Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, our Nation's foster care system is overburdened and limited in its ability to adequately address the adversities, challenges, and traumas that children and families often confront in some of the most vulnerable times of their lives. This is the unfortunate reality--a status quo where good enough is not good enough. It is a status quo where children are forgotten and neglected, a status quo that leaves children to gather in the

trauma that introduced them to the foster care system.

The Administration for Children and Families has emboldened the status quo for far too long. Studies show that children placed in foster care are significantly more likely to face lifelong struggles that include homelessness, sex trafficking, incarceration, and post- traumatic stress disorder.

To move past these challenges, we must introduce innovative solutions that address the complex needs of children and families involved in the foster care system.

Our foster care system lacks innovation, but that is something that we can change. We must educate, support, and empower children in the foster care system to reach their full potential.

To accomplish these goals, our foster care system needs interventional, trauma-informed programming molded to the unique circumstances of each child in the foster care system.

I encourage my colleagues to recognize these unique challenges and help set foster care youth on a path to success.

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

Mr. Chair, our Federal bureaucracy is riddled with wasteful and purposeless offices that do nothing but fuel the flames of divisiveness in our government.

Why is our Federal Government more concerned with advancing programs that fuel racism over the needs of the American people? These offices seek to treat people differently based on immutable characteristics like the color of their skin or their gender. That should be offensive to all of us in Congress.

Mr. Chair, my amendment would eliminate funding for the Communications Equity and Diversity Commission within the FCC. The mission of this woke DEI office is to advance ``equity in the provision of and access to digital communication services.'' Further, it seeks to advance progressive priorities by elevating certain small businesses based merely on the race or gender of the businessowner.

Through the establishment of this council, it is clear that the FCC is working for special, politically favored groups instead of the American people as a whole.

We are already seeing the products of these DEI policies at the FCC through draft rules implementing an obscure provision of the 2021 infrastructure bill that directed the FCC to prevent ``digital discrimination.'' Your guess is as good as mine as to what that has to do with infrastructure.

Democrats on the FCC seek to go beyond the plain letter of this law to define ``digital discrimination'' to include disparate impact as evidence of discrimination. This means that the FCC could find that internet providers are guilty of discrimination simply because some areas of the country have slightly better access to the internet than others, regardless of whether there is any evidence of actual, legitimate discrimination. Unfortunately, even our internet access is not immune to the scourge of DEI ideology.

Mr. Chair, these divisive DEI policies deserve no place in our Federal Government, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in rooting out this radical, progressive, and woke ideology.

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

Mr. Chair, section 60506 of the IIJA mandates that the FCC develops a regulation to prevent digital discrimination of broadband access based on income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion, or national origin.

Progressive groups and FCC Democratic Commissioners want to use this provision to promulgate a regulation that goes beyond intentional discrimination. They want to include disparate impact as a form of discrimination under the rule.

Under a disparate impact analysis, evidence of discrimination can be found solely in the outcome of certain practices. Essentially, internet service providers would have to provide the same exact product at the same speed to every customer in order to avoid a potential government investigation. If there is even a small difference in connectivity in an area inhabited by low-income individuals in comparison with wealthier areas, the FCC could claim the provider is guilty of discrimination under the draft rules promoted by these progressive groups and FCC Democrats.

Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to vote for this very good amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I hereby remove my name as cosponsor of

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

Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to answer the question: How can we justify appropriating America's hard-earned taxpayer dollars to a foreign military that emboldens Hezbollah in their reign of terror and hate for America?

Hezbollah's influence runs rampant throughout the Lebanese Government. Even advocates of aid to the Lebanese military concede that Hezbollah's influence runs rampant throughout the Lebanese Government.

What matters is not the addressee. It is the address--Hezbollah's house.

Money is fungible, and we are pumping cash and hard currency into a terror haven infested with terror finance and corruption.

Even those advocating to aid the Lebanese military say that this is an entity unwilling and unable to counter Hezbollah. Then why are we wasting our money?

