Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 734) to amend the Education Amendments of 1972 to provide that for purposes of determining compliance with title IX of such Act in athletics, sex shall be recognized based solely on a person's reproductive biology and genetics at birth, and providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 42) disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I speak in opposition to H.R. 734, the politics over participation act.

We can all agree on the need to address the challenges facing our education system, issues like gun violence, academic achievement gaps, and the lack of mental health support for our students. These are serious challenges that demand serious action.

Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues have used their first 100 days in the majority to pursue a radical education agenda that prioritizes political points over students' safety and success.

Today, we are considering another piece of this extreme agenda, one that again targets transgender kids.

School sports activities offer fundamental life lessons--such as leadership, self-confidence, and teamwork--that every child should be able to enjoy. As Members of Congress, our responsibility is to ensure that student athletics are, above all, fair and safe.

H.R. 734 does the exact opposite. It makes school sports less fair by singling out and banning transgender women and girls as young as kindergarten from participating on school sports teams with their friends. We know transgender students already face widespread bullying and discrimination. Adding to their pain by targeting their participation in school sports is both wrong and dangerous.

Furthermore, contrary to my Republican colleagues' claims, H.R. 734 actually makes school sports less safe for women and girls. To enforce its ban on transgender student athletes, the bill would require all girls as young as their preteens to ``prove their gender.''

For example, under Utah's blanket ban on transgender student participation in school sports, parents of the second- and third-place finishers in a State-level girls' competition complained to the Utah High School Activities Association that they suspected the winner of the event was trans. Following the complaint, the school was forced to investigate the student by combing through her records going back to kindergarten. She was, in fact, not transgender.

The association has received other complaints about supposed trans competitors, sometimes with the reasoning being simply that a girl doesn't look feminine enough.

Simply put, H.R. 734 does not protect women and girls. It only makes school sports less safe and less fair.

There are schools, States, and sports associations that have been allowing transgender people to play equitably and consistent with their gender identity with no issues for decades.

This bill doesn't address the most elite level of athletes. Yet, even at the most elite level, organizations like the International Olympic Committee have frameworks for transgender inclusion in sports. They reject the type of categorical blanket ban Republicans are pushing for kids as young as kindergartners in schools.

Congress has no business targeting transgender women and girls and imposing a nationwide ban on their participation in school sports. We need to refocus on our job in Congress to address the most pressing issues facing students and parents and ensure that every child in America can reach their full potential.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 734, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, (Ms. Pelosi), Speaker Emerita.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. Chairman, while girls' participation in sports have increased 1,000 percent since Title IX, the participation numbers still have not reached that of boys 50 years ago.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stevens).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan), the chair of the Equality Caucus.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Jacobs).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Robert Garcia).

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record the following letters from PFLAG, a consortium of women and girls' rights organizations and 40 professional athletes all in opposition to H.R. 734.

I remind my colleagues on the other side that trans people do exist. To deny their existence is to also deny their humanity, and this is a terrible thing.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Frost).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record an article from the Advocate titled ``Judge Blocks Utah Trans Sports Ban, While Probe of Athlete Emerges,'' from August 2022.

[From the Advocate, Aug. 19, 2022]

Judge Blocks Utah Trans Sports Ban, While Probe of Athlete Emerges

(By Trudy Ring)

A judge in Utah has blocked enforcement of the state's

transgender sports ban, days after news emerged that parents

of cisgender female athletes had filed a complaint about an

alleged trans competitor who turned out not to be.

Judge Keith A. Kelly in the Third District Court of Utah,

located in Salt Lake County, issued a preliminary injunction

Friday against the state's blanket ban on trans girls in

girls' school sports, meaning it can't be enforced while a

lawsuit against it proceeds. The ban is only one section of

the law passed as House Bill 11. He left the rest of the law

intact, including the requirement for trans girls to go

before a commission to determine their eligibility to compete

in girls' sports.

``Thus, the effect of this preliminary injunction will not

mean that transgender girls will automatically be eligible to

compete on their school's girls' teams,'' Kelly wrote.

``Rather, it will allow them to compete only upon the

commission's determination that their being able to compete

is fair under all of the circumstances.''

Utah lawmakers overrode Gov. Spencer Cox's veto to pass the

legislation in March.

The injunction comes shortly after another development

regarding the law. The parents of the second- and third-place

finishers in a state-level girls' sports event complained to

the Utah High School Activities Association that they

suspected the winner of the event was trans, David Spatafore,

legislative representative for the association, told the Utah

Legislature's Education Interim Committee Wednesday, the

Deseret News reports. The UHSAA had the student's school

investigate, looking over her records all the way back to

kindergarten, and it turned out that she was not trans. He

didn't identify the student, the school, or the sport, citing

privacy considerations.

He said the association has received other complaints about

supposed trans competitors, sometimes with people saying a

girl simply ``doesn't look feminine enough.''

Opponents of the law said this shows major problems with

it. ``We warned about this being a possibility, that everyone

would accuse everyone who is successful of being

transgender,'' Sue Robbins, a member of the Transgender

Advisory Council of Equality Utah, told The Salt Lake

Tribune. ``It becomes about judging women's bodies. And no

body is safe.''

At his monthly press conference Thursday, Gov. Cox called

this investigation a disturbing development. ``My goodness,

we're living in this world where we've become sore losers,

and we're looking for any reason why our kid lost,'' he said,

according to the Tribune. ``I have a real problem with that

story. . . . I just wish we could be a little more thoughtful

in life and a little less critical of other people.''

Meanwhile, the parents who filed suit against the law

welcomed Friday's injunction. ``My husband and I are very

relieved by this decision,'' Debbie Roe, a parent plaintiff

in the lawsuit, Roe v. UHSAA, said in a press release. ``We

are grateful the court understood how much harm this law has

caused, which has been a huge source of stress and trauma for

our child. Our daughter just wants the same chance as other

kids to make friends and play on the team she loves. Today's

ruling gives her the opportunity to do that.''

``This is a win not only for my child but for all girls in

this state,'' added Jean Noe, another parent plaintiff.

``This law is based on stereotypes and misconceptions that

are harmful to all girls. I am grateful the court has put

this dangerous law on pause and that, at least for the

moment, all Utah children can know that they are valued and

supported.''

