoid war.
Civil and political leaders of our nation in both major political parties, though reluctant to assume leadership in such a daunting undertaking, never before in the world, were determined to build a world of law, not conquest.
The goal of lasting peace outweighed their own self-interest.
A short distance away from our nation's capital rests the National World War II Memorial.
It was dedicated in 2004 to the Allied victory in World War II.
Over 100 million people, nearly one-third of our population, has now visited that hallowed site.
This monument represents the 20th century's greatest achievement, the victory of liberty over tyranny.
The monument stands as a timeless reminder of the moral strength and power that can flow when free people are united and bond together in the common just cause of liberty itself.
Following the horrific great power wars of the 20th century, across Europe alone are laid the bodies of 500,000 U.S. veterans who rest in military cemeteries and fields from World Wars I and II.
From Flandersfield to Normandy, their enormous sacrifice, along with the millions of veterans who returned home, bequeathed to us the moment to build the umbrella of alliances to push back tyranny.
Extending liberty and achieving democratic governance peacefully served as examples to other nations.
What the World War I and two generations yielded for us has been the longest era of peacetime among great powers in the history of the world, until now.
Not only is Russia at war in Europe, but the United States of America is acting peculiarly and dangerously out of step with our forebears' resolve.
Let me just for a moment focus on Vladimir Putin and his evil aspirations as dictator of Russia.
Let us recall Putin's imperative is to constitute is to reconstitute the Soviet Union that collapsed in 1991 of its own criminality and dysfunction.
Its border extended across 13 time zones then, all the way through most of Germany.
Through force, Putin aspires to rewrite the structure of Europe again and end democratic practice across the continent.
Meanwhile, the United States appears absent.
Liberty is under threat, and America seems to be wavering on the sidelines, playing off liberty and dictatorship.
The increasingly collaborative coalition of Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China, the spider web of modern tyranny, are enemies of liberty.
See it.
They collude to upend American and global security.
Chancellor Merce of Germany, a NATO ally, recognized this reality when he recently stated, and I quote, the threats are real.
We may not be at war, but we no longer live in peacetime, unquote.
Ukraine has become the front line for liberty's fight in our time and generation.
See it.
In 2014, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, an ally of the United States.
Together with our European allies, we partnered to achieve Ukraine's accession to the European Union of Free Nations.
And clearly, Putin invaded Ukraine in 2014 just after Russia's puppet dictator, who had become president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, was driven out of that nation after his treasonous betrayal of the democratic aspirations of the free people of Ukraine.
He stole millions and committed crimes against its freedom.
And he found his way back to Moscow.
Vladimir Putin knew his control of that puppet and of Ukraine had been thwarted.
So he chose to invade Ukraine in 2014, starting in 2014, against all laws of diplomacy.
Putin snuffed out liberty in his own country, and now he intends not just to end liberty in all of Europe, he seeks to replace it with tyranny that traces its bloody lineage across centuries of Russian aggression and murder of innocents.
There can be no compromise with Putin.
He violated the Budapest Memorandum, which allowed Ukraine to prosper starting in 1991 after the fall of the Soviet Union, when it promised to let all nuclear weapons be removed from Ukraine with the promise that they would not be invaded, that others would protect them.
Russia signed that agreement.
The United States signed that agreement.
That agreement has been violated.
Why should we trust Putin now when he couldn't even keep his word on the Budapest Memorandum?
Let us not forget that the great betrayal that allowed Putin to invade Ukraine in the first place.
As the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, a newly independent Ukraine had become the third largest nuclear power in the world.
However, as a responsible nation, Ukraine signed the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons treaty at the behest of the United States of America and the demand of Russia.
In exchange for this security, Ukraine was to be guaranteed, guaranteed under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum signed by our country, Russia, and Ukraine.
However, Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 after his puppet was driven out.
Russia always betrays its commitments.
Look no further than the decades before when the Ribbentrop-Molotov Agreement during World War II was signed and then violated and Poland was invaded.
We must not betray our commitment as leader of the free world to Ukraine's liberty.
Ukraine is fighting valiantly against Russia.
It is holding the line at the front.
The Ukrainian people have fought so astoundingly until the current president and his party here in Congress decided not to send the funds to allow Ukraine to procure the weapons it needs.
Ukraine, so there's been a pause during this year, which makes it harder, but the Ukrainians have held the front.
Ukraine has one time zone and encompasses a landmass less than 3% the size of Russia's vast territory, which stretches across, are you ready, 11 time zones.
They have enough.
They ought to deal in their own country.
Russia's population equals four times as many people as Ukraine's.
Putin was the aggressor.
He invaded, as I said, in 2014, and he has kidnapped tens of thousands of Ukrainian children.
And so by murdering tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians and reinstituting the Gulag system of prisons to torture Ukrainians, he's attacked religious communities and buildings, broken families apart, murdered and tortured scores and hundreds of clergy, killed Jehovah's Witnesses and any other religion that attempts to prosper in that part of the world, and summarily executed prisoners of war and civilians alike.
This is what Putin promises the rest of Ukraine and our NATO allies should we let him succeed in Ukraine.
See it.
See it for what it is.
