Nancy Mace

Ms. MACE

Ms. MACE. Mr. Chair, I would encourage my colleagues on the left side of the aisle to read Martina Navratilova's X account today, talking about how confirming she was a woman was not invasive. It was a simple cheek swab. This is the fear politics of the left, and that says a lot about how far they have gone. To say that trans kids just want to be on a team with our little girls, if there is a tranny on a team with our daughters, they need to be kicked right off. If they are in a locker room with our girls, they need to be kicked right out. We have seen some really crazy stories of grown men with beards shaving at the sink with little girls in towels in the corner of the locker room scared to death and vulnerable to sexual predators. We all know the tranny thing really is about sexual gratification. Sexual attraction to being dressed as a woman has nothing to do with them thinking that they are a woman. In fact, they are mocking being a woman. They are mocking our femininity, and they are mocking the rights that we fought for for hundreds and hundreds of years. It has not been long since women actually got the right to vote. There are still ceilings to be broken in this country. It is not going to be done by some mentally ill man in a skirt. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MACE. Mr. Chair, trans girls aren't real girls. Trans women aren't real women. Cis women, nobody knows what that is. It is not actually a thing. There are significant physical, biological differences between men and women. Biological men generally have greater muscle mass, bone density, cardiovascular capacity, physical strength than women, and the risk of physical injury is real. The irony and the hypocrisy to say that banning biological men from girls' locker rooms and sports makes them less safe is ludicrous. It is actually the trannies that are going into prisons or going into schools, going into locker rooms, going into bathrooms. The LGBTQ-plus-plus-plus whatever it is, queer, these are the people that are putting women at risk. They are raping them in our prisons. They are assaulting them at schools, in the locker rooms, in the bathrooms. This is the kind of thing that we don't want our very masculine, high-T warfighter having to worry about his little girl when he is out there killing the real bad guys. We want to keep them safe. As a survivor, I know what the vulnerabilities are for women in private spaces and how vulnerable we are at all ages. This bill would protect the little girls of our warfighters across the country. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MACE. Mr. Chair, women and girls have fought for so long to have equal opportunities in education and athletics. As the first female graduate of the Citadel's Corps of Cadets, no one understands this more than I do. Unfortunately, these rights are now under attack. Over 900 medals have been stolen from women and girls by biological males. This flies in the face of common sense and our most basic notions of fairness and women's rights. Even if some of my colleagues are too afraid to say it, every person in this room knows that men and women are biologically distinct. This truth has been obvious to every civilization in the history of mankind. Yet, mediocre male athletes are forcing their way into little girls' locker rooms and onto their courts and fields. Women and girls are being robbed of athletic opportunities. Make no mistake, this is misogyny masquerading as progress. This amendment would prohibit biological males from participating in schools administered by the Department of Defense Education Activity. DoDEA schools serve the children of our warfighters, and they should not have to worry about their little girls having their private spaces invaded, having their accomplishments and opportunities stolen from them, and being injured competing against men. We have seen countless women's volleyball teams across the country forfeit instead of having to face biological men and risk the same physical injuries experienced by Payton McNabb. In Massachusetts in 2023, a female field hockey player had her teeth knocked out by a biological male during a game. In 2024, a high school women's basketball team was forced to forfeit after a 6-foot bearded male athlete injured three of their players, leaving girls in pain and injury on the court. These are the predictable consequences of a policy which dresses up biological ignorance as compassion. I urge all Members to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MACE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. MACE. Mr. Chair, you just heard it from California: cis man. I don't even know what a cis man is. That sounds ridiculous. Talking about pretend doctors, I think we had a pretend doctor testify on the Hill this week. The president of a prestigious university could not testify that only women can give birth to babies. Someone who is supposed to be training medical physicians and medical doctors here in the United States couldn't say under oath, in Congress, that only women can give birth to babies. I don't think you can trust medical doctors that say being tranny is a thing. Treating somebody's low T or thyroid, if they are a man, that seems like a natural, biological thing, but not for a woman. If you give a woman a ton of testosterone, it erodes the lining of her bladder. She eventually becomes incontinent. The other hormones are going to eventually give her breast cancer. It is just a crazy ideology. We need to follow actual science, follow biology, and not these doctors and universities that are training medical doctors, that are making millions and millions of dollars by keeping people on prescriptions, on medicines that drive them crazy, to shoot up schools, churches, and synagogues. All these tranny shootings, all these mass shootings, it is actually insane. They should not be serving in the military. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MACE. If you think your kid is trans and you are the parent, your kid needs to be taken out of your household. It is insane to think--you are hearing these stories this week in the news how somebody's 2-year- old knew that, when they were born a girl, they are actually a boy and all this craziness. Children have creative imaginations. They imagine that they might be a monkey. That doesn't mean you feed them bananas and leave them in a jungle because they think they are Curious George. It is insane. This is a mental health crisis. Anyone who is mentally ill should not be serving in our military, and they absolutely should not be serving in combat. Every dollar spent by the Department of War on chemical and surgical sex change procedures is a dollar not spent on preparing the readiness of America's warfighter. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MACE. Mr. Chair, testosterone treatment for men serving in our military isn't gender-affirming care. We want the most masculine, the most muscular, the toughest warfighters in the world because they are in the trenches. They are doing combat. They are the ones who are putting their lives on the line. The idea that chopping someone's penis off is risking military readiness is ludicrous. We are talking about mentally ill men that think having a menstrual cycle means bleeding out of your rectum. That is how crazy and insane this conversation is. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MACE. Mr. Chair, let me be clear. There are two biological sexes: male and female. They are assigned at conception and cannot be changed. Biology doesn't care how many hormones someone pumps into their bodies or how they mutilate their bodies. Biological reality cannot be changed by medical intervention. In the Fiscal Year 2025 NDAA, Congress prohibited TRICARE from covering medical interventions to treat gender dysphoria, which would result in the sterilization of children. This was an important step, but there is more to be done. This language failed to prohibit the Department of War from chemically and surgically mutilating our servicemembers and their children and performing a number of sick procedures on our kids. This amendment would prohibit the Department of War from covering or furnishing any chemical or surgical mutilation procedures through TRICARE--not one dime for cross-sex hormones, not one dime for taxpayer-funded puberty blockers, not one dime for taxpayer-funded surgeries, all in the name of gender-affirming care and this crazy gender woke ideology. The Federal Government and, particularly, the Department of War should not be in the business of funding the chemical and surgical mutilation of our citizens. This is not healthcare. It is the butchering of healthy bodies, and American taxpayers should never pay for it. Not only do these disgusting trans chemical, trans surgical interventions often cause permanent infertility, sterility, and sexual dysfunction, but they can actually increase depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. They can cause cancer among those on whom these medical procedures are performed. This amendment restores common sense to military healthcare. It aligns the Department of War with the growing international medical consensus that these interventions, particularly for children, are extremely harmful. This amendment ensures that Defense health dollars are spent on advancing the health of our servicemembers and their families, not undermining it, and certainly not on advancing an ideology based on delusion. We pay for our warfighters to mutilate the enemy, not to mutilate themselves. Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MACE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. MACE