``We are very pleased by the court's decision,'' said

Justice Christine Durham, former chief justice of the Utah

Supreme Court and senior of counsel at Wilson Sonsini, one of

the lawyers representing the parents. ``Thus far, every court

to rule on a similar ban has barred it from taking effect,

due in part to the serious harms caused by excluding an

entire group of students from such an important school

activity. We read today's decision as recognizing that the

law is not only discriminatory but puts Utah children at

needless risk of lifelong harm. We look forward to moving

forward with the case and securing a permanent decision

blocking the law from taking effect.''

In addition to Wilson Sonsini, the parents are represented

by the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah and the

National Center for Lesbian Rights.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove)

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Landsman).

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record letters from the Human Rights Campaign and the Athletes' Advisory Council.

Human Rights Campaign,

April 14, 2023.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the Human Rights

Campaign's more than three million members and supporters

nationwide, I write to express our strong opposition to H.R.

734--the misnamed Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act

of 2023 which seeks to implement a discriminatory ban on

transgender girls participating in girls' sports nationwide.

As the nation's largest civil rights organization working to

achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer

equality, we are deeply concerned about the negative impact

this legislation would have on young people already facing

significant challenges due to stigma and discrimination.

Athletics are an experience everyone deserves equal access

to. School sports provide important development opportunities

that teach young people about teamwork, perseverance,

leadership, discipline, and exercise, and help them build

friendships and community. All kids--including transgender

girls and intersex children who would also be restricted from

participating in school sports by this bill--should have the

same opportunities to participate in activities that embody

our shared ideals as Americans.

We know that allowing transgender and intersex youth to

play sports in school does not disadvantage anyone else.

States, school districts, and athletic associations around

the country have allowed transgender and intersex young

people to participate in school sports consistent with their

gender identity for decades--all without issue. Indeed,

despite hundreds, if not thousands, of transgender women and

girls participating in sports over time, only a handful of

transgender athletes in high school or college have had any

notable success. This is because transgender and intersex

students do not seek to participate in sports consistent with

their gender identity to gain an unfair advantage--they do it

for the same reasons other young people play sports in

school: to challenge themselves, improve their fitness, be

part of a team, and have fun.

Banning transgender and intersex kids from playing sports

in school would do nothing to address ongoing, well-

documented threats to girls' and women's sports, including a

lack of equal resources, pay inequality, and sexual

harassment. Advocates for women and girls in sports like the

National Women's Law Center, the Women's Sports Foundation,

Women Leaders in College Sports, and American Association of

University Women all support policies allowing transgender

people to play sports consistent with their gender identity.

These groups oppose efforts to exclude transgender students

like this bill, which

would promote baseless fears and misinformation rather than

solve any real problems.

We urge you to vote no on H.R. 734, as well as vote against

any anti-LGBTQ+ amendments. We will consider these key votes.

Sincerely,

Kelley Robinson,

President.

Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Chair, may I inquire of the time remaining.

Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley).

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record letters from the ACLU, the Leadership Conference of Civil and Human Rights, and GLSEN, all in opposition to H.R. 734.

American Civil Liberties Union,

Washington, DC, April 14, 2023.

Dear Representative: The American Civil Liberties Union

strongly urges you to oppose H.R. 734, the Protection of

Women and Girls in Sports Act. This discriminatory and

unconstitutional legislation would make it illegal for

schools receiving federal funding to allow transgender girls

and women to play on sports teams for girls and women, in

violation of the Constitution's guarantee of equal

protection. In addition, under Title IX, all girls, including

those who are transgender, should be able to participate

fully and equally in athletics, in accordance with who they

are. This will be the first vote in congressional history to

specifically single out transgender people for

discrimination. Because of the importance of this vote, the

ACLU will be scoring it.

Across the country, state legislatures have advanced

legislation to ban transgender children from participating in

sports, particularly transgender girls. These legislators--

like the proponents of this legislation--have argued that

passing these bans is necessary to protect sports for girls

and women. There are a multitude of barriers facing female

student athletes--from continued funding inequities to pay

disparities among coaches and staff to harassment and abuse.

The participation of their transgender peers, who frequently

number in the single digits in states that have enacted bans

identical to this one, is simply not one of those barriers.

Legislators supporting these bans are cynically using

transgender people as political pawns under the guise of

``protecting women's sports,'' yet leading advocates for

women's sports, including the Women's Sports Foundation,

Women Leaders in College Sports, the Tucker Center for

Research on Girls & Women in Sport, National Women's Law

Center, and hundreds of athletes in women's sports and other

women's rights groups have consistently voiced their strong

support for inclusion of transgender girls and women in

women's sports.

These organizations rightly recognize that transgender

girls and women participate in sports for the same reasons as

their peers who are not transgender: to be part of a team,

learn sportsmanship, and challenge themselves. The experience

of 12-year-old Becky PepperJackson from West Virginia is

reflective of so many other transgender youth across the

country. These are Becky's own words:

A long time before I or my parents understood what the word

``transgender'' meant--as far back as I can remember--I knew

that I am a girl. I'm 12 years old and in the 7th grade now,

and I'm lucky that my friends at school all accept me for who

I am: a girl who loves math and science, anything pink, and

playing video games with my friends. And I'm a runner. Most

of my family runs. I run with my two big brothers and my mom,

and sometimes my aunt joins us too.

After I ran with my school's cross-country team in the

spring of 2022, my coach encouraged me to try out for some of

the field events. I made the team for shotput and discus, and

I love both. It was so much fun to cheer on my teammates at

the meets, and they would cheer me on when I competed in my

events. I kept up with cross-country too. The past two years

on my middle school's girls' cross-country and track-and-

field teams have been the best of my life. My teammates and I

have the best time during practices and at cross-country and

track-

and-field meets. They support me even when I am not the

fastest or best on the team. I don't want to stop doing the

thing that I love and that is part of who I am. Sports are

everything to me and my cross-country and track-and-field

teams have become my second family over the last two years. I

have many more years of cross-country and track-and-field

left, and I just want the opportunity to participate in

school sports like any other girl.

H.R. 734 does nothing to address the real barriers facing

female student athletes. Instead, it targets a small, already

vulnerable group of people for further discrimination. The

ACLU strongly urges all Members to vote NO on H.R. 734.

Sincerely,

Christopher Anders,

Federal Policy Director.

