Providing for Consideration of H.R. Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of and Providing for Consideration of H.J. Res. Disapproving the Action of the District of Columbia Council in Approving the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 298

Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 734) to amend the Education Amendments of 1972 to provide that for purposes of determining compliance with title IX of such Act in athletics, sex shall be recognized based solely on a person's reproductive biology and genetics at birth. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce or their respective designees. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 118-3. That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 42) disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022. All points of order against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability or their respective designees. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit (if otherwise in order).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what do we know after all of this debate?

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

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

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

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

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

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

These women are Olympians and college all-Americans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Res. 42 disapproving of the D.C. Council's decision.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do we go after that in this bill?

No, we don't.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You know what? Trans kids deserve to live.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This provision was put in, in part, because of circumstances that happened in Loudoun County, Virginia, which kept a sexual assault by a trans student of a young female under wraps, including even transferring that student to another school where that student committed an additional sexual assault. Not a single Democrat voted for H.R. 5.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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

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

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

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Balint).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ.

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

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Garcia).

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Sheila Jackson Lee.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her kindness, and I only have a minute to talk about kindness.

I vigorously oppose the underlying legislation dealing with our beautiful children. Mr. Speaker, that is what it is, and I join with the Utah Governor who indicates that this minute problem does not deserve a sledgehammer.

This bill deals with girls and women in sports, and the Olympics and the NCAA have spoken on transgender. I speak from the heart as a fellow human being. I speak from loving children as the chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus.

I cannot stand here and tolerate 53 percent of trans kids considering suicide last year. They want to belong. They want to have friends. They want to play sports.

If you are 5 years old, 12 years old, this Congress has no right in interfering with a beautiful community. It is, in fact, a blessing to have a world and a Nation that has people who are different.

I affirm their difference. I stand for their difference. I will fight for their difference because they should be loved like anyone else.

The rules and regulations are already in place. Why are we here doing that when guns are killing our children?

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

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

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

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

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

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as follows: An Amendment to H. Res. 298 Offered By Ms. Leger Fernandez of New Mexico

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the resolution (H. Res. 178) affirming the House of Representatives' commitment to protect and strengthen Social Security and Medicare. The resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or their respective designees.

Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H. Res. 178.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source