My amendment ensures that none of Americans' taxpayer dollars may be made available for the Lebanese Armed Forces.

Funding to the Lebanese Armed Forces is a policy that has been in place since 2006, essentially on autopilot. Since then, the U.S. has provided more than $3 billion to the Lebanese military, supposedly to build up state institutions as a counterweight to Hezbollah, but with little to show in return.

In fact, Lebanon has come more under the sway of Hezbollah and Iran today than when the U.S. began funding Lebanon's military. Hezbollah's chief Christian ally, the Free Patriotic Movement, is the political party literally in control of Lebanon's defense ministry.

This is a policy on autopilot that gets renewed every year without Congress really having a chance to review this funding and ask whether this is a good place to spend taxpayer dollars and is in our national interests.

We are funding an army that just yesterday shot smoke bombs at Israeli troops, which it called enemy troops. This should not be a partisan issue.

Anyone who takes a look at this issue objectively, I think, will have serious questions about why we continue to fund the Lebanese Armed Forces, one of the most corrupt and bloated armies in the world. Most of Lebanon's military expenditures go to personnel salaries and benefits, a whopping 93 percent compared to 29 percent in the United States. These benefits include healthcare, maternity leave, compensation in the event of death, as well as domestic workers and drivers for high-ranking officers.

For example, the Lebanese military, which consists of 80,000 soldiers, has 400 generals that are extremely highly paid, while the U.S. Army has a force of half a million but just 295 generals.

This did not stop the Biden administration from notifying Congress last year that it was repurposing $67 million in aid to the Lebanese military in order to provide them with livelihood support, which just funds their salaries even more.

Rather than funding armed Mercedes and other luxury goods for Lebanese generals, we should be funding our southern border.

Lebanon's financial system is soaked in Hezbollah money laundering and financial crimes, and the terrorist group touches almost every facet of life in that country.

It is impossible that any administration could vet all the recipients of these taxpayer dollars and their families because there are no controls. There is no way to know how these individuals use this money. Some of it could flow through Hezbollah exchange houses or possibly be spent in Hezbollah-run businesses.

Mr. Chair, by safeguarding the actions of Hezbollah and other terror groups, the Lebanese Armed Forces fuels Iran's mission to kill American troops and wipe Israel off the map. I can't justify funding such horrific activity.

Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to recognize the dangers of funding the

Lebanese Armed Forces by voting for my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, it was described on the other side as ``a full-blown crisis in Lebanon.''

Why in the world would we send money to a country that is recognized by the opposition to be in a full-blown crisis?

Another speaker said that this money goes to pay the salaries of Lebanese soldiers, and if they don't receive this money, some of these soldiers won't be able to pay for their gas.

Since when is it the American taxpayer's responsibility to pay the salaries of Lebanese soldiers and ensure that they can get from one place to another?

Mr. Chair, I watched the debate on this floor for the last week or so, and we are giving money to the Palestinians, we are giving money to Lebanon. We are going to give $500 million to Jordan for their border wall while we are not securing our border.

The American people are sick and tired of giving foreign governments money and not putting America first.

We have a $33 trillion deficit and we are more concerned in this body about giving money to Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Ukraine, you name it.

Mr. Chair, it is time to put America first. The American people have asked us to do that and that is why they put us in charge of the House.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, as stewards of America's hard-earned taxpayer dollars we must ensure such funds only go to measures that advance our American interests, not undermine them.

We have provided billions of dollars to Iraq and lost thousands of lives in that country. Yet in 2023, we continue to provide a blank check to Iraq, despite this country going more and more against American interests and essentially having transformed into a proxy of Iran.

My amendment ensures that none of Americans' taxpayer dollars may be used to provide assistance to Iraq.

I served in Iraq, and while protecting American interests in the region remains critical, Mr. Chairman, we cannot justify sending our taxpayer dollars to a nation while being unable to safeguard those dollars from exploitation by Iran, ISIS, and other terror groups.