Ian S. Thompson,

Senior Legislative Advocate.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the Democratic whip.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a statement by the National Parents Union in opposition to H.R. 734.

National Parents Union.

H.R. 734 bullies kids instead of teaching them to read.

It's time to get focused on what matters to American

families.

The National Parents Union continues to be frustrated with

the lack of focus from House and Education Workforce

Committee Leadership on issues that matter to American

Families. Families across the country want Congress to focus

on ensuring that every child is prepared for their future--

not bullying kids who want to play sports among their peers.

32 percent of our country's 4th graders were proficient

readers according to the National Assessment of Educational

Progress. That means that 7 out of 10 of our current 5th

graders cannot fully engage in their learning because they

cannot read the content.

Our latest national parent poll clearly states parent

priorities and nowhere to be found is anything about members

of their kids sports teams.

90 percent Believe students should have access to high-

quality, well rounded education with resources to support

their individual needs.

90 percent Believe that students should be prepared for

college and/or careers when they graduate.

90 percent Believe students should be protected from any

form of discrimination at school.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the full Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Vermont (Ms. Balint).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, fundamentally, the difference between the two sides is that my friends on the other side of the aisle do not recognize trans people as human beings. They do not even recognize the validity of trans. That is a terrible error, and it is wrong, and it does not grant trans people humanity.

A subsequent corollary to this stance is that they don't believe that trans people are who they are, that somehow it is a choice. I am going to tell you: This debate itself has been traumatizing.

I can remember when I was a teenager when debate in California was occurring over the Briggs Initiative, which would have banned LGBT teachers from teaching. One Republican Governor, Ronald Reagan, at the last minute opposed the initiative, and to me that meant a lot. It means a lot to me that Spencer Cox of Utah recognizes that trans kids exist and that we

should protect them. This bill is horrible. All should stand opposed to it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a Statement of Administration Policy from the administration.

Statement of Administration Policy

h.r. 734--protection of women and girls in sports act of 2023--rep.

steube, R-fl, and 93 cosponsors

The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R.

734.

For students nationwide, participating in sports and being

part of a team is an important part of growing up, staying

engaged in school, and learning leadership and life skills.

H.R. 734 would deny access to sports for many families by

establishing an absolute ban on transgender students--even

those as young as elementary schoolers--playing on a team

consistent with their gender identity. Schools, coaches, and

athletic associations around the country are already working

with families to develop participation rules that are fair

and that take into account particular sports, grade levels,

and levels of competition. As a national ban that does not

account for competitiveness or grade level, H.R. 734 targets

people for who they are and therefore is discriminatory.

Politicians should not dictate a one-size-fits-all

requirement that forces coaches to remove kids from their

teams. At a time when transgender youth already face a

nationwide mental health crisis, with half of transgender

youth in a recent survey saying they have seriously

considered suicide, a national law that further stigmatizes

these children is completely unnecessary, hurts families and

students, and would only put students at greater risk.

Discrimination has no place in our nation's schools or on our

playing fields.

Instead of addressing the pressing issues that families and

students face today--such as raising teacher pay, keeping

guns out of schools, addressing the mental health crisis our

youth face, and helping students learn and recover

academically from unprecedented disruptions--Congressional

Republicans have instead chosen to prioritize policies that

discriminate against children.

If the President were presented with H.R. 734, he would

veto it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The good chairman of the committee invoked the name of Mayor Muriel Bowser, the Mayor of the District of Columbia, who sent us a letter with the chairman of the D.C. City Council, Phil Mendelson, which closes this way: ``Not only should our policy decisions not be overturned by officials not elected to represent our residents, but piecemeal interference hurts our ability to confront crime and improve public safety in the District of Columbia.''

What is this about, Mr. Speaker? H.J. Res. 42 seeks to nullify a law passed

unanimously by the Council of the District of Columbia to promote accountability for police officers who use excessive force or abuse their power, a goal that the vast majority of Americans share.

The D.C. law banned the use of choke holds and other dangerous neck restraints and set reasonable standards on the use of deadly force. It required the public release of body-worn camera footage and created a police officer misconduct database for officers who have been convicted of a crime or had allegations against them civilly or administratively sustained. It prohibited D.C. from hiring officers who have engaged in criminal or official misconduct.

Most importantly for these purposes, Mr. Speaker, the new law empowered the chief of police to fire or discipline officers who break the law by removing police disciplinary matters from the control of arbitrators under collective bargaining. This is the provision that galvanized opposition to the bill from the police union, the key provision that has now led our colleagues to want to convert the Congress of the United States into the largest city council in the world, a 535-member city council with the job of micromanaging and superintending the work of the 13-member Council of the District of Columbia.

The local police union hates this provision, which is their right, of course. Their chief has been the chief lobbyist against Washington, D.C., on this law. He was the key GOP witness in the Oversight Committee hearing on the law.

His union sued when the legislation was first passed, asserting that it violated the U.S. Constitution not to subject the discipline of police officers to an outside arbitrator. They lost in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, they lost in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and the Supreme Court did not grant cert. Still, the union is running TV ads against this law and has obviously found friends on that side of the aisle.

Now, in their eagerness to kick around the more than 700,000 taxpaying American citizens who live in Washington, D.C., but have no voting representation in the House of Representatives or in the U.S. Senate, our colleagues are embracing a claim that puts them in favor of an extreme police union position on discipline that jurisdictions across America are debating and many of them are rejecting.

Why? Well, D.C. is a good example. Before passage of this law that they propose to repeal, the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department had been forced by labor arbitrators to rehire a significant number of policemen and -women who had been fired for engaging in serious criminal misconduct. Here are some examples of the officers who were fired but the department was forced to reinstate by an arbitrator.

One officer illegally struck a suspect multiple times in the head. The officer was criminally tried and convicted of criminal assault, sentenced to 30 days in jail, 3 years of probation, and 500 hours of community service. Despite strong opposition from the police department, he was reinstated by an arbitrator.

Another officer, off duty at the time, sexually assaulted a woman and was convicted of misdemeanor sex abuse and sentenced to a 100-day suspended sentence and a year of probation. Despite strong opposition from the department, he was reinstated to the force by an arbitrator.

Another off-duty police officer confessed to abusing a child. The officer was convicted of child abuse and sentenced to 5 years of probation. Despite strong opposition from the department, he was reinstated, as well.