Ms. MACE. Mr. Chairman, I would encourage my colleagues to support the amendment and vote for its passage. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MACE. Mr. Chairman, since I came to Congress, I have been fighting to put an end to taxpayer-funded animal cruelty. We have seen great successes, including successfully eliminating these painful and inhumane animal experiments across the VA, Department of War, and more. Today, we seek to build on the significant progress with this amendment. Based on our bipartisan bill, Violet's Law, which we named after a hound dog which was rescued from a government lab, our amendment would ensure the humane treatment of lab animals once they are retired. Each year, thousands of animals like Violet are used in Federal labs, many of them in noninvasive and nonterminal testing. Too often, when that research ends, these animals, despite being healthy, are killed simply because there is no policy in place to retire them. Our amendment fixes that. Rather than being euthanized, my amendment would ensure Federal research facilities establish procedures to facilitate the adoption or nonlaboratory placement of dogs, cats, nonhuman primates, guinea pigs, hamsters, and rabbits used in government labs. It would allow agencies to place these precious animals with animal rescue organizations, animal sanctuaries, and animal shelters to facilitate finding their new home or with an individual looking to adopt the animal. This is a commonsense idea which is already working. We have already seen some Federal agencies adopt policies allowing lab animals to be retired and rehomed. Many States have adopted similar laws. This idea is supported not just by animal welfare advocates, but by leaders in the biomedical research community, as well. We can judge a man and a country by its treatment of animals, and our country can do so much better than euthanizing healthy, innocent animals created by God. I thank Representative Titus for partnering with me on this amendment, and I urge all Members to support this amendment. Together, we can save the lives of countless innocent dogs, cats, guinea pigs, hamsters, and rabbits. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MACE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. MACE. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MACE. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).

