Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to share the story of a Federal scientist in Oregon who was recently fired by Donald Trump and Elon Musk.

In Oregon, we experience seasons with drought and wildfires, and lives depend on accurate research of water sources. Mr. Speaker, 60 to 70 percent of usable water in both Oregon and Washington comes from mountain snowmelt, which is a critical water source in the West. It is vital to farmers, forests, and every community I represent.

The scientist was with the Department of Agriculture's Oregon Snow Survey.

Here is what he said:

My job was to collect tangible data from the snowpack which

could be used to determine a community's yearly water budget.

I am completely heartbroken to have lost my position with the

Madam Chair, last week, I had five townhall meetings across northwest Oregon in urban, suburban, and rural areas. Not one person, not one of the thousands who attended, asked me to support a budget that cuts Medicaid, gives tax breaks to the wealthiest, raises the cost of living, or undermines safety and security, but that is what we are voting on today.

The Republicans are stealing the hard-earned tax dollars of Oregonians and Americans to line the pockets of people like Elon Musk.

This ruthless Republican budget will rip away healthcare from low- income and working families and children and take us back to the days when if you got sick, you either went without treatment or went bankrupt.

It could rip away resources from local schools and prevent children, especially students with disabilities, from getting a good education.

Republicans say they are eliminating waste. Do you want to talk about waste? Waste is giving the wealthiest big tax cuts while regular Americans are struggling to put food on the table.

The cost of groceries is increasing, wages continue to remain stagnant, and too many families can't afford housing or childcare. The Republican majority's answer is to rip you off and give tax breaks to the wealthiest and then hope, unrealistically, that it is going to trickle down.

We must oppose this Republican billionaire budget. We must focus instead on the American people so everyone, not just those at the top, have the opportunity for a better future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the administration's decision to pause or end--or as the unelected billionaire Elon Musk said: ``Feed into the wood chipper''--government payments for food aid.

The thoughtless plan to shut down or pause the work of the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, is wrong for many reasons. It is especially harmful to people around the globe who can starve without this food aid, and it is harmful to the U.S. businesses and American farmers who sell their agricultural products to the U.S. Government.

In 2020, the U.S. Government bought more than $2 billion in food aid from American farmers, but right now, because of this wrong decision by the administration, there is about 500,000 tons of food, including rice, wheat, and soybeans, at risk of spoiling. Much of it is stockpiled in ports across the country, including about 31,000 tons of food at the port in Houston, Texas, alone. What a truly senseless waste and shameful considering how many people around the globe are food insecure.

My home State of Oregon has a robust agricultural sector. We produce wheat, potatoes, and amazing specialty crops. We export more than 80 percent of our wheat production from Oregon.

The administration's egregious decision has been really harmful, and it is also harmful to national security. This is a national security issue.

The bags of food and the vials of medicine that USAID distributes are labeled ``from the American people.'' That improves our standing in the world, and it keeps us safer because it is common sense to understand that people are much less likely to turn against the United States if we are saving their lives and their families' lives in their country.

This decision also goes beyond USAID because the Trump administration has also paused funding for several programs at the Department of Agriculture that support farmers, food producers, food banks, and people struggling to afford food.

At a time when food prices remain high, something I know our constituents care about, stopping these programs is inhumane and shortsighted.

On behalf of our Oregonian and American farmers, on behalf of those in America who want to retain what is left of our global leadership, I urge the administration to reverse this heartless and harmful decision.

Mr. Speaker, recently an Oregonian told me that his young daughter and her friends, especially her Hispanic friends, are scared at school. They are kids that are at school to learn. Then I learned why they are scared.

I rise today to strongly condemn the Trump administration's unconscionable decision to rescind guidance that restricted immigration arrests near sensitive locations, including hospitals, places of worship, and schools.

For several years, ICE operated under a policy that designated certain areas as safe from immigration enforcement raids. Now, Donald Trump has reversed that. This decision to no longer protect schools from immigration enforcement is harmful, and it makes our schools less safe.

We should all be working together to keep students safe at school. Instead of criminalizing undocumented children and children who look like they might be undocumented, we should be protecting all children from the horrors of mass shootings, which unfortunately, are far too frequent in this country.

I want to be clear. Immigrant children are not hiding in American schools as the current administration wants you to believe. They are there to learn, and taking them from their schools will cause immense suffering and chaos for families and communities. These are children who may go on some day to find the next cure for cancer or write a great American novel. They have tremendous potential.

Now, I ask my colleagues to show some humanity. Please join Representative Adriano Espaillat from New York and me in supporting the Protecting Sensitive Locations Act.

Show some humanity for children. Help keep our schools and other sensitive locations to be safe from harmful immigration enforcement actions.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Tonko for his leadership on this important issue.

I have been on the Committee of Science, Space, and Technology since I joined Congress 13 years ago, Mr. Speaker.

It has been so inspiring to meet and hear from some of the Nation's, and sometimes the world's, leading scientists.

Today, I rise in defense of science and scientific integrity and in defense of truth. I rise in defense of the hardworking scientists and researchers who dedicate their careers to keeping our country safe, our economy strong, and our future secure.

The assault that is happening right now at our Federal science agencies is appalling and dangerous, and it must be stopped.

The Trump administration, working hand in hand with Elon Musk and his shadowy group of hackers calling itself the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, is dismantling the critical programs that protect clean air and water, grow the economy, and save American lives.

Experienced and talented scientists at NOAA and the National Science Foundation are being demeaned and threatened with termination. Communications have been disrupted and critical research has been stalled. This is not just an attack on these individuals; it is an attack on the very foundation of our Nation's scientific enterprise. It is also affecting higher education. There is a lot of research being done in higher education with NSF grants.

It is not efficiency. It is not reform. It is sabotage. For what? Is it to silence the truth about the fact that climate change is real and poses a serious threat? Is it to give billionaires more control over public institutions? Is it to gut the research that drives American innovation at a time when China and the EU and the rest of the world are making moves to surge ahead?

My home State of Oregon received more than $370 million in Federal research grants last year. That funding supported groundbreaking research into cleaner, cheaper energy, earthquake and tsunami warning systems, and wildfire prevention. That funding is now in jeopardy because Donald Trump has unlawfully and unconstitutionally halted Federal research dollars.

That means stalled renewable energy innovation. It means fewer tools to combat wildfires. It means fewer jobs in the growing industries that help our State and country thrive.

I want to follow up on the remarks that Mr. Beyer made recently and all the words that are going to trigger this review. ``Women'' but not ``men''? ``Disability,'' ``advocacy,'' ``institutional,'' ``barrier''? What if someone is doing research on the Great Barrier Reef? Are they going to be denied their funding?

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing woke, DEI, or radical about predicting the next devastating earthquake or tsunami, detecting a wildfire before it spreads, or protecting ocean health to support our coastal and fishing economies.

Demonizing committed scientists is shameful. Impairing decades of lifesaving research because it might help communities on the front lines of the climate crisis is derelict. Infiltrating Federal agencies with unelected hackers and rescinding lawfully appropriated funds is illegal.

Is this what happens when we have a lawless, science-denying, vindictive person in the White House? I tell you, we won't stand for it.

Oregon's coastal communities rely on NOAA for fisheries management, ocean health monitoring, and storm forecasting. Without it, livelihoods and lives are at risk.

Let me be crystal clear: Silencing scientists doesn't stop hurricanes. Firing researchers doesn't stop rising sea levels. Blocking climate data doesn't change the fact that last year was the hottest year in recorded history.

The United States has long been the world leader in scientific innovation. We led the space race. We mapped the human genome. We pioneered the technology that powers the global economy. Today, under this administration's reckless interference, we are watching that leadership slip away, our scientific edge erode, and America's future be sold off to the highest bidder.

This is frustrating. I just read that the National Cryptologic Museum just taped sheets of paper over plaques that celebrated women and people of color who served honorably in the National Security Agency. That is absurd and demeaning.

The assault on science demands action. What is happening now is not leadership or patriotism. It is corruption.

I truly hope that my Republican colleagues who for years have recognized the value of Federal science agencies and advocated for their investment will join me in speaking out against this reckless attack on scientists and science. Congress must reassert its constitutional authority to guard the science agencies it authorized and the funds it has appropriated from political corrosion.

Public data, peer review, and a diverse research workforce are the cornerstones of the U.S. science enterprise. Yes, I said ``diverse.'' Politically driven propaganda masquerading as science, like we saw during the first Trump administration--remember Sharpiegate--erodes public trust and damages scientific credibility.