Russia's history is marked by repressive expansion and murder throughout the centuries.
There is no liberty nor desire for any liberty.
Russia kills at will.
Freedom advocate Alexei Navalny, a Russian, was imprisoned last year and left to die in a frozen Arctic prison.
Putin's goons murdered a young Ukrainian journalist almost 30 years ago when Ukraine became free.
Because Genghis was telling the truth about the corruption and the underhandedness of Russia inside of the free Ukraine.
He was killed and then buried with his head in the ground and his legs in the air right before people would enter the town of Lviou, just to be a lesson to behave yourself and don't ever, don't ever put a word in a publication against Vladimir Putin.
Putin murdered countless Catholics, Mormons, others who wanted to freely practice their religion in that part of the world.
And why were they murdered?
Because they weren't Russian Orthodox adherents.
If Putin is permitted to conquer Ukraine, he will not stop there.
This is not speculation.
This is history.
We already see Russian troops concentrated at the borders with Baltic states.
They're hitting the fly zone in Poland, the border, Finland, Russian violations of NATO airspace and territorial waters.
A Polish diplomat once advised me, if you pay no attention to foreign affairs, then foreign affairs will find you.
America has tried in the past to stick its head in the sand.
That doesn't work.
Isolation doesn't work.
Partnership works.
America can repeat the mistakes of the 1920s by withdrawing our support.
But we've already lived through that.
We don't want to go through that again.
Inevitably, that myopia will force the free world to pay a higher price for freedom as tyranny deepens its roots in the world.
Or America can take a stand now to provide further assistance for Ukraine to advance liberty for this new generation.
And remember, only 20% of the world is free now, according to Freedoms House and Freedoms Index.
This means that 80% of the world lives under some form of tyranny.
We are very privileged in our country if we can hold it.
In our privileged place in the world, America cannot forget that around our globe and throughout history, liberty is extremely rare and precious and utterly vulnerable.
The Trump administration is failing to meet the moment.
My dear colleagues will talk about this in just a moment, but what this administration is doing is just not ignoring the problem.
They are actively complicit in tyranny's march across Europe.
This administration's new and adolescent national security manifesto, they call it, is a retreat.
During his campaign, President Trump frequently repeated that he will end the war in Ukraine on day one.
Well, that surely didn't happen.
And yet, one year into his return to office, the war in Ukraine rages on, and his actions have been favoring Russia's dictatorship.
In February and March, President Trump made his first real effort to negotiate.
But what is he negotiating?
Not liberty, but Ukraine's President Zelensky came to the table and agreed to President Trump's mineral rights deal.
Trump responded to Russia's growing strikes, but granted Putin with several weeks' warning to end the shooting or face new sanctions.
He did not implement the sanctions, even as Ukrainians were being murdered every day.
In August, President Trump literally rolled out the red carpet for Dictator Putin to step foot in the land of the free during his visit to Anchorage, Alaska.
Putin conceded nothing then.
He concedes nothing now.
Trump whined at Putin and again threatened sanctions.
Finally, in October, the President did sanction two large Russian oil firms, Lukoil and Rosneft, but then reinvigorated a negotiating process with several decidedly Kremlin-friendly provisions, even as Putin showed no signs of compromise.
Now, four months later, we are waiting on the Trump administration or Republicans in Congress to move additional sanctions.
And up at the desk, we have only on a discharge petition to move a bill to enforce sanctions on Russia.
We only need two more signatures to get to 218.
Where is the majority in this House?
Two more signatures on the discharge petition to move Russian sanctions forward.
Liberty is calling.
Can you see it?
Can you hear it?
This October, the Trump administration started issuing Russia's threats to Ukraine for Putin.
The Russian-drafted 28-point peace plan asked Ukraine not to negotiate peace, but to capitulate.
They cited a recent corruption scandal in Ukraine, not for what it is, Russian interference and corruption in Ukraine through their emissaries, but it's evidence that Ukraine is weak and must surrender.
This is Russian infiltration of Ukrainian institutions that has been going on for centuries and has plagued Ukraine from the first day it became free in 1991.
Ukraine has had to build a nation on the corruption and infiltration of the corrupt, calculating, interfering Russian regime.
Then just last week, the Trump administration stood shoulder to shoulder with the Russian dictatorship.
Never in my life did I imagine I would live to see the day when the United States of America, as a founding member of NATO and the United Nations, would vote with the dictatorships of the world.
This happened on December 10th, this month, 2025, when the United States joined the dictatorships of Russia, Belarus, China, North Korea, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Nigeria in a 97-8 vote to oppose a United Nations resolution that aimed to strengthen international cooperation and coordination of efforts among nations.
This shameful vote of 97 to 8 does not express the values of the United States of America.
It does not express the values of the American people who place liberty above all.
We value our closest allies, especially when Europe is at war.
You don't side with the dictators.
The Trump administration publicly holds that the ultimate goal is peace.
I agree.
Everyone wants peace except Putin.
Do you not see it?
Putin doesn't want peace.
He wants Ukraine.
Putin does not want peace.
He wants Ukraine.
The Ukrainians prove to us every day liberty is worth fighting for.