Ms. MACE. Mr. Chairman, an onslaught of substandard foreign seafood, often subsidized by foreign governments or international financial institutions, is being dumped into our markets, devastating our domestic seafood industry. For example, after hearing testimony of some of my constituents, the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined that Ecuador, India, Indonesia, and Vietnam were illegally subsidizing and dumping shrimp, imposing antidumping and countervailing duties. This foreign seafood is often caught through illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing and employs brutal working conditions, including the use of child or forced labor. These foreign actors also don't abide by the same stringent food safety standards we have in our country, using banned antibiotics and other chemicals in their seafood. Just last year, there was a recall of foreign shrimp from Indonesia which was contaminated with cesium-137. The foreign shrimp was literally radioactive. Mr. Chair, imagine all the contaminated foreign seafood that slips into our food supply undetected. This has all combined to push down dock prices for our domestic shrimpers and fishermen. In some parts of the country, dock prices for shrimp fell to around $1 per pound in recent years. This coupled with the inflation we experienced under the previous administration and elevated fuel costs is causing the perfect storm. Facing anticompetitive foreign practices, falling dock prices, and economic headwinds, fishermen and shrimpers are struggling not just to earn a living but to even make it to the next season. To illustrate the scope and scale of this problem, total value of U.S. commercial seafood landings has fallen 25 percent from 2021 to 2024. Landings by weight have fallen to their lowest levels since 1988. At the same time, our food supply has become increasingly dependent on foreign seafood. Today, foreign imports account for approximately 94 percent of total seafood consumption in America. This is exactly why I am offering this amendment today. Our shrimpers and fishermen put food on the table, they are the farmers of sea, and it is past time we started treating them like it. The USDA has a variety of programs to provide assistance to farmers and ranchers, and it is time we allowed our commercial fishermen to take part in them. This amendment would amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to include commercial fishing and fish processing as eligible agricultural activities for USDA programs, unlocking access to many grant, loan, and assistance programs for shrimpers and fishermen. This amendment would also ensure commercial fishermen and fish processors have access to USDA Farm Ownership Loans and Farm Operating Loans. Best of all, according to the Congressional Budget Office, this amendment is budget neutral. This is a commonsense way to support the shrimpers and fishermen who feed our families and make South Carolina's Lowcountry, and so many places across our Nation's coasts, very special. I thank Representative Carbajal for partnering with me on this amendment. I urge all Members to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MACE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. MACE. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MACE. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).