Mr. Speaker, we must protect the integrity of our Federal science agencies. The world is watching. We must restore funding to the research that drives our economy. It is a lot of the basic research that then goes into advanced research in the private sector. We must hold those who undermine scientific integrity accountable, no matter how powerful they think they are.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against this extreme legislation that would criminalize doctors. As we have heard, killing a baby is already against the law. What we should be doing is working together to get accurate healthcare information to anyone who is pregnant or who wants to be pregnant.

Here is a real story from Oregon. A county public health clinic closed, and when a local woman missed her period, she went to a so- called crisis pregnancy center. She got a test and an ultrasound.

The center said: You are pregnant. All is well. You should plan for a new baby.

A month later, she was hemorrhaging and went to the emergency department where the doctor diagnosed a uterine polyp and early cancer.

That blurry ultrasound she got at the crisis pregnancy center was not a baby. It was impacted stool in her colon. She was obviously and dangerously misdiagnosed.

Sadly, stories like this are not uncommon, which is why I will soon introduce the Stop Anti-Abortion Disinformation Act to prohibit unfair and deceptive advertising of services by crisis pregnancy centers. They often engage in deception to get people in, and then they mislead them about the services they provide and often tragically mislead them about their condition.

Now, that is a real problem and one that makes a compelling case not for this bill but for comprehensive reproductive healthcare.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the so-called Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025, a bill that will actually do the opposite and make sports more dangerous for women and girls.

In fact, this bill will empower child predators, putting students across the country at increased risk. This is a one-size-fits-all bill that would apply equally to every sport, from K-12 schools to colleges.

Currently, schools, parents, and communities manage youth sports leagues and write rules about who can participate in different sports at different levels. Many State schools and athletic associations across the country have allowed equal participation for transgender athletes for years, and it is working just fine.

This legislation would revoke all Federal funding from schools that include transgender students on girls' and women's sports teams. This is damaging and discriminatory to transgender students who benefit, as all students do, from participating in school sports, and it is also damaging to the entire school that is threatened because Federal funding benefits all students.

I remind my colleauges to keep in mind that as of last month, of the approximately 510,000 athletes who play at the NCAA level, 10 are transgender--not 10,000, 10 out of 510,000.

Transgender students, like all students, deserve the same opportunity as their peers to learn teamwork, find belonging, and grow into well- rounded adults through sports.

Childhood and adolescence are important times for growth and development, and sports help students form healthy habits and develop strong social and emotional skills. Sports provide meaningful opportunities for kids to feel confident in themselves and learn valuable life lessons about teamwork, leadership, and communication. Teams provide a place for kids to make friends and build relationships.

Yet, my colleagues across the aisle want to take these opportunities away from certain children. That is discriminatory, and it is wrong. My colleagues are apparently so afraid of people who are different than them that they have manufactured false and dangerous presumptions based on outdated stereotypes about transgendered people, especially transgender women and girls.

Additionally, there is no way this so-called protection bill could be enforced without opening the door to harassment and privacy violations. It opens the door to inspection, not protection, of women and girls in sports. Will students have to undergo exams to prove they are a girl?

We are already seeing examples of harassment and questioning of girls who may not conform to stereotypical feminine roles. Will they be subject to demands for medical tests and private information? That is intrusive, offensive, and unacceptable, especially from a party of limited government.

I want to be very clear: There are real problems harming women and girls in sports, but transgender students are not why. Today, we should be working to solve the real pervasive problems in athletics that deter women and girls from participating, including sexual harassment and assault, lack of equal resources, and pay inequality.

We should be working on those issues and also on the issues that improve the lives of the people we represent back home, like increasing access to affordable healthcare and housing, lowering costs for everyday Americans, and fighting the climate crisis.

Instead, here we are again. We have seen this time and time again: Republicans fearmonger about the trans community to divert attention from the fact that they have no real solutions to help everyday Americans with the pressing problems they face.

We must not discriminate against kids because of who they are. Transgender youth already face high hurdles. Research shows that this type of discriminatory policy is associated with declines in mental health and higher suicide risk among already LGBTQI+ youth. We don't need adults in Congress making things worse.

As Republican Governor Spencer Cox from Utah said in his veto statement of a similar bill: ``When in doubt, however, I always try to err on the side of kindness, mercy, and compassion.'' So should we all.

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

Mr. Speaker, as trans student and successful athlete Rebekah said: ``I know what it is like to have my gender questioned. . . . It is invasive and embarrassing. I wouldn't want anyone else to have to go through that,'' and, ``It is awful. Legislators are bullying kids.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

Mr. Speaker, just a reminder that this bill applies to every student of every age in every sport the same way. As Flynn, a successful trans athlete, said: ``The next time you see a story about trans athletes, think of the children behind the story who are just trying to play a game with their peers.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the Democrat whip.

Mr. Speaker, in light of the comment that the gentleman from Michigan, who is managing the time on the other side of the aisle, made about birth certificates, I want to remind my colleagues that in the discussion on a similar bill, we had a conversation about how out of the millions of birth certificates in this country, there are a considerable number of children who are born either intersex or with ambiguous genitalia.

How does the gentleman plan to enforce this bill? Because he is saying birth certificates but those aren't necessarily reliable.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Ansari).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Kelly).

Mr. Speaker, just another reminder that this bill is a blanket ban that treats every age student in every sport the same.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Ocasio-Cortez).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Salinas).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Dexter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Randall).

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

Mr. Speaker, may I please inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter led by the National Women's Law Center and the Women's Sports Foundation from 33 national and 34 State and local women's and girls' rights organizations to voice our vehement opposition to H.R. 28.

January 13, 2025.

Dear Member of Congress, The National Women's Law Center

and Women's Sports Foundation, joined by the undersigned

women's and girls' rights organizations, write to voice our

vehement opposition to H.R. 28 and S. 9, ``The Protection of

Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025.'' As organizations

deeply committed to fulfilling the promise of Title IX of the

Education Amendments of 1972 of equal educational opportunity

for all women and girls, including in school sports, we have

advocated for gender equity in schools for decades. Far from

promoting sex equality in sports, H.R. 28 and S. 9 are

discriminatory attempts to cause harm to and exclude

transgender, intersex, and nonbinary students from school

sports and would not promote fairness or safety in school

sports for women and girls. We thus urge you to reject this

effort to enshrine sex discrimination and oppose H.R. 28 and

Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record a letter from Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, which reads in part:

``On behalf of the 1.8 million members of the AFT, I write to urge you to oppose H.R. 28, the so-called Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025, and to reject its attacks on our students.''

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, Congress has the power and the responsibility to make a real difference for Americans. Yet, we are starting this Congress with a bill that dangerously picks on an extremely small number of children and young adults but putting all children and young adults at risk. These attacks are fueled by discrimination and not facts.

A poll from 2022 found that two-thirds of LGBTQI+ youth report that recent debates about State laws restricting the rights of transgender people have negatively affected their mental health. Today, my colleagues are furthering this hate. America already has a youth mental health crisis, and my colleagues are exacerbating it by promoting these hateful policies, and that is unacceptable.

Let's talk about ways to champion opportunities in sports for all women and girls. We celebrated the 50th anniversary of Title IX 2 years ago, which protects people from discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities.

Under Title IX, we have seen a considerable increase in the number of female students participating in sports, but college women still have nearly 60,000 fewer athletic opportunities than men, and high school girls have about 1 million fewer opportunities to play sports than high school boys.

Do my colleagues only care about women's sports when it benefits partisan talking points? Apparently so because preventing transgender women and girls, who make up only a tiny fraction of a percent of college athletes, from participating in sports seems to be more important to my colleagues than starting this 119th Congress with legislation that would protect female athletes from assault or harassment.

Mr. Speaker, we should focus our work on promoting policies that make sports safe, accessible, and fair for everyone. This bill does not do that.

I emphasize that my colleagues still have not explained how enforcement is going to happen without serious and risky invasions of privacy and the inquiry of intensely personal information.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to show some compassion, show some humanity, and please reject this partisan bill that will harm our Nation's youth.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the second letter I referenced during general debate on H.R. 28, a letter led by the Leadership Conference for Civil and Human Rights with signatories from 117 national and 289 regional, state, and local civil rights organizations rejecting ``the so-called Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025, because it would harm women and girls and undermine civil rights for all students.''

The Leadership Conference,

January 13, 2025.

