[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 18, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H1772-H1782]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 734, PROTECTION OF WOMEN AND GIRLS 
IN SPORTS ACT OF 2023, AND PROVIDING 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

  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).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dunn of Florida). The gentlewoman from 
Indiana is recognized for 1 hour.
  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

  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members

[[Page H1773]]

may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  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.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. Speaker, I am going to say something I never thought I would have 
to say on the House floor, in Congress, or anywhere for that matter, 
but here it is: women and men are different. That is not meant to be 
controversial, mean-spirited, outlandish, or anything other than the 
factual statement that it is.
  Perhaps I can be more specific, Mr. Speaker. Women and men are 
physically different. Women and men have different physical 
characteristics, and that is okay. That is why Title IX exists: to 
ensure that despite these differences, women and men have the same 
opportunities.
  Saying women and men are different does not lack empathy for people 
who struggle with their identity. However, because some people struggle 
with their identity should not and does not change facts.
  Speaking of the facts, I would be remiss if I did not include some 
for the House to consider, specifically in the context of athletics, 
one study coming from the Duke University School of Law's Center for 
Sports Law and Policy. They note the various differences between male 
and female athletes leads to a 10 to 12 percent performance gap between 
the sexes in athletic competition.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the Record the 
results of this study.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.

 Comparing Athletic Performances: The Best Elite Women to Boys and Men

            (Doriane Lambelet Coleman and Wickliffe Shreve)

       If you know sport, you know this beyond a reasonable doubt: 
     there is an average 10-12 percent performance gap between 
     elite males and elite females. The gap is smaller between 
     elite females and non-elite males, but it's still 
     insurmountable and that's ultimately what matters. 
     Translating these statistics into real world results, we see, 
     for example, that:
       Just in the single year 2017, Olympic, World, and U.S. 
     Champion Tori Bowie's 100 meters lifetime best of 10.78 was 
     beaten 15,000 times by men and boys. (Yes, that's the right 
     number of zeros.)
       The same is true of Olympic, World, and U.S. Champion 
     Allyson Felix's 400 meters lifetime best of 49.26. Just in 
     the single year 2017, men and boys around the world 
     outperformed her more than 15,000 times.
       This differential isn't the result of boys and men having a 
     male identity, more resources, better training, or superior 
     discipline. It's because they have an androgenized body.
       The results make clear that sex determines win share. 
     Female athletes--here defined as athletes with ovaries 
     instead of testes and testosterone (T) levels capable of 
     being produced by the female, non-androgenized body--are not 
     competitive for the win against males--here defined as 
     athletes with testes and T levels in the male range. The 
     lowest end of the male range is three times higher than the 
     highest end of the female range. Consistent with females' far 
     lower T levels, the female range is also very narrow, while 
     the male range is broad.
       These biological differences explain the male and female 
     secondary sex characteristics which develop during puberty 
     and have lifelong effects, including those most important for 
     success in sport: categorically different strength, speed, 
     and endurance. There is no other physical, cultural, or 
     socioeconomic trait as important as testes for sports 
     purposes.
       The number of men and boys beating the world's best women 
     in the 100 and 400 meters is far from the exception. It's the 
     rule. To demonstrate this, we compared the top women's 
     results to the boys' and men's results across multiple 
     standard track and field events, just for the single year 
     2017. Our data are drawn from the International Association 
     of Athletics Federations (IAAF) website which provides 
     complete, worldwide results for individuals and events, 
     including on an annual and an all-time basis.
       We have limited the analysis to those events where a direct 
     performance comparison could be made. For instance, we 
     included the 100 meters because both males and females 
     compete over exactly the same distance; but we excluded the 
     shot put because males and females use a differently weighted 
     shot.
       As surprising as those numbers may be to many people, the 
     comparison is staggering when we count the number of times 
     males outperformed the best female's result in each event in 
     2017.
       Not only did hundreds and thousands of males outperform the 
     best results of the elite females, they did so thousands and 
     tens of thousands of times. (Yes, again, that's the right 
     number of zeros.)