Ms. MACE. Mr. Chair, if you visit South Carolina's Lowcountry, you will understand commercial shrimping and fishing are not just the backbone of our coastal communities but a part of our heritage and our way of life. You will find shrimp festivals, oyster roasts, and Lowcountry boils nearly every weekend during the season. In communities across South Carolina's First Congressional District from McClellanville to Mount Pleasant to Beaufort to Bluffton to Hilton Head and Hilton Head Island, Mr. Chair, you will see thousands show up to bless the fleet of shrimp boats when they head out to begin their season. Across the State of South Carolina, Mr. Chair, you will see communities, neighbors, and families come together around locally caught seafood and see people come from thousands of miles away just to taste it. However, Mr. Chair, talk to any shrimper or fisherman in this country, and you will know that the commercial fishing and shrimping industries are struggling. For too long, the USDA has ignored our shrimpers and our fishermen, the farmers of the sea, who put nutritious, fresh seafood on our tables at dinner. President Trump understands food security is national security, and he has recognized the importance of revitalizing our domestic seafood industry. Last April he issued an executive order titled Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness. Last fall, we saw the USDA establish a new seafood liaison in the Secretary's office to ensure the voices of our seafood harvesters are heard. Just a few weeks ago, Secretary Rollins announced the creation of the first-ever Office of Seafood within the Department of Agriculture. This gives our shrimpers and our fishermen a seat at the table. Our amendment would codify the newly established Office of Seafood at the USDA, ensuring our commercial shrimpers and fishermen as well as our fish processors, are integrated into USDA programs. The Office of Seafood would also be responsible for working alongside the Department of Commerce, the U.S. Trade Representative, NOAA, and other Federal agencies and departments to revitalize the American seafood industry. The hardworking South Carolinians who work our waters and put fresh, local seafood on our plates deserve this. This amendment would deliver it. I will always stand with South Carolina's shrimpers and fishermen, and I urge all Members to support our domestic seafood industry by voting in favor of this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MACE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. MACE

Ms. MACE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. MACE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer the resolution that was previously noticed.

Ms. MACE

Ms. MACE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intent to raise a question of the privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: Directing the Committee on Ethics to preserve and publicly release records of the Committee's review of violations or alleged violations of clause 9 (as it pertains to acts of sexual harassment) and clause 18 of rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. Whereas, there is no place for sexual harassment or unwelcome sexual advances in the House of Representatives; Whereas, clause 9 of rule XXIII of the Rules of the House provides ``Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House may not discharge and may not refuse to hire an individual, or otherwise discriminate against an individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of the race, color, religion, sex (including marital or parental status), sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, age, or national origin of such individual, including by committing an act of sexual harassment against such individual''; Whereas, clause 18(a) of rule XXIII of the Rules of the House provides ``A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not engage in a sexual relationship with any employee of the House who works under the supervision of the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, or who is an employee of a committee on which the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner serves''; Whereas, clause 18(b) of rule XXIII of the Rules of the House provides ``A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House may not engage in unwelcome sexual advances or conduct toward another Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House''; Whereas, sexual harassment and unwelcome sexual advances by Members, Delegates, or Resident Commissioners, in violation of clause 9 and clause 18 of rule XXIII of the Rules of the House, affect the safety, dignity, and integrity of the proceedings of the House of Representatives: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, that the Committee on Ethics shall: (1) preserve all documents and investigative materials related to any violations or alleged violations of clause 9 (as it pertains to acts of sexual harassment), clause 18, or any other clause (to the extent an act of sexual harassment, unwelcome sexual advance, or sexual assault constituted a violation or alleged violation of such clause) of rule XXIII of the Rules of the House by a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner; and (2) not later than 60 days after the date of the adoption of this resolution, make publicly available all final reports, or in such cases where there is not a final report, the most recent draft report, conclusions, recommendations, exhibits, and attached or accompanying materials, with the personally identifiable information of victims, alleged victims, and witnesses redacted, related to the Committee's investigations into violations or alleged violations of clause 9 (as it pertains to acts of sexual harassment), clause 18, or any other clause (to the extent an act of sexual harassment, unwelcome sexual advance, or sexual assault constituted a violation or alleged violation of such clause) of rule XXIII by a Member, a Delegate, or Resident Commissioner.