Oppose H.R. 28 to Protect Civil Rights

Dear Member of Congress, On behalf of The Leadership

Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition charged by

its diverse membership of more than 240 national

organizations to promote and protect the civil and human

rights of all persons in the United States, and the 414

undersigned organizations, we call for the full inclusion,

protection, and celebration of transgender, nonbinary, and

intersex youth, including access

to extracurricular activities such as athletics, and to

school facilities, safe and inclusive school environments,

and accurate and inclusive curriculum. We reject H.R. 28, the

so-called Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of

2025, because it would harm women and girls and undermine

civil rights for all students.

This discriminatory proposal seeks to exclude transgender,

nonbinary, and intersex people from athletics programs in

schools. Although the authors of the legislation represent

themselves as serving the interests of cisgender girls and

women, this legislation does not address the longstanding

barriers all girls and women have faced in their pursuit of

athletics. Instead of providing for equal facilities,

equipment, and travel, or any other strategy that women

athletes have been pushing for for decades, the bill

cynically veils an attack on transgender people as a question

of athletics policy.

Youth sports often play a significant role in children's

lives and development, helping them to develop critical life

skills like communication, teamwork, and leadership. Sports

spaces are imperative for all young people, no matter their

gender. Transgender, nonbinary, and intersex youth want to

participate in team sports for the same reasons as their

cisgender peers: to be part of a team, learn sportsmanship,

and challenge themselves. School athletics are very often the

centerpiece of communities across the country, and denying

transgender, nonbinary, and intersex youth the chance to

participate only serves to deny them an opportunity to be

part of that community, further isolating and stigmatizing

these youth.

The civil and human rights community is no stranger to the

proffering of a bigoted agenda as if it were about equal

opportunity. We know about wolves in sheep's clothing. We

know that when affirmative action policies created to level

the playing field in higher education admissions are attacked

by opponents of voting rights (as was true in the Students

for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard College/University of

North Carolina cases), that their agenda is not about the

rights of people of color. We know that when companies profit

from poverty wages for disabled people, especially in

segregated work sites (as is the case for sheltered workshops

that pay subminimum wages to disabled workers), that their

agenda is not about independence and self-determination for

workers. And we know that when opponents of Title IX,

including those who have sought for decades to weaken its

protections and undermine its enforcement, now present

themselves as the law's champions, that their agenda is not

about the rights of women and girls.

Targeting and excluding transgender, nonbinary, and

intersex students from participation in school programming,

including athletics programs, alongside their cisgender peers

is harmful to all students and undermines the learning

environment for everyone. If schools mark some students

effectively as outcasts, they foster an environment where no

student is included and safe. H.R. 28's vague language and

intrusive focus on scrutiny of students' bodies will

effectively exclude cisgender girls and women with intersex

variations from participation, will invite scrutiny and

harassment of any other student perceived by anyone as not

conforming to sex stereotypes, and will likely be

disproportionately used to target all girls and women of

color. We support the full inclusion and protection of

transgender, nonbinary, and intersex youth.

We are fortunate that transgender, nonbinary, and intersex

people are present in our community, and we fully embrace

them as members of our community. As organizations that care

deeply about ending sex-based discrimination and ensuring

equal educational opportunities, we support laws and policies

that protect transgender people from discrimination,

including full and equal participation in sports, access to

gender-affirming care, access to school facilities, and

access to inclusive curriculum. We firmly believe that an

attack on transgender youth is an attack on civil rights.

We ask all members of Congress to strongly oppose H.R. 28

and to reject attacks on transgender, nonbinary, and intersex

youth; to commit themselves to meaningfully advancing

policies that support equal opportunity; and to reassure all

students in the nation's classrooms that they will have the

chance to learn, grow, and thrive. If you have any questions,

please reach out to Liz King, senior program director at The

Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, at

king@civilrights.org.

Sincerely,

National (121)

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights;

Advocates for Trans Equality, Advocates for Youth, AFT;

American Association of University Women (AAUW), American

Atheists; American Civil Liberties Union; American Federation

of State; County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); American

Humanist Association; Amnesty International USA; Autistic

Women & Nonbinary Network; Bayard Rustin Center for Social

Justice; Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law; Bend the Arc:

Jewish Action; CenterLink: The Community of LGBTQ Centers;

Chrysalis; Clearinghouse on Women's Issues; COLAGE;

Collective Power for Reproductive Justice; Council for Global

Equality; EdTrust; Education Law Center; Educators for

Excellence; Elevated Access; Empowering Pacific Islander

Communities; Equal Justice Society; Equal Rights Advocates;

Equality Federation; Equity Forward.

Family Equality, Feminist Majority Foundation, FORGE, Inc.,

Gender Justice League, GLAAD, GLMA: Health Professionals

Advancing LGBTQ+ Equality, GLSEN, HAIR HAS NO GENDER NFP,

Human Rights Campaign, Human Rights First, Ibis Reproductive

Health, Impact Fund, Indivisible, interACT: Advocates for

Intersex Youth, Interfaith Alliance, Japanese American

Citizens League, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Justice

and Joy National Collaborative, Keshet, Labor Council for

Latin American Advancement, Lambda Legal, LatinoJustice

PRLDEF, Lavender Rights Project, Liberation is Lit, LPAC,

Matthew Shepard Foundation, Movement Advancement Project,

MPact Global, NAACP, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Nathaniel R.

Jones Foundation, National Asian Pacific American Bar

Association (NAPABA), National Association of Social Workers,

National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Council of

Jewish Women, National Disability Rights Network (NDRN),

National Education Association, National Hispanic Media

Coalition, National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund, National

LGBTQ+ Bar Association, National LGBTQI+ Cancer Network,

National Network of Abortion Funds, National Organization for

Women.

National Partnership for Women & Families, National Urban

League, National Women's Law Center, Nclusion Plus, NETWORK

Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, Our Schools USA, Out in

Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics, Inc.,

Patchwork Transgender Peer Services, People For the American

Way, PFLAG National, Planned Parenthood Federation of

America, Point of Pride, Popular Democracy, Positive Women's

Network-USA, Pride At Work, AFL-CIO, Public Justice,

Reproaction, Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly NARAL

Pro-Choice America), Safe Schools Action Network, Sam &

Devorah Foundation for Trans Youth, Service Employees

International Union (SEIU), SIECUS: Sex Ed for Social Change,

Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF),

State Innovation Exchange (SiX) Action, Tbuddy, The Advocacy

Institute, The Advocates for Human Rights, The Autistic

People of Color Fund, The Global Trans Equity Project, The

Restaurant Opportunities Centers United (ROC United), The

TransLatin@ Coalition, Trans in Color, Transathlete,

Transcending Adolescence, TransFamily Support Services,

Transgender Law Center, TransParent, T'ruah: The Rabbinic

Call for Human Rights, UFCW OUTreach, Union for Reform

Judaism, United Church of Christ, URGE: Unite for

Reproductive & Gender Equity, Voices for Progress, Voters of

Tomorrow, Western States Center, Whitman-Walker Institute,

Youth MOVE National, Youth Seen, YWCA USA.

regional/state/local (294)

African American Office of Gay Concerns, Aces NYC,

Adirondack North Country Gender Alliance, Advocates for

Children of New York, AJL Community Health, Alliance For Full

Acceptance SC, American Federation of Teachers--Oregon,

Arkansas Black Gay Men's Forum, Association of Latinos/as/xs

Motivating Action, Azalea Coffee Bar, Bans Off Miami, Basic

Rights Oregon, Battle Born Progress, Bolingbrook Pride,

Brenham PFLAG, Brooklyn Community Pride Center, CA LGBTQ

Health and Human Services Network, CalPride, CAMP Rehoboth,

Campaign for Southern Equality, Carolina Abortion Fund, Casa

Freehold, Cascade AIDS Project, Central Coast Coalition for

Inclusive Schools, Charlotte Trans Health, Chattanooga Trans

Liberation Collective, Chicago Teachers Union LGBTQ+

Committee, Chicago Therapy Collective, City of West

Hollywood, Courage California, Crescent Care, Deerfield IL

Chapter of PFLAG, Delmarva Pride Center, Denver Health and

Hospital Authority, Detroit Area Youth Uniting Michigan

(DAYUM), Disability Law Center, Disability Rights California,

Disability Rights Oregon.