Iran's influence over Iraq is so emboldened that Iraq essentially serves as a proxy state and haven for Iranian terror activity. Iraq has a literal arrest warrant out for President Trump for killing terrorist Soleimani.

The Pentagon has disclosed that large portions of Iraq's security forces are overrun by Iranian-backed militants and IRGC terrorists, the same ones who continue to target American troops in the Middle East and the same ones who attacked the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad in 2019--and we want to send them money.

This money is not countering terrorism. On the contrary, throwing millions of dollars at a country which uses its resources to put Iranian-backed terrorists on the payroll, terrorists which have attacked U.S. forces and the U.S. Embassy is insane.

This does not give us leverage. It is unacceptable to appropriate American dollars for these purposes with the likelihood that some of the money could fall into the hands of the terrorists. This bill should support our diplomats and servicemembers serving overseas, not threaten them.

Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to recognize these dangers by voting for my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chair, may I ask how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chair, I had the opportunity to serve our country in Iraq and had the opportunity to work with the Iraqi Army and the Iraqi police, and it all sounds well and good if we are going to send money and it is going to go to these Christian organizations, it is going to go to these different individuals that we want to help; however, that is not the reality of what is happening based on the things that I originally said in my opening. You don't have control over that, and having had the experience of actually serving there and working with these individuals and the clans that are there and the groups that are there, the money isn't distributed the way that we want it to be distributed. You are seeing that in Lebanon, and you are seeing that in all these foreign entities.

It is very interesting to me to stand up here and listen to my colleagues who talk about cutting spending and that we have a deficit and that we have a spending problem in Washington, and they would rather prioritize moneys to Iraq, to Lebanon, to Palestine, to Ukraine over the needs that we have in this country.

The people in my district don't understand it. When I talk to people in my district, they don't get it. They don't understand why we would prioritize sending our hard-earned tax dollars to countries that are completely corrupt and hate us with no assurances that it is going in the places that it is going.

Why would we do that? I just don't understand why we would stand here in the current economic situation that we have in this country and send money to foreign governments that hate us and try to kill us.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, also known as UNESCO, is incredibly corrupt and mismanaged.

This organization has a long history of anti-American bias and anti- Israel bias. They have even honored countries like China that consistently violate human rights.

My amendment ensures that no taxpayer dollars go towards funding UNESCO. We must ensure that funds appropriated by this Congress are used in the interest of the American people.

Why on Earth would we give American taxpayer dollars to organizations that hate America and favor our adversaries? President Trump was right to remove our country's membership in UNESCO. It is unconscionable that the Biden administration has chosen to rejoin UNESCO and, with that, pay over $600 million in back dues.

Funding UNESCO is the opposite of America first. This Congress should not provide a single dollar to organizations that seek to disparage America and their allies.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, we need to put America first. We need to fix the spending problem that we have here in Washington. We have $33 trillion in debt.

When I was first elected to Congress only 5 years ago, we had $21 trillion in debt; now we have $33 trillion in debt. We are running a $2 trillion deficit every single year to give money to an organization that is anti-American and anti-Israel. It is not putting America first. It is not putting the taxpayers' dollars to good use in this country.

Mr. Chair, I ask Members to support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, Genesis 1:27: ``So God created mankind in His own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female He created them.''

Genesis 5:1-2: ``When God created mankind, He made them in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them.''

Jesus stated in Mark 10:6: ``But at the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.''

Also in Matthew 19:4: ``At the beginning, the creator made them male and female.''

For thousands of years in human history, we have recognized as a species that there are women and there are men, who are obviously biologically different, dare I say even scientifically different. Even science agrees with this premise.

Yet, over the last several years, there has been a perversion in our culture by the enemy, and the left has completely embraced the lie to erase the lines of gender and to convince you there isn't really gender and that gender is fluid and can be whatever you want, whenever you want--again, more lies.