            Questions About Sex in Sport and Sports Policies

       These data and comparisons explain why competitive sport 
     has traditionally separated biological males (people with 
     male bodies) from biological females (people with female 
     bodies), and also why legal measures like Title IX in the 
     United States require institutions to set aside and protect 
     separate and equal funding, facilities, and opportunities for 
     women and girls.
       Still, society is being pushed in this period to reconsider 
     both importance of separate sport compared to other values, 
     and the way the girls' and women's category is protected. As 
     a result, the conversation includes four general categories 
     of policy options:
       1. Keeping girls' and/or women's sport only for females.
       2. Keeping the two categories but allowing males to compete 
     in girls' and women's events (a) where they identify as girls 
     and women, and/or (b) because they want the opportunity for 
     some other reason, e.g., they are swimmers and their high 
     school has a girls' but not a boys' swim team.
       3. Keeping the two categories but allowing males to compete 
     in girls' and women's events only if they identify as such 
     and they transition their testosterone levels to within the 
     female--ovarian--range.
       4. Erasing the categories--no divisions by ``male'' and 
     ``female'' however these are defined--and featuring only 
     ``open'' sports and events where everyone competes together, 
     or else in sports and events based on different 
     classifications like height or weight.
       Our goal in developing and presenting the data and 
     comparisons is to provide some of the facts necessary to 
     evaluate these options and to help answer the overarching 
     question: what would happen if we stopped classifying 
     athletes on the basis of sex or else allowed exceptions to 
     that rule? More specifically, we hope that the data and 
     comparisons are useful as people think about the following 
     questions:
       How important is sport, its particular events, and goals?
       Should societies and sports governing authorities continue 
     to be committed to equal sports events and opportunities for 
     boys and girls, men and women?
       Are there good reasons to ensure that biological females 
     (people with female bodies) are included and visible in 
     competitive sport, and if so, does it matter how they are 
     visible? For example, is it enough that they are given an 
     opportunity to participate at some point in development 
     sport, or is it important that they are competitive for the 
     win so that we see them in championships and on the podium?
       In general, the goals of the identity movement are to 
     ensure that people who are trans and intersex are fully and 
     equally included in society's important institutions on the 
     basis of their identity, not their (reproductive) biology. In 
     cases of conflict between the goals of the identity movement 
     and sports' traditional goals for girls' and women's sport, 
     what should our priority be: equal opportunity in sport for 
     girls and women or the ability of each individual to 
     participate in sports on their own terms?
       Should our priorities depend on the sporting context, for 
     example, is or should the priority be different in elementary 
     school, junior high school, high school, college, and 
     professional sport?
       If we want to have it all--to respect everyone's gender 
     identity and still to support girls' and women's sport by 
     making a place for athletes with female bodies in 
     competition--what's the best way forward? What's the best 
     compromise position? Ultimately, this is the most important 
     question for sports policymakers in this period.
       A. Is it acceptable to include everyone but still to 
     classify on the basis of sex, like we do already on the basis 
     of weight in wrestling and boxing? For example, could the 
     Olympic

[[Page H1774]]

     Committee have required Bruce Jenner--before he became 
     Caitlyn and transitioned physically--to compete as a man in 
     the men's decathlon?
       B. Would it have been more or less acceptable to have 
     required Jenner to compete in the men's decathlon, but not to 
     prescribe how she expresses her identity as a woman?
       C. If Jenner before her physical transition had wanted to 
     compete in the women's heptathlon, would it have been 
     acceptable for the Olympic Committee to have required her 
     first to transition physically, at least her testosterone 
     levels, so that--although she would still be competing with a 
     lot of developed male traits useful for athletics--all 
     competitors would compete on equal footing in terms of 
     steroid levels?
       D. If none of these options strikes the right balance 
     between the two important competing interests, is there 
     another option that does?

  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.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record four 
letters of support for H.J. Res. 42 disapproving of the D.C. Council's 
decision.
  One letter is from the National Fraternal Order of Police. One letter 
is from the National Association of Police Organizations. One letter is 
from the United States Capitol Police Labor Committee. Finally, one 
letter is from the Commonwealth of Virginia's attorney general.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
                                                National Fraternal