East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, Eastern PA Trans Equity

Project, Education Law Center Pennsylvania, entre hermanos,

Envision: You, Equality California, Equality Community

Center, Equality Florida, Equality Illinois, Equality Maine,

Equality Michigan, Equality New Mexico, Equality NY--Buffalo

Chapter, Equality Ohio, Equality South Dakota, Equality

Texas, Equitas Health, Fair Wisconsin, Fairness Campaign,

Family Forward Oregon, Famous Adventures Summer Camp, Fenway

Health, FL National Organization for Women, Florida Council

of Churches, Four Corners Rainbow Youth Center, Freedom

Oklahoma, Garden State Equality, Gender Alchemy, Gender

Justice, Gender Justice LA, GenderNexus, Georgia Equality,

GLSEN Arizona, GLYS Western New York Inc., GRACE/End Child

Poverty California, Grand Rapids Trans Foundation, GSAFE,

Harriet Hancock Center Foundation, Hawai`i `Ohana Support

Network, Health Equity Alliance for LGBTQ+ New Mexicans,

Howard Brown Health, Hugh Lane Wellness Foundation, Hyacinth

Foundation.

Illinois Migrant Council, Inland Empire Prism Collective,

Inland Oasis, Jewish Community Relations Council of Broward

County, Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater

Phoenix, Just Us at Oasis Center, Kol Ami, Latino Equality

Alliance, Latino Network, Lavender Phoenix, Levine Center To

End Hate/Jewish Federation of Greater Rochester, LGBT Center

of Raleigh, LGBT Center of SE Wisconsin, LGBT Community

Network, LGBTQ Center OC, LGBTQ Community Center of the

Desert, LGBTQ+ Center Lake County, LGBTQ+ Community Center of

Darke County, LGBTQI+ Rights Clinic, Northwestern Pritzker

School of Law, Life is Work, Los Angeles LGBT Center,

Louisiana Trans Advocates, Louisville Youth Group, Loving

Beyond Understanding, Lyon Martin Community Health, LYRIC,

Mabel Wadsworth Center, MaineTransNet, Make it Better for

Youth, Make the Road Nevada, Mama Bears Playgroup,

Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition, MassEquality,

Metro Trans Umbrella Group, Michigan Alliance for Special

Education, Michigan Education Justice Coalition, Michigan

Student Power Alliance, Monica Roberts Resource Center,

Montgomery Pride United/ Bayard Rustin Community Center,

Muncie OUTreach LGBTQ+ Center.

Naper Pride, Nevada Chapter of the National Organization

for Women, New Alternatives For Homeless LGBT Youth, New

Haven Pride Center, New Jersey Safe Schools Coalition, New

Mexico Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs, Next Up Action

Fund, North County LGBTQ Resource Center, North Dakota Human

Rights Coalition, North Shore Alliance of LGBTQ+ Youth

(NAGLY), NoVA Prism Center, Oasis Legal Services, Office of

Strategic Partnerships, California Department of Health Care

Services, One Colorado, one-n-ten, OUT Maine, OutCenter

Southwest Michigan, OutFront Minnesota, OUTMemphis,

OutNebraska, OutReach LGBTQ+ Community Center, PAVE, Peoria

Proud, PFLAG Aiken (South Carolina), PFLAG Akron, PFLAG

Angleton- Lake Jackson, PFLAG Athens Area, Georgia, PFLAG

Cape Cod, PFLAG Chicago Metro, PFLAG Clayton-Concord, PFLAG

Collingswood, PFLAG Columbus, Ohio, PFLAG Council of Northern

Illinois, PFLAG Danville/ Central Susquehanna Valley, PFLAG

DanvilleKY, PFLAG Dayton, PFLAG Decatur, PFLAG Deerfield IL,

PFLAG Delaware, PFLAG Detroit, PFLAG DuPage, PFLAG

Edwardsville, PFLAG Flat Rock/Hendersonville, NC.

PFLAG Fort Collins / Northern Colorado, PFLAG Fort Wayne,

PFLAG Fort Worth, PFLAG Frederick, PFLAG Geneva/Tri-Cities,

PFLAG Grayslake/Round Lake, PFLAG Greater Boston, PFLAG

Greater St. Louis, PFLAG GREENSBURG, PFLAG Hartford, PFLAG

Homewood-Flossmoor, PFLAG HuntsvilleTX, PFLAG Illinois, PFLAG

Ithaca-Cortland, PFLAG Lafayette/Tippecanoe County Indiana,

PFLAG Lamorinda, PFLAG Los Angeles, PFLAG Madison WI, PFLAG

meto chapter, PFLAG NYC, PFLAG O'ahu, PFLAG Oakland-East Bay,

PFLAG Peoria, PFLAG Plymouth-Canton, PFLAG Port Charlotte

Chapter, PFLAG Sacramento, PFLAG Salisbury, PFLAG San Diego

County, PFLAG San Francisco, PFLAG San Jose/Peninsula, PFLAG

Sandy Springs, PFLAG Seattle, PFLAG Sonoma County, PFLAG

Southern Maryland, PFLAG Springfield/SWMO, PFLAG Tinley Park,

PFLAG Tri-Valley, PFLAG Valparaiso, PFLAG West Chester/

Chester County, PFLAG Youngstown, Philadelphia Asian and

Queer, Pride Action Tank/AIDS Foundation Chicago, Pride at

Work--Hawai'i.

Pride Center of Terre Haute Inc., Pride Community Center,

Inc (Bryan/College Station, Texas), Pride in Action, Southern

IL, Pride Lafayette (Indiana), Princess Janae Place, PRISM

FL, Prism United, Pro-Choice North Carolina, PROMO Missouri,

Public Health Institute of Metropolitan Chicago, QT Summer

Camp, Queer City Therapy, Queer Keys, Queer Trans Black

Indigenous People of Color Agency, Queermunity Collaborative,

Rabbi Joseph H. Gumbiner Community Action Project at Tucson

Jewish Museum & Holocaust Center, Rad Family, a project of

North Jersey Pride, Rainbow Collective of WNY, Rainbow

Families Bay Area Community Group, Rainbow Labs, Rainbow

Pride Youth Alliance, Reproductive Justice Action Collective,

Resource Center, Rising Voices, Rochester Rainbow Union,

Rockland County Pride Center, Rocky Mountain Equality, Rogue

Action Center, Sacramento LGBT Community Center, Salisbury

Pride, San Joaquin Delta College, San Joaquin Pride Center,

INC., Save Our Sisters United, Serving at-risk families

everywhere, Inc., Sexual Assault Services Organization,

Silver State Equality-Nevada, Sioux Falls Pride, SMYAL,

SOJOURN: Southern Jewish Resource Network for Gender and

Sexual Diversity, Solano Pride Center, Somos Familia Valle,

Soul 2 Soul Sisters, South Carolina Equality.

Southern Arizona AIDS Foundation, Southwest Women's Law

Center, Spencer Pride, Inc., St. Stephen's Episcopal Church,

Support FHPS Action, TaskForce Prevention and Community

Services, Tennessee Equality Project, The Center Project, The

Cherry Fund, The DC LGBTQ+ Community Center, The GLO Center,

The Human Rights Alliance, The Lavender Room, The LGBTQ

Center of Southern Nevada, The LIAM Foundation, The LOFT

LGBTQ+ Community Center, The Mahogany Project, The Pinta

Pride Project and Buffalo Grove Pride, The Pride Center at

Equality Park, The San Diego LGBT Community Center, The

Sports Bra, The Transformation Project South Dakota, Towards

an Anti-Racist North Kingstown (TANK), TRACTION, Trans

Maryland, Trans-E-Motion, Transformative Justice Law Project

of Illinois, Transgender Michigan, Transgender Resource

Center of New Mexico, Transgender Resource, Advocacy and

Network Service, TransOhio, T-time Transgender Support,

Uniting Pride of Champaign County, Upstate NY Black & Latino

Pride, Inc., Viet Rainbow of Orange County, Waves Ahead Corp,

We Are Family, Wild West Access Fund of Nevada, WNY Man Made

Men, Women's Rights and Empowerment Network, Youth Leadership

Institute, Youth Outlook, Youth OUTright, Zebra Youth.

Mr. Speaker, for many people across the country, their first introduction to Portland, Oregon, was the sketch comedy show ``Portlandia.'' Like any parody, it exaggerates reality. Contrary to popular belief, most Portlanders don't spend their time asking about a chicken's backstory at a farm-to-table restaurant and sorting their recycling into 50 bins.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you firsthand that the City of Roses is a place where people care about the environment, where their food comes from, sustainable transportation, and inclusive communities. There is no better advocate and no truer representative of Portland than my good friend, colleague, and mentor, Congressman Earl Blumenauer.