We best not forget that here in America.
Frankly, I haven't found anyone in the Trump family who has ever fought for the cause of liberty.
There is no record of military service or public service in his family's history.
In fact, Trump famously avoided service in Vietnam by faking bone spurs.
No one in my family ever had that luxury.
They fought for over 100 years for this country, and we are proud of their service for liberty.
What seems clear to me is that too many people like Putin judge others by the weight of their wallet rather than the weight of their conviction for liberty.
As peace negotiations ensue this weekend in Miami, let us pray the negotiation is not about squeezing every business deal out of Ukraine for the Trump organization.
That outcome is not in America's interest.
Stephen Witkoff and Jared Kushner, two former real estate businessmen from New York, should negotiate peace and liberty, not business deals for themselves or the president they serve, business deals of a Russian-occupied Ukraine.
The free world must push back Russia's aggression and greed, or Putin's appetite will grow to spread Russian repression across all free peoples, which he has been trying to do since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.
Our late colleague John Lewis observed, freedom is not a state.
It is an act.
It does not sit on the floor, but must be elevated by the steady diligence and attention of citizens who sacrifice to remain free.
Liberty is not simply bestowed upon a people, but fought for and defended.
History instructs us.
In the 1770s and 80s, A revolutionary generation of men and women rose up to secure liberty across 13 otherwise disconnected coastal colonies here on the American continent.
Roughly 80 years later, a subsequent generation was called upon to fight and die in America's internal great war for liberty.
The American Civil War, still our most costly war, with over 600,000 deaths.
That generation ended the original sin of slavery and extended the hope of liberty across the American continent.
And then in the 20th century, generations rose to the renewed call for sacrifice.
Called the greatest generation, I call them the most unselfish generation.
They fought, died, and successfully preserved and extended liberty here at home and to subjugated people around the world.
They did it for us.
Americans believe that the history of their struggle against global tyranny ended with the defeat of Nazi Germany and the fall of the Communist Soviet Union, yet today that history is still being written.
Free nations face not a new enemy, but an old one.
It is our turn now.
Our free world must never play footsie with an access of dictatorships like Russia, North Korea, Iran, and China to unleash their aggression on our world again.
How not only stupid that would be, but how un-American.
America's foreign policy must promote liberty, not bow to tyranny.
Free nations must support those who are willing to fight and die for liberty around our world.
And Congress must assure our nation is always ready.
Our National Defense Authorization Act just passed, providing for military readiness for our nation as well as assistance to Ukraine to assure NATO's eastern flank is secure and Vladimir Putin moves back, moves back his troops inside his own country.
He has plenty of it he needs to attend to.
Congress can do more by passing a discharge petition that has been sitting in the well of this House since July.
It would unlock the most significant legislation introduced in this Congress to place economic sanctions on Russia for its war crimes against Ukraine.
And our petition only needs two more members' signatures to bring forward the vote to the floor.
Every Democrat and two Republicans have signed thus far.
In closing my formal remarks tonight, I would like to quote the poet laureate of Ukraine, Taras Shevchenko.
In our country, we must defend liberty first, last, and always, and it must never accommodate dictatorships.
And we are reminded of this by this astounding visionary poet of Ukraine, who on Christmas, December 25th, 1845, penned the following words about a country that at that point was only imagining through its greatest citizens a future that they could not live in their own lifetime.
And he said, Oh, bury me, then rise ye up and break your heavy chains and water with the tyrant's blood the freedom you have gained.
And in the great new family, the family of the free, with softly spoken, kindly word, remember also me.
He was so prescient.
He was so prescient.
I would like now to turn the podium over to the Speaker Emerita of the House of Representatives from the great state of California, Speaker Emerita, Nancy Pelosi.
I salute Marcy Kaptur and the Ukraine Caucus for inviting members to come together to raise concerns, to speak frankly about the need for strong sanctions on Russia, and to insist that any peace must be just and centered on the Ukrainian people themselves.
Mr. Speaker, for nearly four years, the people of Ukraine have stood on the front lines for freedom, defending their democracy, their sovereignty, their right to live in peace on their own land.
But in fighting for democracy there, they are fighting democracy writ large.
Congresswoman Kapter spoke beautifully historically, geographically, chronologically, in every way about placing this conflict in time and place.
I wanted to pick up on two parts of it and the time that I have.
One is this.
In the conversation about peace, we hear people talk about Ukraine giving up land.
Now, what we're saying to Ukraine is, Russia came in, stole your children, as Congresswoman Kapter mentioned, tens of thousands of your children, taking them into Russia.
Imagine if that ever happened to your family.
Secondly, they rape the women.
They rape the women, sometimes in front of the children, sometimes in front of their parents.
I said to some Russian friends, isn't it sad how the Russian troops have become brutes and are raping women as a weapon of war to demoralize the people of the country?
And they said, make sure you understand one thing.
Russian soldiers follow orders.
They are doing that because that is what they are told to do.
In addition to that, we've seen evidence of their killing families in front of family members in such a brutal way.
Kidnap our children, rape our women, destroy our kill our civilian families, and ask us to give you land in return.