Every D.C. police chief for at least the last 25 years has expressed outrage about the old system of having to rehire bad cops after they had been fired for perpetrating serious misconduct against the people of Washington, D.C.

Former D.C. Police Chief Peter Newsham openly lamented that he had to allow ``very bad police officers back onto our department.''

Former Police Chief Charles Ramsey said this: ``It is demoralizing to the rank and file who really do not want to have those kinds of people in their ranks. It causes a tremendous amount of anxiety in the public. Our credibility is shot whenever these things happen.''

The current D.C. Police Chief, Robert Contee, says that giving the police the power over discipline reduces the risk of returning poor performers to the force.

Forcing police chiefs to reinstate bad cops fired for breaking the law is bad for public safety, it is bad for community morale, and it is bad for the morale of the vast majority of good cops who are doing their job.

It is also bad for taxpayers. Between 2010 and 2020, The Washington Post found that D.C. paid out $91 million to resolve claims of police brutality and misconduct. The taxpayers are also on the hook for backpay that was paid out to bad cops who were fired for this misconduct when they were rehired following the ruling of an arbitrator.

In a recent 5-year period, the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department was forced to rehire 36 officers. According to an Office of the D.C. Auditor report, D.C. had to pay $14.3 million in backpay to these convicted and disciplined officers.

The question of whether police chiefs or arbitrators should be the ones to decide to put disciplined cops back on the force is a matter for local decisionmaking in Washington as it is in every other jurisdiction in the country.

Mr. Speaker, 700,000 taxpaying American citizens have decided through their elected representatives that the chief of police, who is appointed by the Mayor of the District of Columbia, should be the one to be able to discipline bad actors within the police department.

Reversing the D.C. government on this local matter is outrageous interference by Congress to impose a bad public policy on the Capital City.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, just a few points about the last contribution from the gentleman from Georgia.

Georgia reported 892 murders in the last year, the fourth highest in the country. He said that Washington, D.C., is overrun by violent criminals. The only time I have seen an institution overrun by violent criminals was here in the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, an event that that gentleman described as a tourist visit and has consistently likened to a tourist visit. I don't know that he is going to be the best and most reliable witness for determining when an institution is being overrun by violent criminals.

The rhetoric I hear from the Freedom Caucus is about defunding the FBI and defunding the ATF. No one on our side of the aisle is talking about defunding any of them or defunding the police. On the contrary, we have advanced initiatives to increase local government funding for police and other services.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia for her eloquent remarks and also for making the specific point that the D.C. reform legislation is perfectly congruent with the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which we passed in the 117th Congress.

In fact, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act goes further than D.C. went. D.C. did not touch qualified immunity, which was something that was dealt with in the Federal legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I also wanted to correct one other piece of misinformation that was left by the gentleman from Georgia. He said that it is against the law under the D.C. law for a police officer to touch someone's neck. That is not the definition of the law against choke holds and neck restraints.

It requires the use of any body part or object by law enforcement against a person with the purpose, intent, or effect of controlling or restricting the person's airway or severely restricting the person's breathing. That does not involve just touching a person's neck.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Pennsylvania for her remarks, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from D.C. (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her point, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, control over local police is an essential facet of political self-government and home rule. The people of Washington, D.C., through their representatives, need to be able to control their own local police. They also need to control their judges.

The problem, of course, is that right now the District of Columbia is caught betwixt and between. The people have made clear that they want to become a State. They organized a State and constitutional convention. They have petitioned for admission to the Union and are asking the Congress of the United States under Article IV of the Constitution to exercise our powers to admit them as a State and to redraw the boundaries of the Federal District given our exclusive power and our comprehensive power under the District clause to do that.

In fact, in 1846, Congress redrew the boundaries of the District of Columbia in order to retrocede to Virginia lands there, and that was perfectly constitutional. Today Congress can exercise its powers under Article I, section 8, clause 17 to modify the boundaries of the Federal District to cede the residential lands to the new State that is petitioning for admission to the Union.

The House of Representatives in the last two Congresses voted to admit the District of Columbia, or Washington, D.C., as the new State. The Senate did not act, yet their statehood drive continues.

Alas, our colleagues, rather than trying to help propel another State into the Union and to allow them to gain equal footing with all of the other States instead decides to try to micromanage their local affairs and to drive them back into some kind of semi-colonial status that they thought they had left behind many decades ago.

So the real question for the Congress of the United States is: Will we do for the people of Washington, D.C.--taxpaying, draftable citizens who have served in every war that the Republic has ever fought going back to the American Revolution--will we treat them the same way that we treated the people of 37 other States who were admitted by the original 13?

That is the dynamic of enlargement of democracy that was contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution and the Founders of the country. They did not want there to be large, colonized, and subjected populations subject to the will of other people for precisely the kind of reason that is on display today.

There is no reason why the local government of Washington should be lorded over and superintended by other people's Representatives no matter how well-intended they may be or how politically intended they may be or how malevolently intended they may be. The Framers of the Constitution and the people who fought the American Revolution rejected the idea of virtual representation.

That was the claim of the crown and the Parliament. They said: You don't need your own representatives because you are represented by people in Parliament who will be able to take into account your interests.

The revolutionaries rejected that saying that in real democracy people get to choose their own representatives, and those representatives elect their own council and their own mayor, and they get to choose their own police chief. They get to make their own decisions.

So really what we see today is a drama that reenacts the basic struggle for democratic self-government in our country. This is a chapter in that drama, but it will lead eventually--it must lead--to the admission of Washington, D.C., as a new State the way that 37 other States were admitted by the original 13, including my own Maryland, because those original States understood the logic of democratic equality and freedom in our country.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the multiple provisions constituting the D.C. police reform law are mainstream, commonsense reforms unanimously passed by the Council of the District of Columbia which enjoyed strong public support and are perfectly congruent not only with the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which passed the House in the 117th Congress, but also with police accountability laws enacted by dozens of States and localities in recent years in the wake of notorious episodes of police brutality like the murder of George Floyd.

For example, since May of 2020, at least 24 States have enacted legislation to limit the use of dangerous neck restraints against citizens. Thirty-nine States have passed reforms related to officer education and training. Since May of 2020, 26 States have enacted laws to improve data collection and police transparency. At least seven States, including Arizona, Colorado, and Wisconsin, have enacted laws requiring the creation of public databases on use-of-force information.