Earl has been in public service for more than 50 years, 28 years here in Congress and 25 years in State and local government. He has devoted his career to making Oregon and the country more livable so individuals and families can be safe, healthy, and economically secure. As he has said, it is in his DNA to care about the community and to bring people together to accomplish a goal.

Earl came to Congress after a special election in April 1996 when Ron Wyden moved to the Senate in one of five special elections that year. On the Hill, people know Earl by his bow ties, bike pins, and annual comedy events, but to those of us who know him well, he is so much more.

Earl has a wide breadth of knowledge and extensive expertise gathered through his years in State and local government and now in Congress. When I went on a tour of the Library of Congress several years ago, I noticed how quiet and empty it was. When I asked if any Members of Congress actually use the Library, my tour guide asked: Do you know Earl Blumenauer?

That is Earl. As former Congressman Peter DeFazio remarked, Earl goes to people with facts, and he goes back to them with facts, and he tries to wear them down.

Earl can be very convincing. He is a long-term thinker, a skill that is sometimes in short supply in the policymaking arena, and a quintessential policy wonk.

Earl's vision and tireless work have made real, game-changing progress for his hometown of Portland and for our State, for the region, for the Nation, and, in fact, around the world. He has been a key part of promoting curbside recycling; investing in bike and pedestrian infrastructure; advocating for animal welfare, transit, and water infrastructure; supporting Afghan interpreters; changing the regulatory structure of cannabis; reimagining food policy; and more.

Earl always seeks to share what he knows. As a Portland city commissioner, Earl wanted to provide a way for Portland residents to engage constructively with the transportation system, so he created an evening class to give people the opportunity to learn about the system and suggest changes, a program that continues to this day at Portland State University.

When new Members come to Congress, Earl welcomes them with a gift, a very thorough, multipage letter sharing some of his lessons and some of the knowledge that he has absorbed throughout his service. I came back to

that letter, and to Earl, for guidance as I found my way. Even Snoop Dogg asked Earl for advice on how he could help with cannabis legislation.

Yes, Earl has friends everywhere, and I know many of us in Congress will miss him tremendously when he retires at the end of the 118th Congress, but for those of us who live, work, and visit Portland, Earl is not going anywhere. In his next role in Portland State's metropolitan studies program, he will continue to make things better for Oregonians with his typical thoughtful, methodical, and data- informed approach.

As the incoming dean of the Oregon delegation, I acknowledge that I have big shoes to fill, but Earl has charted a good and worthy path, and I know he will be around for advice when we need his wisdom, his sense of humor, and his sincerity about creating a better future.

We wish Earl Blumenauer well, and I know he will appreciate his additional time with his wife, Margaret, and his children and grandchildren.

Congress will not be the same without Congressman Earl Blumenauer.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 9549, to designate the Elizabeth Furse Post Office Building in Hillsboro, Oregon. I thank all of my Oregon colleagues for their support on this bill.

Elizabeth Furse served northwest Oregon in Congress for 6 years. She was the first woman elected to represent Oregon's First Congressional District which I am now honored to represent.

When she was first elected, Elizabeth was only one of 48 women in the House. Today, there are 127 women, thanks in part to the courageous example set by Elizabeth and other early congresswomen.

Elizabeth Furse was raised in a family that valued service and justice. Her father served in the British Navy when she was growing up in Nairobi, Kenya. Her mother launched an anti-apartheid women's group, and her grandmother was a commandant of the British Red Cross Voluntary Aid during World War II. Elizabeth knew that government has the power protect civil rights or to threaten them.

Beginning at her first anti-apartheid march when she was only 15 years old, she continued her family's legacy of service by advocating for those at the margins and continuing through her work, speaking on this very floor of the House of Representatives, where she championed the issues of human rights and social justice.

Elizabeth believed that Congress should look like the country it represents. Good policy comes when people of diverse backgrounds and experience shape it. We have come closer to that goal, but we have further to go.

Representative Furse came to Congress to advocate for meaningful change. She fought for Tribal sovereignty, social justice, and peace. She inspired dedication to worthy causes including cofounding the Oregon Peace Institute. She embodied the traits public servants should strive to uphold.

Elizabeth assisted countless people during her time in Congress and throughout her life. Her many achievements include helping the Grand Ronde, Klamath, and Coquille Tribes gain Federal recognition. That work meant a lot to her, and it certainly meant a lot to the Tribes.

She increased access to public transportation in our region by extending the light rail service to Hillsboro, and she was one of the original founders of the bipartisan Congressional Diabetes Caucus.

Elizabeth was a trailblazer and an inspiration to many, including me. She dedicated her life to service, bolstering the lives of people in northwest Oregon. I am privileged to have been able to call her a mentor and a friend.

Elizabeth lived many places before she came to Oregon in 1978, but she made our State her home. She will always be remembered as one of the smart, courageous women who shaped Oregon today.

When she faced adversity, she overcame it and opened the door for others to walk through. She pursued a nontraditional career path, and she fought tirelessly for justice.

I am honored to support this legislation to recognize her contributions to northwest Oregon by naming this post office, which is close to the home where she spent her final days, in her honor so people will be inspired by her example for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I know that I will continue to draw inspiration from her legacy and her commitment to justice.

On behalf of her friends, family, and former constituents, I request that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle support this important bill.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the so-called End Woke Higher Education Act.

There is a lot we could be doing in Congress to improve higher education, and this is not it. This bill combines two extreme bills into one, attacking intellectual freedom and diversity on college campuses while fanning the flames of culture war rhetoric to score political points.

This so-called End Woke Higher Education Act would allow institutions of higher education to eliminate policies and programs that protect students and staff from discrimination because of who they are, where they come from, what they believe, or who they love.

By forbidding accreditors from considering diversity and inclusion efforts and allowing schools to require all applicants and employees to abide by a

statement of faith, colleges and universities would be free to remove curricula that highlight the historical experience of marginalized groups. They could reject students from attending federally funded institutions based on the student's religious beliefs.

Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia on college campuses is a pervasive problem, yet this bill would open the door for more schools to discriminate against Jewish or Muslim students solely because of their faith.

Is it woke to believe that Jewish and Muslim students should be able to attend the schools they choose and join the clubs that fit their interests? Is it woke to ask schools not to subsidize speakers that make certain groups of students feel unsafe on campus?

Though it is not typical to have a term in a bill that is undefined, there is no definition of ``woke'' in this bill. What is it? Do they believe it when they see it, or do they define it when they want to?

Instead of limiting access to inclusive, accurate curricula, we should be focused on vigorous enforcement of our civil rights laws that protect all students and provide equal opportunities.

For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill.

My amendment would increase funding for the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Education. That is important because the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, OCR, enforces a number of civil rights laws that apply to colleges and universities receiving Federal funding. The Office for Civil Rights has the crucial responsibility to uphold and enforce core nondiscrimination statutes that protect students on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, and age.

Despite the massive increase in complaints received over the past several years, this office has only half the staff it had when it was established 45 years ago. In fact, House Republicans on the Appropriations Committee recently proposed a $10 million cut to the Office for Civil Rights. That is right. They proposed a $10 million cut to the Office for Civil Rights.

Mr. Chair, if they are seriously concerned about religious discrimination on college campuses, why diminish the Federal enforcement agency's power to prevent cases of discrimination and, importantly, take enforcement action when these cases occur?

Federal anti-discrimination laws are critical tools, especially in today's political climate, to protect the civil rights of all students.

I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to recommit and opposing H.R. 3724 because we don't need the End Woke Higher Education Act.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the text of my amendment.

Ms. Bonamici of Oregon moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3724

to the Committee on Education and the Workforce with

instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith

with the following amendment:

Add at the end the following:

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to raise serious concerns about the ongoing underfunding of our Federal public defender program.

Nearly 90 percent of defendants in Federal court cannot afford their own attorney. Defendants have a constitutional right to an attorney in criminal cases. Without Federal defenders, the justice system can't function, and defendants are not able to get a speedy trial.

Any loss of Federal public defenders increases court delays and costs, sometimes significantly, because of reliance on private panel attorneys, who are usually more costly and often have less experience.

This is a particularly precarious moment for the Federal defender program. In fiscal year 2024, an inadvertent budgeting error resulted in initial funding levels that were more than $100 million less than what the program needed across the country.

In response, the program implemented a series of cost-saving measures, including a hard hiring freeze, suspension of training opportunities, and deferral of cybersecurity upgrades.