                                              Order of Police,

                                    Washington, DC, 28 March 2023.
     Hon. Kevin O. McCarthy,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Steven J. Scalise,
     Majority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Hakeem S. Jeffries,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Katherine M. Clark,
     Minority Whip, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker and Representatives Jeffries, Scalise, and 
     Clark: I am writing on behalf of the members of the Fraternal 
     Order of Police to advise you of our support for H.J. Res. 
     42, a resolution disapproving the adoption of the 
     Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act 
     (CPJRAA) by the Washington, D.C. City Council. On January 19, 
     2023, the D.C. Council enacted the CPJRAA without the 
     signature of Mayor Muriel E. Bowser.
       The Fraternal Order of Police is the union that represents 
     the men and women of the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police 
     Department (MPD). These officers have made it clear to us and 
     to the residents of the city that the CPJRAA would negatively 
     impact the department's officers and the safety of the public 
     in the District of Columbia. The D.C. Council seeks to strip 
     MPD officers of their right to bargain collectively with the 
     city over disciplinary procedures--a right which all other 
     public employees have. The legislative action also repeals 
     the requirement that the MPD commence discipline against 
     their officers within 90 business days, which will result in 
     abusively long disciplinary investigations that violate the 
     Constitutional rights of these officers. The PCJRRA also 
     provides for the disclosure of disciplinary records which 
     will include personally identifiable information--placing 
     these officers in jeopardy.
       Irresponsible legislative actions like this contribute to 
     the recruitment and retention crisis in the District and 
     around the nation. In the last three years, the MPD has lost 
     1,191 officers--nearly one-third of the department. Of these, 
     40 percent were resignations--men and women who just walked 
     away from their law enforcement careers in the District of 
     Columbia. We believe that this type of attrition is directly 
     attributable to the appalling way these officers have been 
     treated by the City Council.
       We urge the House to adopt H.J. Res 42 and disapprove of 
     the PCJRAA.
       On behalf of the more than 364,000 members of the Fraternal 
     Order of Police, we strongly urge all Members of the U.S. 
     House of Representatives to support and pass H.J. Res. 42 to 
     protect the safety of the public in Washington, D.C. and the 
     rights of the officers that keep the District safe. If I can 
     provide any additional information in support of this 
     resolution, please do not hesitate to contact me or Executive 
     Director Jim Pasco in our Washington, D.C. office.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Patrick Yoes,
     National President.
                                  ____

                                           National association of


                                   Police Organizations, Inc.,

                                   Alexandria, VA, March 30, 2023.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker McCarthy and Minority Leader Jeffries: On 
     behalf of the National

[[Page H1775]]

     Association of Police Organizations (NAPO) and the over 
     241,000 sworn law enforcement officers we represent across 
     the country, I am writing to advise you of our concerns with 
     the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act 
     (CPJRAA) that was enacted by the Council of the District of 
     Columbia on January 19, 2023, and our subsequent support for 
     H.J. Res. 42.
       The CPJRAA will negatively impact the Metropolitan Police 
     Department (MPD) and the City it serves. The underlying 
     message of this act is that law enforcement officers cannot 
     be trusted. It strips the men and women of the MPD of their 
     right to bargain over accountability or disciplinary issues. 
     This creates substandard collective bargaining rights for the 
     officers, setting them apart from their fellow public 
     servants in the District, who are allowed to bargain over 
     disciplinary issues.
       Further, the CPJRAA undermines officers' Constitutional 
     rights, including the right to due process, a right we give 
     to all citizens. This is incredibly concerning. Without 
     guidelines and procedures to protect officers' due process, 
     officers are too often subjected to the whim of their 
     departments or local politics during internal investigations 
     and administrative hearings. The CPJRAA also violates 
     officers' right to privacy by disclosing officer disciplinary 
     records, without regard to personal identifiable information, 
     which risks putting officers and their families in harm's 
     way.
       NAPO is concerned the CPJRAA will exacerbate the current 
     hiring and retention crisis the MPD is facing. With the City 
     Council not respecting or trusting the officers who serve and 
     protect their citizens, it will hinder recruitment and impact 
     officer morale. Therefore, we support H.J. Res. 42, 
     disapproving of the CPJRAA. If we can provide any assistance, 
     please feel free to contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                         William J. Johnson, Esq.,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                      United States Capitol Police