The left has taken gender identity so far that many on the left today cannot even define what a woman is for fear of retribution by trans activists. Even the latest Supreme Court Justice appointed by President Biden could not define what a woman is during questioning, and she now sits on the highest court in the land.

The radical left has adopted completely made-up terms that didn't even exist just a few short years ago, like nonbinary, cisgender, trans male, trans female. You can even find that there are 74 made-up genders, 74 that you can choose from, everything from agender to omnigender. There is even an astral gender, which is having a gender identity that feels to be related to space. I don't even know what that means.

Just a few short years ago, even Democrats would say that this is ridiculous, but today, it is common speak for the radical left. If you question these fictitious terms, they label you transphobic--again, another leftist idiom.

I have three dictionaries in my house. One was copyrighted in 1828; one was copyrighted in 1959; and one was copyrighted in 1988. Shockingly, nowhere in any of these dictionaries are the terms ``nonbinary'' or ``trans man'' or ``trans woman.'' Even if you look on Webster today, just Google Webster, it says that ``trans man'' and ``trans female'' are terms that were first used in 1996. During the entire history of mankind, you were either male or female until the last few years.

In worship to the trans movement, the Biden administration has moved at warp speed to infiltrate every aspect of the Federal Government with trans speak.

Most recently, just a couple weeks ago, I am assuming in response to this bill moving to a vote, the Biden administration was looking to insert rules on Title IX to force biological men into women's sports in complete defiance of the laws this body passed over 50 years ago.

Congress in 1972 created Title IX to protect women's sports to enable women to have an equal playing field in athletics. In worship to their trans idols, the administration wants to flip that on its head. It is insane.

Title IX was created for women's sports, and now the left wants to kill it. In them giving homage to the trans movement, they are abandoning women all across the country.

Parents do not want biological men in locker rooms with their daughters, nor do they believe it is equitable that a male can compete with women in female athletics. It is the whole purpose that Title IX was created to begin with.

The radical left wants you to believe that this never happens, and there are only a few instances of this happening. However, the facts bear this statement as false.

There is an entire website that documents examples of females who are displaced by males in women's sporting events. It includes the place ``she would have won'' had the male not been competing.

There are hundreds of examples documented on SheWon.org and Concerned Women has a spreadsheet with, again, hundreds of examples where women faced men in competition.

In my own district in Sarasota, Florida, my constituent, Emma Weyant, an incredibly talented swimmer and Olympic medalist, lost the 2022 NCAA women's swimming championships title for the 500 freestyle by 1.75 seconds to a man who formerly competed for years on the men's swimming team, who took home that title after identifying as a woman.

It is a sad day in America when the Democrats have regressed so far backward that they are willing to erase the rights that women have fought decades to obtain, all to elevate biological males to the top of women's podiums.

The integrity of women's sports must be protected. H.R. 734 preserves women's sports and ensures fair competition for generations of women to come, just as Title IX originally intended.

If my liberal colleagues truly believe in supporting women's rights, as they so often tout, they will vote in favor of this bill.

I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand for women's free and fair opportunity in athletics and to stand for truth, not lies.

Madam Speaker, I am honored to recognize Private First Class (PFC) Edmund F. Lewis, of Port Charlotte, Florida. On October 1, 2022, PFC Lewis will be awarded the Legion d'honneur, France's highest honor for acts of valor and integrity. PFC Lewis was drafted into service in 1943 and deployed to France in January of 1945 with the 65th Infantry Division. During his time in combat, PFC Lewis helped reestablish freedom for France from its hostile occupation by Nazi Germany. As an Infantryman, he found himself fighting on the front lines, advancing from town to town to free the occupied territory. Often under the presence of heavy enemy resistance, PFC Lewis and the allied forces pushed their way west into Germany and beyond, with the goal of bringing an end to the war. After months of fighting, PFC Lewis and his brothers in arms were able to secure the surrender of Nazi Germany on May 8, 1945. Following the surrender, PFC Lewis aided in the liberation of one of the most infamous Concentration Camps, Mauthausen, and freed thousands of prisoners who were held captive there. I thank PFC Lewis for his years of dedicated service to our Nation and congratulate him on receiving the Legion d'honneur.

