Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. For 3 years, Democratic Members of this body and the mainstream media lied to the American people that the Trump campaign colluded and conspired with Russia--for years--after an exhaustive investigation was found that there was no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

Should Democratic Members of this body resign for lying to the American people repeatedly and sowing division and dissension all across America? And it was all a lie.

Madam Speaker, you have brought one Article of Impeachment to the floor, and your one allegation alleges: ``Donald John Trump engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors by inciting violence against the Government of United States.''

In D.C., it is a crime to ``intentionally or recklessly act in such a manner to cause another person to be in reasonable fear and to incite or provoke violence when there is a likelihood that such violence will ensue.''

There was no language in the President's speech that incited or provoked violence. In fact, at around the 18-minute mark, he stated: ``Peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.''

You may think that he is inciting violence because he believes there was election fraud. That is his opinion, and he is entitled to that opinion, just like all of you were entitled to your false and fraudulent opinion that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

The legal elements of incitement are based on the Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio, in which the Supreme Court set the standard for speech that could be prosecuted without violating the First Amendment. Brandenburg's speech called for violence against groups of Americans, and the Court found that Brandenburg's comments were not directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action.

The Court found that it was protected speech, and he was calling for violence. That is the current law of the land.

The President didn't even mention violence last Wednesday, much less provoke or incite it. There was no crime committed; therefore, no basis for impeachment, as you need a high crime or misdemeanor for a basis.

You have created a mockery out of the impeachment process, and I urge all my colleagues to stand against it and fight the latest fraud being perpetrated against the American people by the radical left.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I didn't address the atrocities occurring right here on the House floor today. A week ago, this building was attacked; and instead of working with Republicans to attempt to prevent that from ever happening again, the Speaker and her Democratic colleagues think an appropriate response is to prevent Members from exercising their Second Amendment constitutional rights in the very place that wasn't secure a week ago.

This attack didn't come from the inside. It came from the outside. And to respond by restricting Members' Second Amendment rights in the very institution that is supposed to uphold those rights is appalling.

Take note, America. This is what you have to look forward to in a Joe Biden administration. If they can do it right here in the people's House, they will attempt to do it across the country.

The plain language of the 25th Amendment is abundantly clear. Although I am an attorney, you don't have to be an attorney to understand that the Vice President is the principal required to invoke the amendment. The beginning of Section 4 states: ``Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide . . . declare that the President is unable to discharge. . . . ''

You must have the Vice President invoking this, and you don't. The Vice President has been clear, he is unwilling to invoke the 25th Amendment. It is not Congress' role to override him. It doesn't state in the amendment that Congress makes that determination. The Vice President does.

But my Democratic colleagues will stop at nothing to remove this President, even a week before his term expires. The plain reading of the 25th Amendment demonstrates that this is the wrong approach. An understanding of last week's events demonstrates this is the wrong approach. And a consideration of the political tactics that we have seen in recent days, months, and years tells you that this is a disingenuous approach at best and 100 percent politically motivated.

I was elected in 2018. My entire congressional career has been consumed by impeaching or removing President Trump. After the Russia collusion hoax and a phone call to the Ukrainian President, and then a failed impeachment attempt that resulted in an acquittal, here we are, a little more than a week away from a new President being sworn in, attempting this travesty both to the Constitution and to America as a whole.

This is dangerous, unconstitutional, and does nothing to heal this country and move this country forward.

Madam Speaker, I missed the following votes due to a family obligation. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 426; YEA on Roll Call No. 427; NAY on Roll Call No. 428; YEA on Roll Call No. 429; and NAY on Roll Call No. 430.

Madam Speaker, I unfortunately missed the last vote on H.R. 5 final passage due to personal reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 217.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5.

To begin, I would like to echo the comments of my colleagues and express my deep concern for the grave consequences this bill would have for religious freedom. This bill would deny religious organizations their religious liberty rights guaranteed under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 and force many religious institutions to go against their beliefs or risk being in violation of the law. As a nation we cannot turn our back on our religious liberties.

Now, while the religious freedom aspects of this legislation are by far the most egregious, there is also another area of serious concern-- the effects of the legislation on female athletes at all levels of sporting competition across our country.

Twice during the consideration of this bill, I have offered an amendment to ensure that our daughters are provided an equal playing field in sports for generations to come and that female athletes are not competing against male athletes for athletic scholarships and title IX funding. And twice partisan politics have stopped this commonsense proposal from being added to this bill.

This provision would have simply guaranteed that biological women are not forced to compete against biological men at all levels of athletic competition. Science has proven time and time again that there is a significant performance difference between biological males and females from puberty onward.

From percentage of lean muscle, to heart size, to body fat, to joint angles, the bodies of men and women are distinctly unique and produce a vast difference in performance ability when it comes to certain activities. In fact, there is an average 10- to 12-percent performance gap between elite biological male and female athletes.

These differences are largely due to the large influx of testosterone males receive during puberty. Science is very clear here--there is no doubt that testosterone is the reason that biological men, as a group, perform better than women in sports. That is why both men and women dope with androgens that are high in testosterone.

On average, in elite biological male athletes, there is 30 times more testosterone present, leading to physical characteristics that almost guarantee a higher rate of success in sporting events. But don't take my word for it.

Here are examples: CeCe Telfer, a biological male, won three titles in the Northeast-10 Championships for women's track and received the Most Outstanding Track Athlete award.

Fallon Fox, a biological male, shattered female fighter Tamikka Brents' eye socket and gave her a concussion. Brents said she never felt so overpowered in her life.

Gabrielle Ludwig, a 50-year-old, 6-foot-8-inch, 230-pound biological male led the Mission College women's basketball team to a national championship with the most rebounds.