Who should, I mean, what a ridiculous, ridiculous request.
The other thing you hear sometimes people say in our country, well, why should we be spending all that money when in fact we have needs in our own country?
I don't think people realize.
90% of the security that we send to Ukraine is spent of the 100%, 90% is spent in the United States creating jobs in our own country.
Secondly, there are other forms of assistance, humanitarian assistance.
Across the board, at least 60% of all that we spend on Ukraine is spent in the United States of America creating jobs.
So again, Marcy spelled it out.
It's no use.
I mean, some things bear repeating, but she said it so beautifully.
But this is awful.
And again, who do you trust?
Who do you trust?
Marcy spelled, the Congresswoman spelled out very clearly the ridiculous notion that Ukraine should trust us, the Russians after the Budapest Agreement.
Give up your nuclear weapons, and we will come to your aid should you need that.
Forget about it now.
So Ukraine has been treated with great disrespect.
Its people have just been subjected to such horror.
They have fought valiantly.
The least we could do is do the sanctions.
And what we should be doing in this House, which had overwhelming bipartisan support and support of the people of Ukraine, is to get some more people to sign the discharge petition.
So I thank you again, Congresswoman Capri, for your relentless, persistent, dissatisfied advocacy for Ukraine and the fact that we know, those of you who have visited there, that if Putin takes Ukraine, what country is next?
That's what we hear, the fear we hear from people in the region.
Would you trust Putin?
And the only person who trusts Putin is President Trump.
I don't know what that's about.
I know when I had a picture coming out of one of his cabinet rooms pointing to the president, I said, I'm leaving this meeting because, Mr. President, with you, all roads lead to Putin.
This is awful.
The richest man in the world, they say Putin is, a villainous person, and somebody who uses rape, kidnapping, family killings in order to demoralize a country.
Well, you haven't succeeded.
And you're a loser because you thought you were going to win on the first week of this war.
And now it's four years later.
With that, I yield back the time to the distinguished Marcy Kapner.
Thank you so very much for joining us tonight with all of your duties.
Would it be okay if I called out standing next?
Sure.
Okay, I would like to yield time to the very, very distinguished former and future majority leader of our caucus, Steny Hoyer from Maryland, who has just distinguished himself in his career with a total commitment to our alliances globally, including our precious European colleagues.
Thank you so very much for joining us here this evening, Congressman Hoyer from the state of Maryland.
I thank the gentlelady who heads the Ukrainian caucus, has ties to Ukraine and is deeply tied to America, to democracy, liberty, and freedom.
Mr. Speaker, I adopt her remarks as my own.
I will add to that, but it will be surplusage because everything she said and all the dangers she referred to and all the atrocities of the Russians, we could repeat.
As I was sitting here, with the exception of Mr. Venman, who's a young man, it occurred to me that the speakers who have spoken so far are of a generation who were children at the time of the Soviet Union,
who understood the viciousness of the bear, who understood the enslavement of the Russian people and the captive nations.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the people of Ukraine, for the people of America, for the people of Europe, for the people of Asia and Africa, South America, Australia.
Because all of us are at risk if dictators like Putin prevail.
Ukraine, the question is will America and this Congress allow it to become a nation betrayed.
Well, I've said it before and I'll say it again.
President Trump, Vice President Vance, Secretary Rubio, Negotiator Witkoff, Secretary of Defense Hegset, and others have done everything to express support for Vladimir Putin's and Russia's position and to exonerate them from their aggression and from their war crimes.
Earlier this year, Trump said that the Russians have all the cards.
Mr. Speaker, someone ought to remind our President, and I do so tonight, that NATO has a combined defense expenditure of $1.58 trillion.
Together, we field 3.5 million troops.
Our combined GDP is 25 times more than Russia's.
Europe holds some $246 billion frozen Russian assets.
I suggest to all of us, to the president, and to the world at large, those are a lot of cards.
But we need to play them.
As long as they're in the deck, they won't make a difference.
Every day we do not, we look weaker in the eyes of the world.
That is a danger for us and a danger for the international community.
Every day Russia slaughters more Ukrainians.
At least 43,000 Ukrainian soldiers have already given their lives in defense of democracy, and many more have been wounded.
The Ukrainians will continue to fight valiantly, as the gentlelady pointed out, with or without our support.
But our decision will determine whether their fight is in vain or will prevail.
The other day, a Ukrainian soldier on the front lines told a reporter, and I quote, they kept withholding military aid, couldn't agree on how to respond, and we keep paying for their indecisiveness with our blood, the blood of our children.
He was referring, of course, not just to the United States, but the world at large.
Ukraine may be paying the price for our negligence today, but we, the free world, will ultimately bear the cost if we let Putin prevail.
When we fail to show our strength, our adversaries doubt our resolve.
And when our adversaries doubt our resolve, they are assuredly more likely to test our might.
That's the mistake that Neville Chamberlain made.
That's the state mistake America and the United Kingdom made when we did not honor the Budapest Memorandum when Putin annexed Crimea.
The failure to act decisively in the face of that war crime, of that theft, of that international law that was broken, led Putin to believe he could do this, the invasion of Ukraine, with impunity.
