Adam Smith

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Victor Odermat for his many years of dedication to our country, both through his military service and active support for the Puget Sound military community through Brown Bear Car Wash. Victor valiantly served in the United States Marine Corps until the mid-1950's, and his dedication to service continued long after his active military duty. Upon graduating from Lakeside High School, Victor entered the University of Washington's NROTC program and would go on to serve in the United States Marine Corps until the mid-1950's. After leaving the Marines, Victor founded Brown Bear Car Wash, which would become a steadfast supporter of the military community. He displayed exemplary work ethic and was widely known for his commitment to ``taking care of the customer.'' Victor exemplified service and dedication to the military community, he carried this same unceasing devotion to serving those around him. Brown Bear Car Wash backs National Guard and Reserve troops through Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve, offering free car washes to veterans on every Veterans Day and donating a portion of proceeds to the Puget Sound Honor Flight. Brown Bear Car Wash has donated over $71,000 to the Puget Sound Honor Flight and is a vital partner to Cathay Post No. 186, helping raise funds for veteran services. Beyond supporting the post, Brown Bear contributes to organizations like the USO, Marine Corps Scholarship Foundation, and Boy Scouts of America, reflecting a deep commitment to the Puget Sound community. Victor has left a resounding impact on all those around him and was a true leader of the communities he was part of. Mr. Speaker, I thank Victor Odermat for a lifetime of service to the United States of America and to his community. I am deeply grateful for his important efforts towards protecting our country and his outstanding contributions to the Puget Sound community. His legacy will not be forgotten.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chair, there are going to be five amendments now that are all targeting the transgender community. I want to make sure we understand a couple of really sort of broad themes and why these amendments are so problematic. Number one is the transgender community has been targeted and discriminated against aggressively. If my colleagues troll through rightwing radio or online messaging, they are called freaks and weirdos. They are dehumanized on a very consistent basis in a way that has led to violence and discrimination against the transgender community. On all five of these amendments--just put a little exclamation point on that--it encourages the dehumanization of transgender people in a way that is very, very dangerous. That is number one. Number two is transgender people exist. That is just a fact. Gender dysphoria is a medical fact. No serious medical person disagrees on that point. It is not even debatable. There are a couple of things that are debatable. What do we do about it? What treatments are appropriate, given the set of circumstances? Personally, I think it is wide open to have that conversation. What should the medical profession do? Second, when there is a transgender woman or a transgender man, how does that work in terms of sports and a wide variety of different things with women's sports or men's sports? We can have a conversation about how to fit that in. Acting like transgender people don't exist further contributes to their dehumanization and the discrimination against them. None of these amendments before us today are even remotely necessary. They are simply an effort to take advantage of a culture war, partisan issue to drive a wedge into this bill. Does it belong here? On this particular amendment, for a servicemember who has a child experiencing gender dysphoria, what this amendment says is that child doesn't actually exist. That is not really happening. How is it going to make a servicemember feel when they are trying to take care of their child? I have met with children who went through gender dysphoria and who credit the treatment they received for absolutely saving their lives.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield myself an additional 1 minute. Mr. Chair, do they sometimes make mistakes? I always like to say, I have had three hip surgeries including two total hip replacements. I probably didn't need any of them. It was probably a mistake. I don't see anybody on the floor talking about banning hip replacements because occasionally one is done wrong. That happens. This decision should be made by doctors and patients. It should not be made by Congressmen and legislators. This is restricting healthcare that could be incredibly necessary for young people and also for other family members. It is bigoted, discriminatory, and unnecessary. I hope this body will turn it down. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 1 minute for three quick points. Number one, this does not restrict medical treatment for anybody else. It has nothing to do with this whatsoever. Second of all, this doesn't just eliminate sex-change operations. This very specifically eliminates any treatment for gender dysphoria. A lot of times, that is mental health treatment. That is not surgery, and that is not drugs. That is a conversation about that issue. It eliminates it for everybody. Third, yes, we need to put our servicemembers in the best position to focus on their mission and the fight. If you are a servicemember overseas, Mr. Chair, stationed and fighting, and you have a child who is experiencing gender dysphoria and told that your child, who is in a very dangerous situation, cannot get the healthcare that they need, that is not going to help that servicemember be the best possible fighter they can be for this country. We should not be denying healthcare to the family members of our servicemembers that they need, and that is what this amendment does. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Again, Mr. Chair, we are not talking about sex-change operations. This is just another example of the profound ignorance surrounding treatment for gender dysphoria. We are talking about any treatment. Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Tokuda).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 1 minute. First of all, I thank the maker of this amendment for making it clear what the problem is: ``trannies,'' ``mentally ill,'' and insulting transgender people. This is exactly what these amendments are about. It is about a rightwing culture war to try to target the transgender community and make them something less than human. If you listen to those comments, Mr. Chair, you can get a feel for why that is a problem. Number two, this amendment does not have anything to do with transgender people serving in the military. President Trump has already implemented that bigoted, discriminatory policy to drive them out of the military. This is about healthcare for children experiencing gender dysphoria. What this amendment does is it bans that healthcare treatment for children experiencing gender dysphoria. I made a series of arguments on the other amendment about why that is such a bad idea, but the bottom line is this is a legitimate problem. The studies have often shown that this is beneficial treatment that is now being denied by the United States Congress. This is something that doctors and patients should decide. If we want to offer an amendment saying, ``Please look at this issue. Here are some studies on one side or the other,'' and ask the medical community to reach conclusions, then that is one thing, but banning it doesn't make sense. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Current law bans sterilization, so that is just a lot of crap about what this is about. Current law bans what she is talking about. What is being banned here is any treatment for gender dysphoria, and that is completely wrong. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Jacobs).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Vermont (Ms. Balint).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 1 minute. This amendment would be very destructive to achieving peace in Ukraine. I agree with the gentlewoman; that should be the goal. What has been clear for quite some time is that Putin will only stop his war when it is clear that he cannot achieve his objectives in Ukraine. President Trump showing weakness on that issue, literally rolling out the red carpet for Putin, has only made the war worse. Ever since President Trump has tried to blame the war on Zelenskyy and Ukraine, Putin has ramped up the war, launching more aggressive attacks than he ever has in the 3\1/2\ years of the war, and most recently, sending drones over Poland, as well. Weakness invites aggression, and I know the proponent of this amendment has said this many, many times, but apparently she doesn't recognize weakness when she sees it. That is what cutting off Ukraine does. If you want to stop the war, back the 53-nation coalition that is supporting Ukraine and make it clear to Putin he is not going to win. That forces him to the peace table. Showing weakness, backing off, undermining the coalition only extends the war. Please defeat this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, sadly, the gentlewoman has had a big part in it. She just voted for a budget that would add $4 trillion to the debt, so I don't know that that is a particularly consistent position. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, no more money for Ukraine will not end the war. This is absolutely in the interests of United States' national security. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close. Mr. Chairman, I agree with all of the arguments that were made. I think the most crucial point here is that the United States of America is the most economically powerful country in the history of the world. That has been the case since the end of World War II. A large part of that is because of our efforts to work with the rest of the world to maintain peace and security. Sadly, it just doesn't end at our borders. Peace and security in the world is in the best interests of the American people, and we see the economic prosperity that we have enjoyed because of it. That is what Ukraine is about and why we should continue to support them. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.