Insufficient funding for the Federal public defender program affects not only the rights of indigent individuals charged with Federal crimes, but also the overall operation of the Federal criminal justice system. When the Federal public defense system is underfunded, it creates delays in processing criminal cases, backlogs in U.S. Attorney's Offices, and an increase in appeals.

Additionally, we are seeing more complex cases that require increased forensic evaluation. These cases are not given the attention they deserve in an underresourced public defense system. A strong Federal public defense system, which is something that has historically been bipartisan here in the Capitol, enhances the confidence of everyone who has an interest in an efficient, reliable, and fair Federal justice system, including crime victims and the public at large.

Congress must adequately compensate Federal public defenders for the unintended consequences of the fiscal year 2024 cost-saving measures. We must restore training and cybersecurity infrastructure investments, and we must address the cost pressures for personnel in those offices and other essentials. This is important for our criminal justice system and for fairness. Let's get it done.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a longtime staff member of my office, Joyce Fleming, and to offer her most heartfelt congratulations on her retirement.

Joyce embodies what it means to be a public servant. As an outreach and constituent caseworker in my Beaverton office for the past 12 years, she treated all Oregonians with courtesy, respect, and empathy.

Like most of our best congressional staff, Joyce understands that advocacy for our constituents often takes more time and effort than one letter or phone call.

She patiently navigated Federal agencies, looked for creative solutions to complex problems, and she explored every avenue possible to find a positive outcome for the people we serve in northwest Oregon. In fact, during the last townhall meeting I hosted, it seemed that more constituents showed up to see Joyce and seek out her assistance than to talk with me.

I am grateful for her work serving the First District of Oregon for the past 12 years, but Joyce's career in public service began well before my service in Congress and has spanned decades. She began her congressional career in the office of U.S. Senator Mark Hatfield before we had email and iPhones. Senator Hatfield was a former Governor who spent 30 years in the U.S. Senate where he ultimately chaired the powerful Appropriations Committee. He was a special kind of public servant, a statesman who worked across the aisle and focused on getting things done for Oregonians.

Joyce's service has followed this model. She also spent more than 12 years in the Oregon office of my friend and colleague, Congressman Earl Blumenauer, and took a brief hiatus from Federal service before coming to work in my Oregon office in 2012.

A talented professional, Joyce was always one of the first staffers on my team who has always conducted herself with kindness and integrity. She has helped guide and mentor many new staff members and has been a steadfast advocate for the people of northwest Oregon.

In closing, and on behalf of my entire team and the people of northwest Oregon, I would like to reiterate my gratitude and appreciation to Joyce Fleming who made it possible for me to do my job well and to help the people I am so honored to represent.

Madam Speaker, I congratulate Joyce on her retirement and on her exemplary career serving the people of our State and country.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 165, a Congressional Review Act resolution to repeal the Biden- Harris administration's Title IX rule.

The administration's final Title IX rule does three things. First, it safeguards against all forms of sex-based harassment and discrimination by making several improvements to the 2020 Trump administration's Title IX rule. These include requiring schools to take prompt and effective acts to address sexual harassment as opposed to the lax Trump standard that a school's response just not be deliberately indifferent.

The new rule places the duty to report possible discrimination on more employees, in contrast to the old rule, which only required some employees to report when they had actual, not possible, knowledge of sexual discrimination or assault, and it recognizes that discrimination based on sex includes discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity following Supreme Court precedent.

Second, the Title IX rule promotes accountability and fairness in how schools respond to and discipline sex-based discrimination by mandating that schools handle complaints in a timely manner and implement a fair and transparent process.

Finally, this rule empowers students and families to exercise their rights under Title IX. The administration's Title IX rule explicitly protects sexual assault survivors and people affected by discrimination from retaliation for seeking to have their Title IX rights enforced.

Further, the rule guarantees access to supportive services for survivors of sexual assault and accused individuals and, despite what my colleagues repeatedly claim--I thought I was in the wrong debate for a minute--this rule does not address students' participation in sports.

This false narrative follows the many attacks against the LGBTQI+ community in this House and State legislatures across the country. We have had more than 60 anti-LGBTQI+ votes on the House floor this Congress, and it is a distraction to claim that this rule harms women in sports.

For example, the Department has not issued a separate proposed rule to address athletics. They are working on it, but it has not been finalized. That is not the debate we are having today.

Let me be clear: Trans girls like all girls deserve the opportunity to participate on school sports teams, but my colleagues across the aisle keep talking about athletics because they don't want to admit the truth behind this resolution. The resolution is an attempt to undermine nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQI+ students. LGBTQI students, including trans students, deserve to go to school free from discrimination, and that is what this rule is about.

It is not about bathrooms. In fact, the real risk of violence occurs when transgender people are barred from using the appropriate facility. Transgender people experience shockingly high rates of sexual and physical violence and are much more likely to be a victim than a perpetrator.

I am also extremely concerned about the false narrative that my colleagues have invented to portray trans individuals as criminals attempting to enter restrooms to harm others. That is not supported by evidence or data.

Transgender people want the same thing everyone else wants: safety, comfort, and privacy. We must work to protect the transgender community from discrimination and stop the false narratives that exacerbate and encourage prejudice against innocent people.

This bill is particularly extreme because passing it would prevent any substantially similar rule from being enacted on these issues in the future. Voting for this bill would prohibit protections for sexual assault survivors and protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in schools that receive Federal funding.

If Republicans truly cared about protecting women and children, they would stop this prejudiced rhetoric and take action on bills that would actually protect women from discrimination and harassment and defend women's reproductive healthcare, make childcare more affordable, and preserve opportunities in workplaces for all parents, especially women.

Instead, this joint resolution is another attempt to undercut this administration's efforts to empower survivors and protect all Americans from discrimination.

I do want to note that this is another plank in the extremist Project 2025 takeover of government that will sanction discrimination and strip Americans of their rights and freedoms. That is on page 333 if you are looking for it.

I also note that yesterday my Republican colleagues were supporting dignity for dishwashers. I implore all of you to show some dignity to the LGBTQI students who just want to go to school and learn free from discrimination. Show some dignity to the girls and women who survive sexual assault and deserve justice.

Madam Speaker, for these reasons and others, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I will note that the Bostock case did not expressly rule, but they did not say it does not apply. The issue is not before them, and that is why several courts have actually extended the ruling from Bostock to other civil rights laws.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Tokuda).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 20 seconds to the gentlewoman from Hawaii.

Madam Speaker, in making these important decisions, it is important to rely on experts like child psychiatrists and pediatricians.

I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), my colleague from the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Madam Speaker, before yielding to Mr. Takano, I reiterate that this rule is not about athletics. There is a separate rule being drafted about addressing athletics. This is not it.

Also, I am concerned about the scare tactics that are being used. Studies show that allowing trans people to use facilities consistent with their gender identity does not result in increased safety risks. Nondiscrimination laws do not allow men to go into women's bathrooms, period. The claim that allowing transgender people to use facilities that match the gender they live every day allows men into women's bathrooms or women into men's bathrooms is based on a flawed understanding of what it means to be a transgender person or a misrepresentation of the law. The real risk occurs when transgender people are barred from using the appropriate facilities.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), my colleague from the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the full committee.

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

I just want to point out that it is definitely not the first time that the definition of discrimination based on sex included sexual orientation and gender identity, because Trump-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch did exactly that in the Bostock v. Clayton County case.

I also note that in this resolution, they are saying it is going to hurt girls and women. It absolutely will not. It is going to strengthen protections for girls and women because it ensures colleges and universities properly address sexual violence, violence that disproportionately impacts girls and women. The rule clarifies protections for pregnant and parenting students, and the rule explicitly clarifies protections for the LGBTQI community, including lesbian, bisexual, and transgender girls and women.

As Representative Jayapal said, these rules and protections have been in effect in many States, and the sky is not falling. People are free from discrimination in those places.

Republicans are just repeating the lie that they are standing up for women to hide from the radical antiwomen agenda. You don't have to take our word for it. Leading gender justice organizations, like the National Women's Law Center, the American Association of University Women, and Girls Inc., all oppose this resolution to repeal the Title IX rule. That is why these groups, and more than 100 organizations working to advance gender justice, LGBTQI rights, civil rights, and student rights have written to Congress urging us to oppose this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Coalition of Gender Justice, LGBTQI+ rights, civil rights, and student rights groups, opposing H.J. Res. 165.

June 13, 2024.

Re Coalition of Gender Justice, LGBTQI+ Rights, Civil Rights,

and Student Rights Groups Urges Members to Oppose H.J.