And that is the mistake Donald Trump is making now.
This Congress must not do the same.
And the good news is this Congress has not done the same.
There were 12 votes between 2022 and July of 2025.
The good news, America, is that on both sides of the aisle, the overwhelming majority of members voted to support Ukraine.
Mostly, it was unanimous on this side, but it was also unanimous on the Republican side, save one vote.
And then it was 110 to 117, just a small minority.
Those votes average 80% of the members of Congress voting to support Ukraine.
So it's not as if there is division in this House.
And as the gentlelady said, there's a discharge petition, which lays in that desk behind me.
Every Democrat, 213 Democrats have signed it, and two Republicans have signed it.
216 signatures in all now.
We need two more.
To say to Ukraine, to say to the world, to say yes to our administration, we are in support of liberty over tyranny.
We are in support of a people that has shown extraordinary courage.
Fortunately, we have a winning card to play.
Ranking Member Meeks and I have that bipartisan discharge petition to force on the Ukraine support.
Two Republicans have signed that.
But that means there are another 100 who support Ukraine, and all they need to do is sign that petition.
And we will vote in January on that bill that says we're going to support Ukraine and freedom and democracy and liberty and international law.
Every House Democrat and two Republicans, as I say, have signed.
Our legislation includes both sanctions to undermine Russia's war economy and direct financial and military aid for Ukraine's defense and reconstruction.
There are 80 United States senators who have signed on to a bill imposing sanctions on Russia some six months ago, and it has not moved.
What do you think that does to the psychology of Ukraine and Ukrainians and their soldiers?
If we report out this bill, in my view, it will change this war not only materially, but psychologically.
It doesn't matter how many concessions you give to Putin, and this administration has given him many.
He will keep fighting this war so long as he thinks he can outlast the free world.
This is an issue of resolve.
I mentioned how much superiority we have with respect to Russia in size, in money, and resources.
I know we can do this, Mr. Speaker.
Since the Russian invasion in 2022, the House has had at least 12 votes, and I mentioned them.
80% of our people have supported them.
Mr. Speaker, now is not the time to fold.
Now is the time to call.
If we play our hand correctly, we can still ensure Putin suffers a defeat that will make other dictators around the world think twice before violating international law and creating war crimes.
We must, Mr. Speaker, because make no mistake, Vladimir Putin is playing for keeps and for empire.
Our European allies know that to be the case because they have been at the point of the enemy's spear when Chamberlain said we were buying peace in our time.
We then had World War II.
Let us act.
I urge my Republican colleagues and friends who have signed on and voted for supporting Ukraine to sign this discharge petition.
Thank you very much, Congressman Hoyer from the state of Maryland, District No.
5.
I wanted to ask the Speaker for the time remaining, please.
Okay.
I'd be proud to yield to the really extraordinary Congressman from the state of California, Jim Costa from District 21, who has just been unwavering as a freedom fighter here, not just for our country, but for countries around the world that are trying to liberate themselves from the type of tyranny that Ukraine is facing.
Thank you, my colleague, Chairman of the Ukraine caucus, Marcy Capscher, for your leadership and for my other colleagues who have spoken this afternoon, the Speaker Ametrus Pelosi and Representative Stenny Hoyer.
I rise today to address the ongoing threat Russia poses to Ukraine, to Europe, and the United States and the broader international order.
On February 24th, I think all of us can remember 2022, Russia in a pre-planned and unprovoked attacked Ukraine.
And at that time, there was broad consensus among Republicans and Democrats what we needed to do, and that was to stand up for democracy.
Senator Lindsey Graham said it quite well at the time, that this was about good versus evil.
Well, I submit to you today, it is still about good versus evil.
And since that day, Russia has continued its assault on the rules-based international order.
From the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 to the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Russia, Russia, has shown a blatant disregard for international law, national sovereignty, and fundamental human rights.
Sadly, I believe that modern-day Russia today is a syndicate masquerading as a country with a mob boss called Putin.
That's Russia today.
President Putin has violated, as any mob boss would, every international agreement he's ever signed.
Period.
And that's why a peace deal must be backed up by strong military deterrence and strong commitments from Europe and the United States to back Ukraine with NATO-like defense guarantees.
It's very clear.
Otherwise, Putin has no intention of keeping any agreement.
This is not a conventional war.
It's a hybrid conflict combining military force with cyber attacks at all different levels and fronts.
Disinformation campaigns, economic warfare, alongside deliberate efforts, mind you, deliberate efforts to weaken NATO and undermine democratic institutions.
And they go on attacking civilian neighborhoods, bombing schools, hospitals, and churches.
Clearly, Putin is a war criminal.
And when the United States hesitates or sends mixed signals, we do not create stability.
We invite aggression.
Let's be clear about that.
History is replete with examples of those who hesitate or send mixed signals.
Therefore, American leadership remains the cornerstone of global security.
President Trump, Putin respects one thing and one thing only, and that is strength.
By supporting Ukraine, the United States is sending a clear message.
Authoritarian regimes cannot invade their neighbors without consequences.
So I ask the President of the United States to be strong, to be strong, and stand by the brave people of Ukraine and our allies.