States like Colorado, South Carolina, and Maryland have mandated adoption of body-worn cameras statewide. At least 20 States have enacted laws that address State-level use-of-force standards.

This joint resolution of disapproval is an attack on local decisionmaking, federalism, and the policies of oversight and accountability that Americans clearly want and that our committee as the oversight committee should be championing.

This resolution would result not only in less political democracy in America but less official oversight and accountability over policing in the Capital City. It is amazing to me that our colleagues will not even have a hearing on the desire of Washington with 700,000 taxpaying but unrepresented Americans to join the Union as a State, but they will mobilize all their energy to strip from the local D.C. police chief the power to discipline cops who commit crimes.

There seems to be no end to our colleagues' willingness to undermine good police work in Washington. Last month the most memorable thing they have done so far in the new Congress, Committee Republicans visited more than 20 January 6 insurrectionists living in D.C. jail-- the vast majority of whom are there because they were convicted of or charged with violently assaulting our police officers. Our colleagues liken the extremists who attacked our police officers to political prisoners--people like Nelson Mandela, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and Alexei Navalny. Those are people charged with ideological offenses against authoritarian regimes.

These prisoners they visited were charged with, and in many cases convicted of, violently assaulting American police officers.

This month now Republicans want to overturn a local law that allows the chief of police in D.C. to keep cops who commit crimes like drug dealing or sexual assault off the force. I don't blame the people of Washington or Ms. Norton for telling them to keep their hands off D.C.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

May I inquire how much time is remaining, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Texas I think makes the essential point which is the people of Washington and their representatives are governing in their best interests. That is the essential gamble of democracy.

This is why American federalism is such a beautiful thing. The laws in Kentucky passed by the colleagues of my friend, the chairman of our committee, the laws in California, the laws in Alaska, the laws in South Carolina, and the laws in Washington, D.C., differ in certain ways. That is how federalism works.

It is a massive insult, indignity, and affront to the people of Washington, D.C., to pull the rug out from beneath their comprehensive effort to develop good policing in Washington, D.C.

There are lots of States and jurisdictions with higher crime rates. There are lots with lower crime rates. That is neither here nor there. Democracy is not something you earn by virtue of the crime rate or the inflation rate or the employment rate. Democracy is something you earn by virtue of natural rights that we have recognized under our Constitution, which is why our Constitution begins with the words ``We the People.''

The people of Washington, D.C. don't have complete rights yet, which is why they are fighting for statehood. The last thing we should be doing is driving them back to the worst days, which as former Speaker Pelosi evoked, when Congress micromanaged every little thing that took place in Washington.

It is not fair to the people of Washington, and it is a waste of our time.

If they think they have a good proposal that will end crime in America, let's do it nationally and make it apply to everybody. Otherwise, let's agree with the people from D.C.: Hands off Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 298 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members

may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 298 provides for consideration of two measures, H.R. 734 and H.J. Res. 42.

The rule provides for H.R. 734, the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, to be considered under a structured rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce or their designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 42, disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022, under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability or their designees.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying pieces of legislation.

The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act would reaffirm the principle of fairness in opportunity within Title IX by specifying that sex shall be recognized based solely on a person's reproductive biology and genetics at birth.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to say something I never thought I would have to say on the House floor, in Congress, or anywhere for that matter, but here it is: women and men are different. That is not meant to be controversial, mean-spirited, outlandish, or anything other than the factual statement that it is.

Perhaps I can be more specific, Mr. Speaker. Women and men are physically different. Women and men have different physical characteristics, and that is okay. That is why Title IX exists: to ensure that despite these differences, women and men have the same opportunities.

Saying women and men are different does not lack empathy for people who struggle with their identity. However, because some people struggle with their identity should not and does not change facts.

Speaking of the facts, I would be remiss if I did not include some for the House to consider, specifically in the context of athletics, one study coming from the Duke University School of Law's Center for Sports Law and Policy. They note the various differences between male and female athletes leads to a 10 to 12 percent performance gap between the sexes in athletic competition.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the Record the results of this study.

Mr. Speaker, now we will hear that this bill is a distraction or that it does nothing to address school safety issues, but I couldn't disagree more.

We have seen women, strong women, women like Riley Gaines, speak to the real harm female athletes experience from the issues we are discussing today. For those who don't know, Riley is a former college competitive swimmer--just like my own girls at home who are swimmers.

I had the chance to speak with Riley just last week. She shared stories on how this problem has been branded on the left as taking away inclusiveness, when in reality it is taking away opportunities from our female athletes. Women are becoming collateral damage.

Riley told me stories about her competitor, a biological male, sharing locker rooms and showers with teammates. She told me how a year later one teammate who was quiet at the time wrote letters to her about how the experience still traumatizes her.

Riley also shared a story of how when that same biological male competitor won, she was asked to step away from the medal podium photo. The sport she loved had been reduced to a photo op. That is not progress. It is quite the opposite.

Riley reminded me that her story is not unique. In fact, I have a list provided by Concerned Women for America where they documented over 100 instances of women needing the type of protection that H.R. 734 would provide.

So what do we know after all of this debate?

We know that women and girls like Riley have to face legitimate safety and privacy concerns associated with sharing locker rooms with competitors of the opposite sex. Women and girls have to face physical safety concerns.

For example, there is a story of a biological male in North Carolina participating in women's volleyball. This biological male spiked the ball so forcefully into the face of a female competitor that he seriously injured the young girl and caused lasting damage to her.

There is the story of Tamikka Brents, an MMA fighter, who had her skull fractured and a concussion within 2 minutes of fighting a transitioned fighter, Fallon Fox.

Women and girls have to face the lack of a level playing field and stolen opportunities that come with it. As Riley speaks so eloquently about, the fact is that these biological men steal championships and associated opportunities from women. She would know.

Prior to transitioning, Lia Thomas, her competitor, was ranking in the mid-500s in the men's competition. After transitioning and competing against biological women, Lia Thomas finished first.

If this does not illustrate the unfairness of allowing biological males to compete in women's sports, I don't know what will.

These women are Olympians and college all-Americans.

We also have to face the fact that biological men competing in sports meant for women and girls has the effect of discouraging them. These sports that are meant for women and girls and having to compete against men, is discouraging.

Now they must face the inherent unfairness of competing against biological men.