Ms. MACE

Ms. MACE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from South Carolina for yielding time. Mr. Timmons is doing an excellent job managing floor time today. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of our bill, the Skills- Based Federal Contracting Act. The price of admission should not be a 4-year college degree. At a hearing I held last Congress in the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government Innovation, a witness from IBM testified that Federal contractors are rarely able to place an individual without a 4-year degree on a technology services contract, regardless of their qualifications. This problem extends beyond technology and service contracts. Across the Federal Government, many contract solicitations include unnecessary degree requirements, mandating individuals who perform various tasks hold specific education credentials such as 4-year college degrees. The Federal Government spends hundreds of billions of dollars outsourcing work to millions of contractors to perform the functions of government. This immense purchasing power shapes the entire labor market. When we embed unnecessary degree requirements into Federal contracting solicitations, we are not just making a hiring decision; we are sending a signal to the entire economy that a college diploma is a prerequisite for economic opportunity. With less than 40 percent of Americans holding a 4-year college degree, this creates a paper ceiling where talented Americans are excluded from opportunity, regardless of how qualified they may be, simply because they lack a college degree. The Skills-Based Federal Contracting Act bill would tear through this paper ceiling by prohibiting the Federal Government from including a minimum educational requirement for proposed contractor personnel in a Federal contract solicitation, unless the contracting officer provides a written justification for why the needs of the agency cannot be met without such requirements. Think about the immense economic value and economic opportunity created in this country by individuals who didn't finish college. These include Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, and Steve Jobs. Under onerous degree requirements, it would have been nearly impossible for any of these individuals to have been placed on a government contract. Across the private sector, we have seen companies move to phase out or even eliminate degree requirements, recognizing a college degree does not serve as an effective proxy for competence or skills. It is far past time the Federal Government follows suit. This bill in no way tells private companies how to hire or who to hire. Rather, it removes unnecessary Federal restrictions on their ability to hire the best qualified Americans who acquired their skills through alternative pathways. In some cases, required education credentials are warranted. For example, we expect a doctor to have a medical degree, but only a small fraction of Federal contract work falls into these types of categories. In the case that it does, this bill would simply require a brief justification in writing from a contracting officer before they exclude over 60 percent of American workers who do not have a 4-year degree from the chance to compete. Mr. Speaker, I thank the lead Democratic cosponsor of this bill, Representative Krishnamoorthi, for joining me in this effort. Skills-based hiring has been a rare area of widespread bipartisan and nonpartisan support in Congress. The Skills-Based Federal Contracting Act passed out of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on an enormously bipartisan basis by a vote of 44-0. Together, we can provide all Americans, regardless of whether they studied classic literature in ivory towers, with economic opportunity and the chance to work on behalf of their fellow citizens serving our country. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this commonsense, nonpartisan bill.

Ms. MACE

Ms. MACE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Protect Children's Innocence Act. When we are talking about ``shameful,'' shameful is castrating a kid. Shameful is chopping off the breasts of an underage girl, and that is what the Democrats are doing today. It is obscene. It is disgusting. You are seeing in real time Democrats wanting and defending grooming of children, and it is abhorrent. There is a lie at the heart of the debate that we are having today that I have to correct. No child is born in their wrong body. There are only two sexes. They are male, and they are female. There are no others. Every child is created in the Lord's image, and we cannot remain silent while demonic forces are here today on the floor, the left, here to groom children and defend it. Children are innocent. For too long, Democrats have tried to mainstream satanic, irreversible procedures which destroy the bodies of young children and often lead to kids being sterilized for life. It leads to disease, leads to cancer, and leads to suicide. Democrats say to protect trans kids. I came here today to the floor of the House of Representatives to say: There is no such thing as a trans kid. Transgenderism is a mind virus perpetuated by the far left to groom kids. This is not gender-affirming care. It is genital-destroying child abuse. This chemical and surgical mutilation of children has devastating consequences on their physical and mental health, and many live to regret it. Many live to detransition if they make it out at all. This is sick. This is disgusting. We cannot allow the left to prey on underage kids any longer.