Any sustainable resolution to this conflict must include Ukraine at the negotiating table.
How else could you reach a peace agreement?
The country under attack must have a decisive voice in shaping its own future and determining the terms of peace.
Otherwise, it's illogical.
So, ensuring that agreements respect its sovereignty and the will of its people.
Therefore, we must continue to strengthen our alliance, develop agile and region-specific strategies, and ensure that we are prepared to respond across all domains, including cyberspace, informational warfare, and economic coercion, because economic sanctions can work.
The President has the leverage with continued military support, economic support, and sanctions, using the sovereign wealth of Russia to repay the damage and the harm that they have created with our European allies.
We have the leverage.
We cannot allow this aggression to go unanswered.
We must stand firmly with Ukraine and defend democracy and the international order that we helped create that has created prosperity since World War II, the economic prosperity that democratic nations have shared because America, America stood strong.
That same order has brought peace and economic prosperity, think about it, throughout the world for 80 years for democratic nations.
So therefore, this is a symbol moment in American and world history that we are facing.
I urge my colleagues to act as we have, as Representative Stenihoyer indicated, 12 times in an overwhelming bipartisan fashion, to stand up for America's values, to stand up for human rights, to act collectively in a bipartisan fashion.
Thank you, Congressman Costa, for your fervent leadership on every level and for all you've done to continue relations with our closest allies that fight at our side and push back the edge of tyranny wherever it exists.
Thank you so very much.
And could I ask on remaining time, I have to divide it up among two very talented colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reaffirm my commitment to peace in Ukraine, a peace that acknowledges the massive sacrifice of the Ukrainian people and that secures perpetual sovereignty and not just a reprieve, a temporary reprieve that the Russians will use to rearm and reattack.
We must continue to stand firmly with the Ukrainian people in their fight for freedom and sovereignty.
I've traveled to Ukraine extensively since this major phase of the war started in February of 2022.
15 trips, the first 14 between June of 2022 to October of 2023, investigating war crimes and trying to help the Ukrainian people.
And the last one as the only bipartisan House delegation visit to Ukraine this year, which, frankly, I think that is a shameful statistic that only myself and Congressman Mike Turner managed to make it to Ukraine this year, a year where the Ukrainians faced enormous pressure.
And in those trips, I visited places like Bucha, Erpine, Hostomel, places where Russian soldiers executed civilians, brutally executed civilians, places where Russians attacked Ukrainian infrastructure, attempting to freeze and starve the Ukrainian population.
And I tell you that what I saw was a war crime.
And those crimes are perpetuated almost daily by Russians, including attacks and killing of POWs.
And it is in the United States' national security interest to secure peace between Russia and Ukraine, but only when that peace comes with dignity and security for the Ukrainian people.
We've seen Russia's playbook.
They use time, they buy time to rearm so they can attack.
They sow discord throughout the neighborhood in Moldova and Transnistria, in Georgia, and in Ukraine.
True peace will never be achieved by the world by appeasing Putin, and that's why we must stand together.
And so this peace proposal that we've recently seen, the 28 points, the Dmitriev, who's the leader of the Sovereign Wealth Fund, and Witkov, a real estate investor, I call the peace the Dimwit peace proposal.
This Dimwit peace proposal is nothing more than a giveaway to Vladimir Putin.
It does nothing to achieve peace, and frankly, it would have made Prime Minister Chamberlain blush after Munich, that level of weakness and appeasement.
Let me be clear.
A just and lasting peace in Ukraine could not be achieved by the United States alone.
It could not be achieved without transatlantic unity, and it could not be achieved without European support.
We must stand with the Ukrainian people.
We must stand on the right side of history and not support a shameful and weak appeasement deal.
You're such an outstanding member, and thank you for being here.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for your deference and ability to allow us to speak.
I just want to end this evening by saying that this special order is really not just about this generation, but those to come.
And for our children, for our grandchildren, the kind of world that we leave them.
And we simply cannot, cannot appease dictators because we will leave a very ugly world to them in the future.
The last thing I wish to place on the record, if you'd allow me just a couple seconds here, in 2014, when the Olympics were going on in Sochi, for the first time in Russia in modern history, Vladimir Putin used the Olympics where most people were distracted to cover up the fact that he was going to invade Ukraine, which he did.
But the Olympics were the shield from a public relations standpoint.
But what had just happened was that his stooge, who was the head of Ukraine then, Viktor Yanukovych, had to flee the country because he was such a crook and was totally a tool of Putin.
What the American people need to understand is Ukraine had to dig itself out from under decades, centuries of Russian imposition and corrupt leaders that held down the ability of this country to flower into a free nation.
So what we are fighting for is for the ability of people, of people, to have liberty first, last, and always in the place in the world where Stalin killed more people than any place else in the history of the world.
Thank you so very much.
God bless America, Slava Ukrainia.
Thank you so much.
I yield back.
unidentified
The gentlewoman yields.
Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities towards the president.
Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3rd, 2025, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Herodopoulos, is recognized for 60 minutes as a designee of the majority leader.