We know that sports participation has incredibly positive benefits for participants, both from a physical and also from a mental health perspective.

Since this phenomenon of biological men participating in women's sports is relatively new, it is a problem that will only continue to get worse if we don't act to stand up on their behalf.

Speaking of problems that will get worse if we don't act, I want to turn now to H.J. Res. 42. This resolution would disapprove of the District of Columbia Council's Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022.

Plain and simple, H.J. Res. 42 is about backing the blue.

In January of this year, the D.C. Council passed the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Amendment Reform Act, effectively making the job of our police officers even harder. Mayor Bowser declined to sign or veto it, which allowed it to continue in the process ultimately reaching here, the Congress, for disapproval.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record four letters of support for H.J. Res. 42 disapproving of the D.C. Council's decision.

One letter is from the National Fraternal Order of Police. One letter is from the National Association of Police Organizations. One letter is from the United States Capitol Police Labor Committee. Finally, one letter is from the Commonwealth of Virginia's attorney general.

Mr. Speaker, it is this last letter from Virginia's attorney general that makes an important point. I am quoting directly from the letter, ``Unfortunately, due to the proximity of our communities, D.C.'s crime problem has become Virginia's crime problem.''

What happens in the Nation's Capital certainly has consequences for our neighboring communities, but I would also argue that it has consequences across the country. The decisions made here often affect decisions around the country and in other major cities.

Therefore, we must think carefully when we review legislation that would allow outside groups to target individual officers and make it more difficult for those officers to do their jobs. We certainly don't want that to catch on.

D.C., as of this month compared to last year, has had total crime rise 23 percent, seen homicides increase by 31 percent, and sexual abuse crimes rise a staggering 84 percent.

Why we would be trying to implement measures alienating law enforcement officers is beyond me. We should be doing everything we can to show law enforcement officers that we stand with them, especially in areas where crime is on the rise and out of control. We should make it easier, not harder, for them to do their jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule, our female athletes, and police officers here in the Nation's Capital and around the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats have had ample opportunities to work with Republicans during the 117th Congress on bills that protect students in schools, including H.R. 7966, the STOP II Act, sponsored by Representative Richard Hudson of North Carolina, that would have increased funding for school resource officers and mental health guidance counselors and would have provided Federal grants for better securing our schools; and H.R. 7942, the Securing Our Students Act, sponsored by Representative Burgess Owens of Utah, that would have allowed school district to use unspent COVID-19 emergency relief funds to improve school buildings and strengthen security.

Unfortunately, the Democrat then-majority blocked these bills from coming to the House floor.

In addition, the House recently passed H.R. 5 which includes provisions ensuring the rights of parents to be informed about violent incidents in school and ensuring that school boards cannot censor the voices of parents who are expressing concerns about any such violent incidents.

This is not about bullying kids. It is about fairness. It is about standing up for biological women and girls when no one on the left seems to care about that.

Our colleagues across the aisle have even said it is okay for biological males to share locker rooms and showers with biological females even if they don't consent.

If supposed groups that support women oppose this bill, then they don't support women. We aren't saying that they can't participate in sports with children or biological males that might have a different identity. We are not saying they can't participate in sports. We are saying they must compete according to their biological sex.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard our Democratic colleagues across the aisle talk about Republicans not caring about sexual abuse of female athletes and it is going underreported. But not a single Democrat voted for H.R. 5 which has language in it in the Parents Bill of Rights to inform parents of violent activity going on at school.

This provision was put in, in part, because of circumstances that happened in Loudoun County, Virginia, which kept a sexual assault by a trans student of a young female under wraps, including even transferring that student to another school where that student committed an additional sexual assault. Not a single Democrat voted for

Mr. Speaker, I flatly reject any talk of fearmongering on behalf of Republicans on this side of the aisle.

Talk about fearmongering, we have just heard from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that, according to this bill, female student athletes will be subject to violative exams. Nothing in this bill talks about them being subject to exams, physical or otherwise, only that they compete in the sports according to their biological sex at birth.

Nothing in this bill prevents or says that transgender children cannot participate in sports. We are only saying that, out of fairness and safety for women and girls, students participate in sports according to their biological sex. We are not preventing anyone from participating in sports.

Mr. Speaker, again, I reiterate, the public safety legislation that Republicans proposed in the 117th Congress that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle opposed--bills that would increase funding for school resource officers and mental health counselors, Federal grants to secure schools, Securing Our Students Act, allowing districts to claw back unspent COVID-19 funds to improve school buildings and strengthen security--those bills were flatly rejected from the Democrat-held majority at the time. Those bills would have done exactly what they suggest that they want to do now. Maybe if we bring those bills back, we will get their support.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this is the bill that they say is demonizing: ``H.R. 734, to amend the Education Amendments of 1972 to provide that for purposes of determining compliance with title IX of such Act in athletics, sex shall be recognized based solely on a person's reproductive biology and genetics at birth.''

``Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit a recipient from permitting males to train or practice with an athletic program or activity that is designated for women or girls so long as no female is deprived of a roster spot on a team or sport, opportunity to participate in a practice or competition, scholarship, admission to an educational institution, or any other benefit that accompanies participating in the athletic program or activity.''

It makes me wonder, Mr. Speaker, if our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have read this bill, given their vehement opposition to it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close and yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, they can say it all they want. It doesn't make it true. This bill demonizes no one. It doesn't prohibit anyone from participating in sports.

We have heard a lot about the trans community today and the high percentage of trans students who committed suicide last year.

I want to reiterate: Those that are truly concerned about the mental health status of trans students would have supported H.R. 7966, the STOP II Act in the 117th Congress to provide additional funding for mental health guidance counselors.

Again, I have read the text of the bill. There is nothing in it that prohibits trans students from participating in sports. We are simply saying that they must compete against their own biological sex.

Like I said at the beginning of my remarks, I never thought I would have to say certain things on the House floor.

I never thought we would have to consider bills protecting sports for women and girls or legislation to support law enforcement officers, but if we don't support them, who will?

For me, those two things come naturally, and I think--I hope, anyway, we are about to see robust support from both sides of the aisle on these commonsense issues.

But even as I speak these words, I am aware that the President of the United States has issued statements of administration policy on these two bills stating his opposition and intent to veto them should they reach his desk.