Res. 165

Dear Member of Congress: The undersigned organizations who

work to advance gender justice, LGBTQI+ rights, civil rights,

and student rights urge you to oppose H.J. Res. 165, and its

companion legislation in the Senate, which would undo the

U.S. Department of Education's recently published final rule

that strengthens Title IX's protections against sex-based

discrimination in federally funded schools. Not only would

H.J. Res. 165 overturn the entirety of the protections set

out in the rule, it would prevent any future effort to

reinstate any of these protections. This effort must be

rejected, as the U.S. Department of Education's recently

finalized rule reinforces and restores Title IX's

protections, ensuring that every student has the right to a

safe and welcoming learning environment, free from sex

discrimination, including LGBTQI+ students, survivors of

sexual assault and other sex-based harassment, and pregnant

and parenting students.

The updates clarify that Title IX protects against

discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender

identity. With a staggering 83% of LGBTQI+ youth reporting in

school victimization--and 62% of those who have faced

victimization never reporting an incident to school staff--

the Title IX updates will clarify remedies for students

facing all types of sex-based harassment and hold school

officials accountable for fostering safer school

environments. This regulatory clarification ensures that

LGBTQI+ youth will be able to equally participate in

educational opportunities, from being able to attend prom

with a date of their choice and wearing clothes that reflect

their gender expression to using a restroom that corresponds

with their gender identity.

We collectively reject the false narrative that equal

educational opportunity for transgender and non-binary

students undermines protections for cisgender girls and

women. Transgender women are women and transgender girls are

girls who deserve the full protection of federal civil rights

law. Policies that seek to undermine protections for

transgender women and girls--whether in accessing school

restrooms or playing sports--harm all women and girls by

allowing them to be subjected to unwarranted and

inappropriate scrutiny. This scrutiny also falls particularly

hard on women and girls of color who do not follow white

standards of womanhood, and any cisgender woman or girl who

fails to conform to sex-based stereotypes of femininity

because of how they look or act. Further, schools across the

country have had gender identity nondiscrimination policies

in place for years without any issue, and comprehensive

nondiscrimination policies that explicitly enumerate gender

identity are associated with safer school environments that

result in lower rates of discrimination. Such policies are

especially critical for sex-separated spaces such as

bathrooms and locker rooms. Transgender and nonbinary

students avoid sex-separated spaces at higher rates than

their LGBQ+ peers, and delayed use of bathrooms can result in

adverse impacts on a youth's physical and physiological

state, mental health, and academic success and attention at

school. Forcing transgender and nonbinary students into sex-

separated spaces that are inconsistent with their gender

identity may result in increased risk of bullying and

physical harassment. In fact, survivor-led organizations and

anti-sexual assault and domestic violence organizations

support full and equal access for transgender people to use

restrooms and locker rooms that align with their gender

identity.

Additionally, the Title IX rule reverses the Trump

administration's 2020 Title IX rule that significantly

weakened protections for student survivors seeking help in

the wake of their victimization and incentivize schools to

further sweep sexual harassment and assault under the rug.

Undoing the 2020 Title IX rule brings justice to survivors by

ensuring they are not denied their right to educational

opportunities in the wake of sexual assault or harassment.

The updates to the Title IX rule no longer allow schools to

ignore many reports of sexual assault and remove unfair

hurdles uniquely faced by student survivors in their schools'

investigations--hurdles that students and employees

complaining about any other type of misconduct do not have to

experience.

Lastly, the updates to the Title IX rule provide greater

clarity on pregnant and parenting students' rights, including

affirmative steps schools must take to ensure those students

are aware of their rights. Schools must provide reasonable

accommodations, such as the ability to take breaks and access

to a sanitary and private lactation room. According to the

CDC, roughly 50% of teenagers who become pregnant and give

birth withdraw from school and do not receive their high

school diplomas by age 22. Research indicates that

discrimination plays a major role in students having to

withdraw early from school, despite pregnant and parenting

students earning higher GPAs than their non-parenting peers.

These Title IX rule clarifications are much-needed to ensure

pregnant and parenting students have a right to equal

education opportunities.

Every student deserves to have an education free from

discrimination and harassment, including on the basis of sex.

We urge you to oppose H. Res. 165, and any efforts to

undermine this milestone rule that ensures equal educational

opportunity for LGBTQI+ students, survivors of sexual assault

and harassment, and pregnant and parenting students.

Sincerely,

A Better Balance, AFT, All* Above All, Alliance for Girls,

American Association of University Women, American Atheists,

American Humanist Association, American Psychological

Association, Arab American Institute (AAI), Ascend, Athlete

Ally, Autistic Self Advocacy Network, CA LGBTQ Health and

Human Services Network, Center for WorkLife Law, CenterLink:

The Community of LGBTQ Centers, Chicago Alliance Against

Sexual Exploitation (CAASE), Clearinghouse on Women's Issues,

Clery Center, Colorado Teen Parent Collaborative, Doctors for

America.

EdTrust, Education Law Center, Education Law Center

Pennsylvania, End Rape On Campus, Equal Rights Advocates,

Equality California, ERA Coalition, Esperanza United, Family

Equality, Feminist Majority Foundation, Generation Hope,

Girls Inc., GLAAD, GLSEN, Guttmacher Institute, Healthy Teen

Network, Human Rights Campaign, Human Rights First,

Immigration Equality, Institute for Women's Policy Research.

interACT: Advocates for Intersex Youth, Ipas, It's On Us,

Japanese American Citizens League, Jewish Women

International, Just Solutions, Justice and Joy National

Collaborative (formerly National Crittenton), Know Your IX,

Advocates for Youth, Legal Momentum, The Women's Legal

Defense and Education Fund, Los Angeles LGBT Center,

MomsRising, Monsoon Asians & Pacific Islanders in Solidarity,

Movement Advancement Project, Mujeres Latinas en Accion,

National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum, National

Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities,

National Association of Social Workers, National Center for

Lesbian Rights, National Center for Parent Leadership,

Advocacy, and Community Empowerment (National PLACE),

National Council of Jewish Women.

National Education Association, National Latina Institute

for Reproductive Justice, National LGBTQI+ Cancer Network,

National Organization for Women, National Women's Law Center,

National Women's Political Caucus, Network for Victim

Recovery of DC (NVRDC), Nevada Coalition to End Domestic and

Sexual Violence, PFLAG National, Population Institute, Public

Justice, Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly NARAL Pro-

Choice America), Rocky Mountain Victim Law Center, Sexual

Violence Prevention Association (SVPA), Silver State

Equality-Nevada, Stop Sexual Assault in Schools,

Supermajority, Tahirih Justice Center, The Trevor Project,

Trans Empowerment Project.

Trans Formations Project, Transgender Law Center, Ujima,

The National Center on Violence Against Women in the Black

Community, UltraViolet, Victim Rights Law Center,

VOICEINSPORT Foundation, Women's March, Women's Sports

Foundation, YWCA USA.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I just want to note that there are so many groups, domestic violence and sexual assault organizations, such as the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence, that have all signed onto a national consensus statement of anti-sexual assault and domestic violence in support of full and equal access for the transgender community.

They noted: Nondiscrimination laws do not allow men to go into women's restrooms or locker rooms, period. The claim that allowing transgender people to use the facilities that match the gender they live every day, that it allows men into women's bathrooms or women into men's, is based on a flawed understanding of what it means to be transgender.

I will note that out of approximately 110,000 collegiate athletes, there are approximately 35 who identify as transgender.

Nondiscrimination laws protecting transgender people have existed for a long time. In some cases, these protections have been in place for decades. The laws have protected people from discrimination without creating harm. None of those jurisdictions have seen a rise in sexual violence or other public safety issues due to nondiscrimination laws.

Assaulting another person in a restroom or a changing room or a locker room is against the law in every State, including under this rule.

I include in the Record a letter from the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women in opposition to this resolution and in support of full and equal access for the transgender community.

National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence

Against Women,

April 21, 2016.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I just want to respond to ``the natural laws of this world.'' It is not a new concept. There are two-spirit people in Native-American culture. There are hijra people in South Asia and many more in Judaism. For example, the Talmud, the sacred text, lists six genders. The sky is not falling.

I also note that the gentleman referred to redefining ``sex'' to include sexual orientation and gender identity as some sort of novel or woke concept. I suggest you take that up with the Trump-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch because he wrote the opinion making clear that sex discrimination includes discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

I include in the Record letters from the American Library Association, the National Education Association, and the Consortium for Constituents with Disabilities. These three letters are all in opposition to H.J. Res. 165.