It's my honor to be here with you this afternoon as we talk about the need to promote accountability, flexibility, choice, and allow small businesses to galvanize together to find the best options for their employees in the changing health insurance market.
I want to start today by ceding some time to our friend from the state of Montana, Representative Downing, who has great experience in working with these markets placed in his home state of Montana.
You're recognized.
unidentified
Well, Mr. Speaker, thank you.
And to my colleague from Florida, Mr. Herodopoulos, thank you so much.
You know, I rise today to discuss or to comment on what I see as the biggest fraud this body has ever put upon the American people.
Let's go back to the beginning of the Unaffordable Care Act, Obamacare.
How is this sold to the American people?
You can keep your doctor if you like it.
You can keep your plan.
Your insurance premiums are going to go down.
And I'll tell you all of that.
I'll tell you, this is one time that both the Republicans and Democrats agree it did not deliver on that.
The Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, has been one of the biggest drivers in increasing not just the cost of health insurance, but the cost of health care.
And to continue this deception, it was clear that this plan would not work.
You don't have to be a PhD in mathematics to understand why.
As you start to add things, the essential health benefits that you added onto these policies, these required benefits, as you started to add things that had to be covered, and I'm not saying whether those were good or bad, but you add expenses, you can't make prices go down.
It'd be like saying if you went to a fast food restaurant and ordered a soda and the price is going to go down, but they have to give you a free cheeseburger as well.
It just doesn't make common sense, doesn't make mathematical sense.
And so to further this deception, they realized that it only worked by subsidizing it.
So you had to levy a tax to subsidize it.
And the architects on the other side of the aisle who put this together realized that the American people would rebel against this if they were given a tax to pay for it.
So how did they hide that?
Well, let's just tax the payers.
Let's tax the insurance companies.
And then they can pass those expenses down to the American people through higher premiums.
And that's exactly what happened.
And so then let's look at another phenomenon.
As these prices start going up, people start to question whether they're getting value for what they're paying for.
And for some folks, the answer was no.
They didn't want to pay those higher rates.
And so some folks came off.
And as we see, the people who come off tend to be the people who least need services.
So the healthy, younger people tend to be the ones that come off.
And as they do that, that concentrates the risk.
That makes the prices go higher for the insurance companies, for the payers.
And so as that happens and you get into the next policy year, they have to raise the rates again.
And as they raise the rates again, you lose more subscribers to those policies.
And so you further concentrate the risk.
And this is known as adverse selection.
And so what happens in adverse selection, every time you see that raise, those prices rise, you start to see more people come off.
They look for alternatives like health care sharing ministries, they look for something else, or they go uninsured.
And you start this endless cycle of these prices going up.
One other thing I just want to point out, this is kind of economics 101.
The more money you put into a system, the more expensive things get.
And we've seen that in so many different areas.
We've seen that in subprime lending.
We've seen that in student loans.
We've seen that in some.
You put money into a system, and it starts to push prices up.
And one of the other contributors we have is not just adverse selection that is concentrating the risk and making it more expensive for the insurance companies, but we've put so much money into the system that we're seeing rises in actual health care.
And it's important to make the distinction between the rising costs of health care and the related rising costs in health insurance.
And so we've just come to this death spiral of this becoming more and more and more unaffordable.
And in my personal opinion, this entire system is going to collapse under its own weight.
And you've got two solutions.
The other side thinks that we should just write a blank check from the federal government, no matter how big that check is going to be, so that we can hide the fact that this is failing.
I mean, let's face it, This is seen as a landmark piece of legislation that the Democrats have pushed over the last couple of decades.
It's important to them to protect this landmark legislation.
And I'm sorry, the Emperor's not wearing clothes.
And in order to hide that, they're doing these smoke screens with these increased subsidies.
So now let's look at the subsidies that have really gotten a lot of attention, these Obamacare subsidies that we've been talking about that the Democrats brought in response to COVID.
So these are subsidies to folks that are on the individual market.
Now, it's important to note that the individual market is a small percentage of the insurance.
This is not the entire market.
This is not small group.
This is not a large group.
This is a small percentage of folks that are on the individual marketplace to get their health insurance through healthcare.gov or through one of the exchanges.
So it's a very small part.
And when the Democrats first put this, it was in reaction to the chaos during COVID.
And it was by their intent and by their architecture, it was a temporary solution for a temporary problem.
So it was designed to expire.
It had a sunset.
And then when it was coming up to a sunset, when the Democrats still had control and had the ability to make this permanent, they still put an expiration date on it.
So these enhanced premium tax credits or these Obamacare credits were designed to expire at the end of this year.
So essentially, January 1st is when they were designed to expire.
And that was entirely policy brought by the Democrats.
This was not a Republican policy.
So this smokescreen that there are estimates between $300 and $400 billion to pay for it over the next 10 years if they are expanded, like I said, are a smokescreen.
And as folks start talking about whether prices are going to go up or go down or what these subsidies do, let's talk about that for a second.
Because these subsidies are a very small part of the increases that we're seeing in premiums because of what I've already talked about, because of rising costs of health care and because of rising costs of health insurance that are due to those health care increases as well as that adverse selection.
And so this small percentage, let me just put it in perspective.