How sad we can't support all women and girls in athletics. How sad we have decided to support activists over frontline police officers who are contending with increases in crime across the board. But unfortunately, this is where we are.

We heard today about the Utah law being vetoed and that it was for students. In the State of Connecticut, it was one transgender student that took the State championship away in State track and field from a biological female.

Unfortunately, this is where we are. This is why these two bills are necessary. Despite the statement from the President, I believe we must act to advance these two important pieces of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation it provides for.

The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 298 Offered By Ms. Leger Fernandez of New

Mexico

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

resolution (H. Res. 178) affirming the House of

Representatives' commitment to protect and strengthen Social

Security and Medicare. The resolution shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening

motion or demand for division of the question except one hour

of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or

their respective designees.

Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H. Res. 178.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today we consider a rule for two bills that do not address the most pressing issues in our country. Over the last 2 weeks in New Mexico, I spent my time in my beautiful, large district in classrooms, meeting with healthcare providers, learning from Tribal leaders, and talking to students and their parents.

They shared their worries about poor access to healthcare, about affordable housing, their worries about whether we were going to target Social Security and Medicare in this House.

They talked to me about the epidemic of gun violence. Let's talk about that epidemic. There have been at least 145 mass shootings so far this year. More kids die from gun violence than from any other cause. Americans want Congress to pass meaningful gun safety laws so our kids can be safe and cared for in our schools.

What are we getting out of the Education and the Workforce Committee?

We are getting book banning and now sports banning. You know what? Books and sports don't kill kids, guns do.

I have behind me here just some of the names of the many children who have died in their classrooms and in their schools.

Parents are scared. Students are terrified of being killed at school, a place where they should be safe and ready to learn. Kids should be able to go to a 16th birthday party and come home again.

But the bills this rule makes in order won't fix the scourge of gun violence in this country. While kids are dying from gun violence, the answer from the House Republican majority is to bully trans girls with H.R. 734 and undermine D.C.'s local laws. That is not okay.

Today, I stand in strong solidarity with some of the most vulnerable students in our schools, trans girls. Trans kids deserve to be understood. They deserve to be loved. They deserve an opportunity to play on a team and make friends.

Today, the Republican majority has brought up yet another bill that is meant to divide us and to get people angry and upset over things that are not key to whether they can have what they want their kids to accomplish in school.

H.R. 5, which the Republican majority passed in March, was about banning books. H.R. 734, which we are debating this week, is about bullying kids.

The problem is this: When you bully these kids it can lead to their death. I am worried that this bill will lead to rising suicide rates among the most vulnerable kids in our schools.

Studies have proven that when we welcome trans kids with compassion and kindness they are less likely to attempt suicide.

Studies have shown that the problem isn't whether a kid is trans or not, it is are they accepted? At a time when trans kids face alarming rates of behavioral and mental health issues and 53 percent of trans kids have considered suicide, my colleagues have chosen to use fear to score political points.

Mr. Speaker, 1 in 25 American kindergartners won't live to adulthood. Imagine that. Imagine going into a kindergarten class, like I did several times in my district, looking out at that class and thinking, which one of those precious children will not make it to adulthood?

That is the issue we should be addressing, both gun violence and addressing behavioral and mental health, and providing the resources that they need.

You know what? The rate of children not making it is twice as much for Hispanics and over three times as much for Black students.

Do we go after that in this bill?

No, we don't.

Sports and books are what H.R. 734 goes after, not guns and violence.

There is already a mechanism in place to address the fairness in playing sports that has been raised on the other side of the aisle. There is already a way of addressing those distinctions in playing sports. The NCAA and Olympics put these in place decades ago.

The Olympics already has a manual for what you should do, and it was done in 2003.

Here in the United States we already have something done by the NCAA. The NCAA adopted a student athlete participation policy that will cover the concerns that some people may have.

Women in sports, I will tell you--they say they are doing this for women.

Guess what? Women in sports who compete, they don't want this bill. They understand it is not about sports but about making people angry.

We have the statements of women's rights and gender justice organizations in support of full and equal access to participation in athletics for transgender people, and it is signed by numerous women's sports organizations. One after another they have lined up to say, no, this bill is bad for women in sports.

You know what? I want to make sure here in Congress that we lead with compassion. We are all human. We all have within our families, within our communities, people who are lesbian, who are gay, who are trans, who are many, many different aspects of who they are, who they actually are and authentically are.

Why are you willing to sacrifice those beautiful kids of ours? Why? I just don't understand it.

You know what? Trans kids deserve to live.

The rule also makes in order H.J. Res. 42, which disapproves of the District of Columbia's Comprehensive Police and Justice Reform Amendment Act. The D.C. Council, elected by D.C. residents, passed this bill through democratic process.

D.C., just like those in Kentucky and other local jurisdictions--it is the local jurisdictions which should have the right to enact laws through their democratic process without congressional interference.

We should not be having congressional interference into local matters, like protecting our citizens and like having a police force that is responsible to those citizens.

Just because Congress can intervene in D.C. affairs, doesn't mean that it should.

The D.C. reform bill includes many of the reforms that both Republican and Democratic States and localities have passed, things like banning choke holds, things like using body cameras. That is available in red districts, in red States, in red cities, and in blue cities. In New Mexico we have those things.

So let's stop interfering in D.C.'s affairs. Let's put forward legislation in contrast that addresses the needs of all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation would not protect kids. We must remember that this legislation could require female student athletes to be subjected to invasive genital examinations or forced to disclose their menstruation data.

What parent would want their child to go through that?

This is a grotesque violation of privacy and the complete opposite of protecting our children.

If Republicans really want to protect our girls, they should focus on real issues. The sexual abuse of female athletes and students goes unreported too often. The U.S. Center for SafeSport found that 93 percent of athletes experienced sexual harassment or unwanted contact and they were too afraid to report it. We must address the real issues that our children face.

With regards to the D.C. bill, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, all opposition to this bill is not radical. Indeed, the Republican Governor of Utah also opposed a similar bill, and in his veto message he talked about the fact that even though he might not understand what it means to be trans, even though he doesn't understand the science which might be conflicting, he said: I choose to err on the side of kindness and compassion.

He wanted to make sure that the children live, the few children in his State who play sports, the few trans children in his State who play sports, he said: Why are we heaping so much hatred on those children?

I want them to live.