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate Pastors Randy and Amy Bezet

on 20 years of faithful service leading Bayside Community Church. In 2002, Randy and Amy left their home state of Louisiana, moved to Florida, and founded Bayside Community Church. What started as a small congregation that met inside an elementary school has grown into a church spreading the Gospel to thousands of members across Southwest Florida. Randy and Amy have been blessed to witness God's work in the ministries they have launched over the past 20 years. They continue to expand their vision to reach people for Christ, raise them to become followers of the Lord, and release them to live their God-given purpose. Their heart for people has cultivated an authentic experience at Bayside Community Church and has changed many people's lives. I thank them for their dedicated service to those who live in our community and for their commitment to share the Gospel.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 438.

members recorded pursuant to house resolution 8, 117th congress

Baird (Bucshon)

Bass (Correa)

Bilirakis (Fleischmann)

Blumenauer (Beyer)

Boebert (Gaetz)

Butterfield (Beyer)

Conway (Valadao)

Crenshaw (Ellzey)

DeFazio (Pallone)

DesJarlais (Fleischmann)

Duncan (Norman)

Gallego (Correa)

Gomez (Evans)

Granger (Gonzales, Tony (TX))

Jacobs (NY) (Tenney)

Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)

Jones (Beyer)

Khanna (Jeffries)

Kirkpatrick (Pallone)

LaMalfa (Ellzey)

Lamb (Pallone)

Lawrence (Pallone)

McEachin (Beyer)

Meeks (Jeffries)

Meng (Kuster)

Napolitano (Correa)

Nehls (Babin)

Newman (Beyer)

Palazzo (Fleischmann)

Payne (Pallone)

Rodgers (WA) (Moore (UT))

Rogers (KY)

(Reschenthaler)

Rush (Bowman)

Ryan (OH) (Correa)

Sanchez (Pallone)

Scott, Austin (Cammack)

Sewell (Cicilline)

Sires (Pallone)

Stansbury (Pallone)

Stewart (Owens)

Thompson (PA) (Keller)

Vargas (Correa)

Welch (Pallone)

Madam Speaker, let me address the complete misrepresentations of fact that we have been hearing from Democrats since Roe has been overturned.

There has never been a constitutional right to end the life of an innocent, unborn child--never. It doesn't exist in the Constitution, and Congress has never passed a law allowing for the murder of the unborn. In fact, the opposite exists.

In the Fifth and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, there is a constitutional right for any person to not be deprived of life, liberty, or property.

Certainly, an unborn child is a person. What else could it be? Therefore, that person shall not be deprived of life pursuant to the Constitution, period.

Finally, the U.S. Supreme Court got it right and made it clear that ``the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.''

Over 63 million children have been murdered since Roe was decided. That is not freedom. That is genocide.

Madam Speaker, guns are not the cause of evil, just like the vehicle used by the domestic terrorist in Waukesha, Wisconsin, to mow down innocent people in a parade killing six was not the cause of that evil. The person driving it was.

Why aren't the pictures of the victims of that heinous act being shown by the Democrats on the floor today, like those victims in Uvalde?

Where was the left's cry to ban vehicles that killed those innocent lives in Waukesha?

There are no cries to ban cars because that is not on the left's agenda. Banning guns is. And Democrats use these heinous crimes to further the long sought-after political objective of disarming America, and many Democrats in this Chamber have called for outright bans on certain firearms.

There is a moral decay in our country that has been created by the left. They have torn down traditional institutions, taken God out of our classrooms, and systematically destroyed the notion of traditional families and values.

Just look at these numbers in a recent article from The Christian Post: Seventy-five percent of most cited school shooters in America are fatherless; 60 percent of America's rapists grew up without fathers; 63 percent of teenagers who commit suicide don't have a father in their life; 72 percent of adolescent murderers are fatherless. The same was true for the murderer at Robb Elementary. And I could go on.