ALA American Library Association,

June 11, 2024.

Re H.J.Res. 165, Title IX rule disapproval--OPPOSE

Hon. Virginia Foxx,

Chairwoman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, US

House of Representatives.

Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,

Ranking Member, Committee on Education and the Workforce, US

House of Representatives.

Dear Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member Scott: On behalf of

the American Library Association (ALA), I write to

respectfully oppose H.J. Res. 165, ``Providing for

congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of

Education relating to `Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex

in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal

Financial Assistance.' ''

The Department of Education's Title IX rule, issued April

29, 2024, applies the Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v.

Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020), to codify that Title IX

prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation

or gender identity. By doing so, the rule clarifies that

recipients of Education Department funding may not

discriminate against LGBTQI+ library workers or students in

employment opportunities or the delivery of library services

(e.g., removal of library materials in a discriminatory

manner).

All Americans deserve equal opportunity in education,

employment, and the freedom to read. We urge Congress to

defend the rights of students and library workers by

rejecting H.J.Res. 165. If we can provide more information,

please contact Gavin Baker (gbaker@alawash.org).

Sincerely,

Alan S. Inouye, Ph.D., Senior Director, Public Policy &

Government Relations and Interim Associate Executive

Director, American Library Association.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining.

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

I want to note in the big picture as we consider this conversation today, LGBTQ youth and trans youth are more likely to have experienced sexual violence than their straight counterparts.

Further, nearly 59 percent of LGBTQI+ students report experiencing discriminatory policies and practices at school, particularly those targeting students' gender and limiting their ability to participate in activities consistent with their gender identity.

Madam Speaker, 62 percent of LGBTQ students who were harassed or assaulted at school did not report the incident because they don't feel safe. This is creating hostile environments that are leading to adverse outcomes for LGBTQ students.

The report that I mentioned found that students who experienced discrimination and higher levels of victimization have higher dropout rates, lower academic performance, and increased mental health issues such as anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation.

Madam Speaker, 68 percent of the students reported feeling unsafe at school because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or gender expression.

We should not be creating this hostile school climate that is making students feel unsafe because of who they are.

I want to again encourage my colleagues to think about the message that this is sending to students, that they do not belong, that they are not safe in their schools. This is the Education and the Workforce Committee. We should be making students feel safe, not making them feel threatened.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for the purpose of closing.

The Biden-Harris administration's Title IX rule is a necessary step in protecting all Americans from sex-based harassment and discrimination. It would uplift and empower survivors while holding schools accountable for their handling of these sensitive cases.

This Congressional Review Act that Republicans have put forward undermines the rights of survivors of sexual assault and advances a baseless, prejudiced narrative against LGBTQI+, especially transgender, individuals.

I am incredibly frustrated that Republicans are spending time obsessing over what bathroom is used instead of addressing the real problems faced by women and children.

I also include in the Record, Madam Speaker, a Statement of Administrative Policy providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5 of the United States Code. If this President were presented with H.J. Res. 165, he would veto it, and for good reason because this bill takes us back.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.J. Res. 165--Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department

of Education relating to ``Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance

The Administration strongly opposes H.J. Res. 165, which

would disapprove the Department of Education's rule, under

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, to restore and

strengthen vital nondiscrimination protections for students,

employees, and applicants in federally funded education

programs and activities.

Since Title IX was signed into law more than 50 years ago,

it has opened doors for generations of women and girls and

increased access to educational opportunities for millions of

students. Despite this progress, rates of sexual harassment

and assault in our nation's schools and colleges remain

unacceptably high. Many women see their education derailed

because of pregnancy discrimination. And many LGBTQI+

students face bullying and harassment just because of who

they are.

The Department's rule is critical to ensuring that no

person experiences sex discrimination at school. The rule

provides protection from sex-based harassment, including

sexual violence; promotes accountability and fundamental

fairness through a fair, transparent, and reliable process;

and ensures that students, employees, and families understand

their rights and that institutions know their

responsibilities. The rule also advances educational equity

by requiring schools that have knowledge of possible sex

discrimination in their education programs or activities to

take prompt and effective action to end the sex

discrimination, prevent its recurrence, and remedy its

effects. Passage of H.J. Res. 165 would eliminate these

critical protections that keep students safe and able to

realize their full potential.

The promise of Title IX--an education free from sex

discrimination--remains as vital now as it was when the law

was enacted. The Administration will continue to fight

tirelessly to realize this promise and achieve equal

opportunity for all students and all Americans.

If the President were presented with H.J. Res. 165, he

would veto it.

We have made progress in making every student feel safe and be safe in schools.

I once again encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this harmful and extreme joint resolution for the sake of women, the LGBTQI community, and survivors across the Nation.

Again, Madam Speaker, yesterday we were talking about dignity for dishwashers. Please show some dignity for people who are being discriminated against because of who they are and who they love.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. McGovern for yielding the time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and in strong support of something my constituents are calling about. It is not dishwashers, and it is not refrigerators. It is support for the Women's Health Protection Act which will provide in law the right for Americans to make their own reproductive healthcare decisions.

The rightwing extremists on the Supreme Court who authored the Dobbs decision overturning abortion rights have shown that they will do anything to further their regressive, extreme, and dangerous ideology regardless of the long history of Court precedent.

For almost 50 years, the intensely personal decision about whether or when to bear a child or have an abortion was right where it belongs, with the one who is pregnant.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim to be pro-life, but the policies they support are anything but.

I remember the days before Roe v. Wade when abortions done without medical care could and often did have tragic outcomes, including death. Even before the Dobbs decision, maternal death rates in 2020 were 62 percent higher in States that ban or restrict abortion than in States where it was acceptable.

Restrictive abortion laws also cause infant mortality rates to rise, including in Texas where both infant death rates and the number of babies who died of birth defects have increased since their restrictive law banning abortion as early as 6 weeks went into effect.

A study from Johns Hopkins University found that between 2021 and 2022, the infant mortality rate increased by 8.3 percent in Texas, and that is compared with a 2.2 percent increase nationally. While the death rate of babies 28 days old or younger fell in other States overall, it increased by 5.8 percent in Texas.

Make no mistake, Madam Speaker, these laws are not about protecting life. They are about control: controlling the bodies of others and removing their personal freedom to make the decision about whether or when to bear a child.

This will not stop at the State level. At the first opportunity, congressional Republicans will try to enact a nationwide abortion ban to prevent anyone in this country from getting the care they need.

For these reasons and more, we must defeat the previous question so we can pass the very important Women's Health Protection Act to protect the right to abortion and restore the freedoms that the Supreme Court, with support from Republicans, brazenly stripped away.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 7521, the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.

I agree with my colleagues that we must do more to protect personal information online, safeguard national security from foreign adversaries, and protect our electoral system from foreign interference, but this bill is far from the comprehensive approach our increasingly connected world needs. I also have serious concerns with the scope of the legislation and open constitutional questions about the path forward for its implementation.

Targeting only one foreign adversary-controlled application will not fully protect consumers' data in our nation. Energy & Commerce Committee Chairwoman McMorris Rodgers and Ranking Member Pallone have already advanced bipartisan, comprehensive data privacy legislation, and the Biden Administration has issued an Executive Order to Protect Americans' Sensitive Personal Data. Instead of addressing one company, as the bill we are considering today does, we could instead consider that bill or a related proposal that would improve how Americans access and control their data across all apps. The limited data safeguards in the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act are not sufficient to justify what could amount to a ban on TikTok in our country.

Civil liberties and legal experts have also raised concerns about potential constitutional questions regarding this bill. During his term former President Donald Trump issued several Executive Orders that would have had many of the same effects of this bill, but courts struck down those orders. Additionally, the state of Montana's legislation to ban TikTok and similarly prevent it from accessing application stores was recently put on hold for exceeding the authority of the state and potentially violating the First Amendment. I am also concerned that this bill limits legal challenges to just the first 165 days after the legislation is enacted and restricts challenges to actions taken under its authority to within 90 days of their implementation. These restrictions and ongoing constitutional questions about limiting consumer choice and speech could create significant uncertainty as the bill is implemented. We should not limit opportunities for Americans to protect their rights through our legal system.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution enshrines the protection of free speech and a press free from fear of retribution from the government. Protecting this right is a cornerstone of our democracy, and one that I am committed to upholding. I encourage my colleagues to vote against this bill so we can return to the table and negotiate a more comprehensive and effective approach to data privacy.

Once again, I urge my colleagues to vote no.