The reason why that concern is so profound is because of the fact that transgender kids have an extremely high risk of suicidal behavior. In 2021, suicide was the second leading cause of death for kids ages 10-14 and 20-34. Nearly one in five trans kids attempted suicide that year. I want our trans kids to live.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, we can actually point to two accomplishments that we did on this House floor when Democrats were in charge. The Democratic leadership in Congress helped us lead to pass the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. It was bipartisan, but we had very few Republicans. That would have provided the kind of resources we need in our schools to help our children.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Sorensen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Vermont (Ms. Balint).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gomez).

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, which I hope we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a resolution that affirms the House's unwavering commitment to protect and strengthen Social Security and Medicare and states that it is the position of the House to reject any cuts to the program.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee.

Mr. Speaker, I close with some powerful words from a Republican, a Republican Governor who vetoed a similar bill in his State.

He said, ``I must admit I am not an expert on transgenderism. I struggle to understand so much of it, and the science is conflicting. But when in doubt, I always try to err on the side of kindness, mercy, and compassion.''

``Here are the numbers that have most impacted my decision: 75,000, 4, 1, 86, and 56--75,000 high school kids participating in high school sports in Utah; four transgender kids playing high school sports in Utah; one transgender student playing girls' sports; 86 percent of trans youth reporting suicidality; 56 percent of trans youth having attempted suicide.

``Four kids, and only one of them playing girls' sports. That is what all of this is about. Four kids who aren't dominating or winning trophies or taking scholarships. Four kids who are just trying to find some friends and feel like they are part of something. Four kids trying to get through each day. Rarely has so much fear and anger been directed at so few. I don't understand what they are going through or why they feel the way they do, but I want them to live.''

I want our transgender children to live. I want them to have the ability to do what they need to do in school, which is to learn, to play, to compete, to learn about what it is like to be on a team.

I want them to live, which is why I oppose this rule, and I am asking all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: Please err on the side of compassion, kindness. Let them live.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 734.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 734, the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act.

The Democrats have gone to great lengths to call this bill extreme. The Democrats have gone to great lengths, being almost hysterical, to call this bill discriminatory. It is neither of those things.

It is a one-page bill, which is rare in Congress, that strengthens existing protections for women, ensures a level playing field for female athletes, and protects women and girls from the Biden administration's radical regulatory scheme.

It is quite telling when the other party attempts to tear things down without offering an alternative vision. Democrats refuse to posit a reason for allowing biological men to compete in women's sports that comports with principles of athletic competition like fairness and integrity.

Democrats also refuse to address the implications of their position. If men can compete in women's sports, should they be able to take roster spots from women, to rob women of hard-earned achievements?

Instead, they appeal to emotion and call the other side bigots. It is such a tiring act, Mr. Chair.

How about providing evidence that self-identification is rooted in biological truth? Explain that a post-adolescent male athlete has zero physical advantages over women.

Democrats like to pretend they are the party of science. Where is the data?

The Democrat vote against this bill, including Biden's threat to veto it, is a vote against continuing to give women and girls equal opportunity to participate and compete in athletics.

We on the Republican side are grounded. We live in reality. So does the rest of America. Ask working-class Americans if Muhammad Ali should have been allowed to box women in his heyday or if Usain Bolt should have run the women's 100 meters.

It is not about callousness or lack of emotion. This is about grounding a leftist ideology that has lost its collective mind back in reality. In fact, Republicans are teeming with admiration and support for the women and girls who have come so far to get much-deserved recognition for their athletic achievements.

The left wants to talk about erasure. Let's talk about how American female athletes are being erased. We are not sensationalizing this problem. It exists. Females are being hurt by it, and action must be taken to stop that.

Mr. Chair, I hope this debate and the eventual passage of H.R. 734 help bring sanity to women's sports, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Steube), the sponsor of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens), chairman of the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bean), chairman of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller), vice chair of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Moran), a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rose).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Williams), a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. McClain), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and secretary of the Republican Conference.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good), chairman of the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast), a true hero here in the House of Representatives.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I want to briefly discuss the proposed regulation the Department of Education recently issued on this topic.

Frankly, either you believe women's access to athletic opportunity should be protected or you don't. Either you believe fairness and safety in women's athletics should be protected or you don't.

The Department of Education clearly doesn't believe in those things. If it did, it wouldn't have proposed a rule that will upend the laws 20 States have on the books protecting women's sports.

More shockingly, the Department's rule provides no meaningful guidelines as to what will be an acceptable level of protection for female athletes. That decision will apparently be made on a case-by- case basis by Secretary of Education Cardona.

Democrats apparently believe one man should get to decide whether or not women athletes are guaranteed equal access, fairness, and safety. Once upon a time, Democrats would have recognized the cruel irony of that. Unfortunately, that day is long gone.

Fortunately, Republicans haven't lost sight of our obligation, and that is why we will pass this bill.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time, and I am ready to close whenever the gentleman from California is ready to close.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I have spoken to the absurdity of this debate, but let me conclude by clarifying what this bill does and does not do by reading two paragraphs of this bill--it is one page long.

``Section 901 of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``(d)(1) It shall be a violation of subsection (a) for a recipient of Federal funds who operates, sponsors, or facilitates athletic programs or activities to permit a person whose sex is male to participate in an athletic program or activity that is designated for women or girls.

``(2) For the purposes of this subsection, sex shall be recognized based solely on a person's reproductive biology and genetics at birth.''

All of these ridiculous things that we have been accused of are not in this bill. This bill does not discriminate against anyone. It does not exhibit any hate toward anyone.

What it does is prohibit Federal funding to institutions that ``permit a person whose sex is male to participate in an athletic program or activity that is designated for women or girls.''

The reason for this is simple. Men have certain physiological advantages over women, such as more size and speed. Because of that, allowing biological males to compete against women and girls robs females of equal athletic opportunities and fair playing fields.

H.R. 734 restores the integrity and fairness of women's sports.

Mr. Chairman, Republicans, contrary to what our colleagues have said and accused us of, Republicans love all God's children, male and female, born and unborn. Do not question our commitment to fairness to life or to treating people equally. We hate no one.

As my colleagues have pointed out, it is ridiculous that we have had to stand here today to defend the rights of women and girls to participate in sports against other women and girls and they not being taken advantage of by biological males.

Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues across the aisle to do what is best for America's women and girls and support this important bill.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.