Why isn't the majority talking about that?

Why isn't the majority talking about solutions to have role models in children's lives?

Because that doesn't accomplish a policy objective for them.

This bill, nor any bill before us this week, will stop mass shootings. This bill won't even decrease gun violence, and the facts and evidence from the jurisdictions with similar policies make that clear. Just look at any holiday weekend in Chicago and see how many people have been shot with many of these policies already in place.

This bill is simply a step further to restrict the ability of law- abiding citizens to own firearms and defend themselves while doing nothing to address the cultural rot that leads to these acts.

This bill seeks to take the Second Amendment rights away from 18- to 20-year-olds by taking away their ability to purchase a firearm.

Comparing Census data on the total 18- to 20-year-old population with Department of Justice data on violent crimes committed by that age group--and this includes violent crimes not involving guns--only 0.3 percent of 18- to 20-year-olds commit violent crimes in a year.

Madam Speaker, when you look at murder, including murder without guns, only 0.013 percent of 18- to 20-year-olds commit murder in a year. So today Democrats are going to take away the lawful right for 99.7 percent of adult Americans between the ages of 18 and 20 for the acts of a few wicked people.

Now, think about that, Madam Speaker. So the daughter off to college and living by herself can't buy a shotgun to keep in her home to protect herself against a rapist all because of 0.3 percent of that age group has committed a violent crime.

The magazine limits in the bill are even more egregious because it affects all Americans and all firearms, not just rifles, and will effectively serve as a ban on most commonly used handguns. As I demonstrated in the Judiciary Committee last week, numerous firearms that millions of Americans use every single day to protect themselves and their families could be rendered useless by a 15-round magazine limit. And those 15-round magazine limits have absolutely no effect on solving mass shootings.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand for freedom, to stand for the Constitution, and to stand for the right of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.

Madam Speaker, my colleague, Mr. Donalds from Florida, and I are grateful to recognize the Spring Swing Sun Safety partnership between Moffitt Cancer Center and Major League Baseball. This partnership works to prevent skin cancer by offering sun safety education and free skin cancer screenings at Spring Training baseball games. Such efforts are important here in Florida, the Sunshine State, where we see a high incidence of melanoma and other deadly forms of skin cancer.

We are pleased, therefore, to join with Moffitt Cancer Center and Major League Baseball to raise awareness to combat this disease. It is important to limit sun exposure when possible, wear sunscreen if you are in the sun, and have your skin checked by a health care professional once a year. We hope all baseball fans safely enjoy Florida's sunshine and the great tradition of Spring Training baseball in our state.

Madam Speaker, this is a dangerous piece of legislation that comes at a time when our national security and our public health are being threatened by a dire crisis at our southern border.

Only Democrats would bring a bill to the floor during a surge at our southern border that would make it easier for terrorists to enter our country. As someone who served in the war on terror and served in Operation Iraqi Freedom, the last thing we should be doing as a Nation is making it easier for terrorists in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and other terrorist-harboring nations to travel to the United States.

Despite the harrowing statistics we see coming from the southern border with record-setting numbers of illegal crossings and unaccompanied minors, my colleagues on the left continue to ignore and downplay the actual facts, while terrorists and COVID-positive illegal immigrants are granted unprecedented access to our country.

The Biden administration has driven illegal crossings up to historic highs by encouraging more illegal immigration and loosening restrictions to give criminals a free pass. These policy reversals, and now this legislation, will be directly responsible for what will go down in history as our biggest failure of border security in our lifetime.

Now, rather than addressing the hundreds of thousands of illegal border crossings this year, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are still spending their time trying to attack the successful policies from the Trump administration that actually drove our border numbers down and kept Americans safe.