In Montana, we've got a number of payers, a number of insurance companies, but the one with the largest increase on the individual market was about 25%.
It's a high number.
I agree.
But that 25%, it was a single-digit amount.
It was about 9% of that was attributed to the enhanced premium tax credits, to the Obamacare credits.
So even without that, the price is going up.
And independent of these Obamacare credits that we're discussing, it's going up in the small group, the large group, it's going up in every other part of insurance.
So that part without the enhanced premium, so I said that delta between 25 and 9, so let's say that's 16%.
Everybody else is still seeing that.
They're still seeing that increase.
One of the smallest increases we saw from our major payers was about 10, a little bit over 10%.
And it was about 3 or 4% of that was attributed to the Obamacare premiums.
And the reason I'm bringing this up is it's a very small percentage of this overall costs.
And one thing that I want to point out is if these tax credits are allowed to expire on the 31st, premiums are going up.
If we extend them, premiums are going up.
It's happening either way.
And just one thing I want to end on, just so that people understand how this process works, is if this body decides to extend those premiums, let's say it's for two years or three years, arbitrary amount.
What happens?
The way that insurance rates are filed is they go to the states, the payers, the insurance companies bring them to the state, they file, they're approved, they get filed with CMS, with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and then the open enrollment period starts, which is usually mid-November to mid-December.
And during that open enrollment period is when you buy your policies for the following year.
So we just closed that open enrollment period a couple of weeks ago for the 2026 policy years.
Those rates are already baked in.
So if we were to extend those credits, the rates are already baked in unless we go to extraordinary measures of allowing the payers to once again refile their rates and then having another open enrollment period, which I would guess would be March or April by the time you got all that through.
And so then what do you do with that?
Make those rates ex post facto, have them go back to the beginning of the year, or do you allow it to go through its normal cycle, in which case those rates affect the 2027 year?
So the point that I'm making is by extending those Obamacare subsidies, you're not affecting the 2026 rates without going to extraordinary measures to unroll everything that's already happened.
And so what will happen is those insurance companies that filed higher rates with the assumption of those premium tax credits staying in will get the benefit of having a higher rate plus having that tax credit.
Going back to how I started this, this fraud was put onto the American people to hide the taxes so that the American people weren't taxed directly.
They taxed the insurance companies that are getting these tax credits to change those rates for the people.
This is not going to affect what's happening right now without extraordinary members and without extraordinary measures.
What we need to do in closing, and I thank you to my colleague from Florida for allowing me to speak here, what we need to do is we need to start looking at alternatives on what are the core drivers of the cost of health insurance.
How do we rate insurance so that younger, healthier people are still willing to pay for it, so we have spread risk there.
What are the things that we can look at for driving costs down to stopping this endless cycle of adverse selection so that people can actually, as was promised on this big fraud perpetrated on the American people, have the doctor they want, the plan they want, and have their rates going down.
And this Obamacare premium debacle is not the answer, but we do need to get to work and figure out how we can get to the root causes of these rising prices.
Because, as I said, this is either going to collapse under its own weight or we're going to be forced to write an unlimited check from the federal government, which me and many of my colleagues are unwilling to do.
And with that, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Herodopoulos, I yield.
And we appreciate your expertise and understanding of these issues as we take it on towards the future.
I want to read one comment before I call up the Congressman from Colorado.
This is from the Washington Post, maybe the most liberal major newspaper in America.
Their comments were simply, many honest people will feel this squeeze next year, but any serious effort to extend Obamacare subsidies would need to include lower income caps, acquire some out-of-pocket premiums, and impose additional anti-fraud protections.
Washington Post says it.
Recognize the reality that this has been a broken system that has been covered up for years at the expense of other taxpayers and the overall cost of health care.
And that's why we're having this discussion today.
I'd like to allocate some time now to the Congressman from Colorado, Congressman Crank.
Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding this time to me.
And we heard so much from the gentleman from Montana who knows a lot about health insurance.
You know, health care is more than these enhanced premium tax credits.
The Democrats have tried to make it about enhanced premium tax credits, but health care is more than that.
As the gentleman from Montana pointed out, enhanced premium tax credits, these credits would cover 7% of the American people.
7%.
That's what we're talking about with their solution would be 7%.
And even if we were to fix that 7%, what would the fix mean?
Well, let's talk about who these people are.
These are folks in the enhanced premium tax credit who make for a family of four over $128,000 a year.
That's what we're talking about.
We're not talking about people who are making $40,000 or $30 or $50,000.
Those tax credits continue under this broken, failed Affordable Care Act system.
Those continue.
What my friends over here want to do is pull money out of our pockets and give it to people who are making, for a family of four, over $128,000 a year.
That's their solution for 7% of the people.
That doesn't make sense.
That's what it would do.
And what effect would it have?
It would reduce premiums by 5%.
5% for 7% of the population, all making over $128,000 for a family of four.
That doesn't sound like much of a solution to me because it's not a solution.
The solution is free market reforms.
And the fact of the matter is that the enhanced premium tax credit is a band-aid on the gaping wound of Obamacare.
It's a band-aid on the gaping wound of the Affordable Care Act.