The list goes on and on. I, for one, don't think it is fair or equal to make young, biological women compete against biological males. This bill claims to fight for equality, but it seems to be far from equal for the young, female athletes across our country.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

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

I am in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it abundantly clear exactly what this motion to recommit does, so I am going to read it. It is very short.

``Nothing in this act or any amendment made by this act may be construed to diminish any protections under title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.''

The threat that this bill poses for women's sports at every level is profound. As described by the Nation's leading expert on sports, sex, and biology, Professor Doriane Lambelet Coleman, she states: ``There is a significant performance difference between males and females. . . . Testosterone is the primary driver of that difference. There is a wide gap, no overlap, between the male and female testosterone ranges. . . . There is no scientific doubt that testosterone is the reason that men as a group perform better than women in sports. Indeed, this is why men and women dope with androgens. . . .''

Requiring that biological females face competition from biological males will mean the end of women's sports in any meaningful sense.

As tennis great Martina Navratilova has written in The Washington Post: ``In its current form, the Equality Act would do significant damage to title IX

and to the Amateur Sports Act, which governs sports outside of educational settings. The new legislation would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act by redefining `sex' to include `gender identity.' Without an exception, the definition would apply to all amendments to the 1964 act, including title IX. Most schools, colleges, the NCAA, and the Olympic Committee would be affected because they receive Federal funds and operate in interstate commerce.

``The legislation would make it unlawful to differentiate among girls and women in sports on the basis of sex for any purpose. For example, a sports team couldn't treat a transgender woman differently from a woman who is not transgender on the grounds that the former is male-bodied. Yet the reality is that putting male- and female-bodied athletes together is co-ed or open sport. And in open sport, females lose.

``Some Equality Act advocates argue that this is hyperbole and outdated stereotype. They say, as the ACLU has, that there is `ample evidence that girls can compete and win against boys.' They are wrong. The evidence is unequivocal that starting in puberty, in every sport except sailing, shooting, and riding, there will always be significant numbers of boys and men who would beat the best girls and women in head-to-head competition. Claims to the contrary are simply a denial of science.''

Those are not my words. Those are the words of female tennis great Martina Navratilova.

In footnote 44 of the committee report on this bill, the Democrat majority states: ``The committee acknowledges that the addition of sex as a protected characteristic under title VI of the bill raises some questions about how the revised title VI should be read in relation to title IX of the Education Amendments Act. It is the committee's intention not to alter in any way title IX or the scope or availability of its exemptions as they currently stand. Rather, title IX and the revised title VI should be read as being complimentary provisions that provide overlapping protection against sex discrimination.''

But, of course, we all know that allowing biological males to compete against biological females is not an ``overlapping protection.'' It is, instead, a violation of women's rights to engage in competitive sports on an even playing field and to enjoy the protection of their own spaces reserved for biological females.

So this motion to recommit is essential to protecting the rights of women and girls in sports that H.R. 5 currently denies.

Even the Obama administration wrote a letter to schools regarding title IX enforcements making clear that they should continue to be able to enforce policies that are ``tailored requirements based on sound, current, and research-based medical knowledge about the impact of the individual's participation on the competitive fairness or physical safety of the sport.''

Adoption of this motion to recommit will not kill the bill. It will not delay the bill's consideration. If this motion to recommit is adopted, the bill proceeds directly to final passage.

If H.R. 5 becomes law, our daughters will be asking us: ``What did you do when moves were made to eliminate women's sports?'' It is worth considering that question now before it is too late.

I urge all my colleagues to join me in protecting title IX and protecting women's sports and supporting this motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, today, I rise in opposition to H.R. 8.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation claims to be a solution to gun violence, yet does nothing to actually solve the real problems that contribute to this crisis. As it stands now, this legislation does nothing to make our schools, churches, or communities safer. In fact, it only infringes on the constitutionally guaranteed Second Amendment rights of law-abiding American citizens, something I cannot support.

This bill will criminalize the private transfer of firearms and will make exercising basic constitutional rights impossibly expensive for millions of law-abiding Americans. Not to mention, it is essentially unenforceable without a national gun registry. But, let's be honest, that is where my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to end up: registering firearms so they can systematically take them away. We must stop our Nation from falling down this slippery slope.

I think we can all agree that something needs to be done to stop the illegal ownership and misuse of firearms, but H.R. 8 is not the answer. This legislation would have done nothing to prevent many of the prominent tragedies that occurred in my home State of Florida.

The shooter at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland passed a background check. The shooter at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando passed a background check. And, just weeks ago, a man who murdered five women in my district passed a background check.

H.R. 8 would have done nothing to stop these violent acts, just like the previous attempts to require universal background checks have done nothing to prevent actual crimes.

If Democrats are serious about gun violence, they would have voted for my amendment. I filed an amendment in committee that would have required law enforcement to be notified upon the attempt of someone to purchase a firearm and failed a background check. Law enforcement would have been notified. But instead of supporting policies that curtail legal possession of firearms, the Democrats on both the Judiciary Committee and the Rules Committee rejected my proposal. How is that unreasonable?

Mr. Chairman, I stand for the Constitution. I stand for freedom. And I stand for the Second Amendment. That is why I am not voting for this proposal.

Madam Speaker, I missed this vote series due to a death in the family. Had I been present, I would have voted nay on Roll Call No. 72; yea on Roll Call No. 73; yea on Roll Call No. 74; and yea on Roll Call No. 75.

Mr. Speaker, I missed this vote series due to a death in the family. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 68, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 69, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 70, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 71.

Madam Speaker, I missed this vote series due to a death in the family. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 66 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 67.