Rather than attacking the Trump administration at the expense of the American people, my colleagues on the left should instead think about spending their time trying to reinstate some of his policies that were proven effective, like continuing border wall construction or ending chain migration.

Even more hypocritical, while telling American citizens to stay home from work, school and to refrain from normal life due to a global pandemic, legislation like this keeps sending the message to illegal aliens, even those from dangerous countries, that the United States is open for them to flood our borders and be taken care of by our taxpayers.

At a time when there is a border crisis, a global pandemic, and emerging national security threats, we should not be handicapping any current or future President from exercising their executive authority to keep our country safe.

In fact, the Obama-Biden administration used this authority 19 times during their administration. The only reason why my colleagues are pushing this is because of their hatred for President Trump and his actions to restrict entry from certain countries that protected our national security.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our Nation's law enforcement. Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called children of God.

Mr. Speaker, since last summer, members of law enforcement have faced attacks and dangerous rhetoric, even from Members of this body. As officers put their lives on the line to protect all of us, our communities, and our families, we have seen nothing but

dangerous attempts from the left to defund, dismantle, and disband the police even as we stand here today, surrounded by razor wire, the National Guard and increased police presence to protect you, but you don't want them to protect our citizens.

Mr. Speaker, this bill would end qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is only applicable when they follow their training and protocol and protects officers from being personally sued for official actions. If we repeal qualified immunity, we will not find anyone willing to serve as police officers because they can be sued out of everything they own for doing their jobs.

Mr. Speaker, if that is not enough, this bill would threaten our officers' physical safety by denying them protective gear and equipment. The Democrats and radical left are going to defund and dismantle departments and take away officers' liability protection for doing their job. Then they are going to take away their physical protection from harm. We will be lucky to have a police force in America in 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, unlike most speeches you will hear on this floor today, I am going to start with the truth.

Deuteronomy 22:5 states: A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.

Now, this verse isn't concerned about clothing styles but with people determining their own sexual identities. It is not clothing or personal style that offends God but, rather, the use of one's appearance to act out or take on a sexual identity different from the one biologically assigned by God at birth. In his wisdom, God intentionally made each individual uniquely either male or female.

When men or women claim to be able to choose their own sexual identity, they are making a statement that God did not know what he was doing when he created them. I am going to quote directly from Dr. Tony Evans' commentary Bible on this passage of Scripture: ``Men and women equally share in bearing the image of God, but he has designed them to be distinct from and complementary toward one another. The gender confusion that exists in our culture today is a clear rejection of God's good design. Whenever a nation's laws no longer reflect the standards of God, that nation is in rebellion against

him and will inevitably bear the consequences.''

Mr. Speaker, I am going to read that line again. ``Whenever a nation's laws no longer reflect the standards of God, that nation is in rebellion against him and will inevitably bear the consequences.'' I think we are seeing the consequences of rejecting God here in our country today, and this bill speaks directly against what is laid out in Scripture.

Our government, through this bill, is going to redefine what a woman is and what a man is. It can be anyone who identifies in that gender at any time. You are going to singlehandedly end women's sports and all the gains for women's rights contained in Title IX that was passed in this body since 1972. Singlehandedly destroying women's sports in the name of equality, how ironic.

If biological men compete in women's sports, then it is no longer women's sports at all. We might as well just have one sports team per event, and women, transgender women, men, transgender men can all compete against each other. How is that for equality?

If biological differences didn't matter, we would never have created and funded separate teams for men and women. We know that science supports the idea that there are performance differences between biological men and women in competitive sports, and it is just common sense to the vast majority of Americans, just not common sense to this Democratic majority.

In Connecticut, three high school female track runners have had to file a lawsuit because their Title IX protections were violated by biological male athletes competing against them. They had no choice but to file suit after they were forced to compete against biological male athletes, and after those biological male athletes brought home 15 women's State championship titles. I could stand up here and give you example after example of this happening throughout our country in all sports categories, but I don't have near the time.

Mr. Speaker, if you want to protect women's sports, then vote against this bill.