                                              Labor Committee,

                                                   Washington, DC.
       Dear United States House of Representatives: On behalf of 
     the United States Capitol Police Labor Committee, I am 
     writing you urgently asking your support for the new House 
     Resolution, set to disapprove the Comprehensive Policing 
     Amendment Act of 2022, with special attention to Subsection 
     P.
       The officers and members of the Capitol Police Labor 
     Committee and the DC Police Union both fully support removing 
     any form of physical neck restraints and the expansion of the 
     mandatory training with rules to prevent the hiring of 
     previously fired bad cops.
       But we must ask you to intervene and send this bad bill 
     back to the DC City Council, as the whole of the bill is 
     untenable and dangerous. Subtitle P is especially concerning 
     for Capitol Police in the wake of the January 6th 
     insurrection. While certainly drafted by the DC Council with 
     good intentions, Subtitle P would have likely forced much of 
     our backup and support to arrive to the scene of the 
     insurrection without riot gear or appropriate less-lethal 
     options for their safety, or ours. The language of the act is 
     too wide, unclear, and dangerous to our ability to protect 
     peace in the District and at the United States Capitol.
       Additionally, as the President of a labor organization and 
     a believer in the rights of collective bargaining, I must ask 
     you as an ally of labor to look closely at Subtitle L. 
     Subtitle L in the act would strip certain rights of 
     collectively bargain away from one class of employee within 
     the District, denying them rights that make up the foundation 
     of the labor movement. Fair and transparent investigations, 
     discipline, and appeal are necessary and just matters of 
     collective bargaining. They're mandatory sectors of public 
     section employee relations and clear rights of collective 
     bargaining. This threat to collective bargaining is a 
     dangerous pandora's box and I must ask for your help.
       The Comprehensive Policing and Justice Act of 2022 must be 
     sent back to the D. C. City Council so these issues can be 
     reviewed, negotiated, and resolved. Congress has the right 
     and responsibility to take action here to prevent these 
     dangerous subtitles from becoming law, threatening our safety 
     and stripping away the rights of labor.
     Gregg Pemberton,
       Chairman, DC Police Union.
     Gus Papathanasiou,
       Chairman, FOP-USCP Union.
                                  ____

                                         Commonwealth of Virginia,


                               Office of the Attorney General,

                                      Richmond, VA, April 6, 2023.
     Hon. Muriel Bowser,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Phil Mendelson,
     Hon. Kenyan R. McDuffie,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mayor Bowser and City Council Members: It has become 
     painfully apparent that Washington, D.C., can protect neither 
     its residents nor the thousands of Virginians who commute 
     daily to the city for work or entertainment. As the chief law 
     enforcement officer for the Commonwealth of Virginia, I feel 
     responsible for the safety of all 8.642 million Virginians.
       Unfortunately, due to the proximity of our communities, 
     D.C.'s crime problem has become Virginia's crime problem.
       I refuse to stand by quietly as you continue to deny, 
     reject, and refuse to address your very prevalent crime spike 
     that is impacting D.C. residents and its visitors and 
     commuters. Your unwillingness to enforce your laws and hold 
     violent offenders responsible puts your residents and mine at 
     risk.
       Over the weekend, Christy Bautista, an innocent young woman 
     from Virginia, was murdered in the supposed safety of her 
     hotel room less than an hour after checking in to attend a 
     concert in your city. A Capitol Hill staffer was brutally 
     attacked in broad daylight. Over the summer, a young 
     Arlington woman was harassed on the metro, and countless 
     Virginians have been murdered in D.C. over the last three 
     years, including Aaron Bourne, Kenithy Manns, Christian 
     Gabriel Monje, and Ahmad Clark.
       Yet, D.C. Council Chairman Mendelson recently denied that 
     D.C. had a crime crisis. According to the Metropolitan Police 
     Department, D.C. has seen two consecutive years of over 200 
     homicides--a distinction the city hasn't reached in nearly 
     two decades. In addition, carjackings have been steadily 
     rising for the last five years. Homicides in Washington, 
     D.C., have increased by 31 percent since this time last year, 
     sexual assault increased by 84 percent, and motor vehicle 
     theft has increased by 107 percent. In general, crime in 2023 
     has risen by 23 percent.
       Washington, D.C., is dealing with a crime explosion. 
     Actions speak louder than words--and the only actionable 
     items taken by Washington D.C. leadership have been ways to 
     lessen criminal penalties, further fostering an environment 
     for criminal activity. There is no deterrent for illegal 
     behavior in Washington, D.C., as these repeat offenders know 
     they will either not be charged or let back on the streets in 
     no time.
       That's why we lost Christy Bautista. D.C.'s lenient 
     policies and perspectives are responsible for her murderer's 
     release when he should have been in custody. An innocent 
     woman lost her life to someone who should have been in jail.
       Her murder is a tragedy that should have never happened.
       To keep our communities safe--Washington D.C. and Northern 
     Virginia--we need to work together to address the issue of 
     rising crime. But that means acknowledging it is a problem 
     and committing to finding a solution rather than sweeping it 
     under the rug.
       Our nation's Capital should be a beacon of hope and freedom 
     for the entire world, not known as a place where attending a 
     concert can end one's life. I urge the city's leadership to 
     address the scourge of violent crime that is growing more 
     intolerable by the day.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Jason S. Miyares.

  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.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Indiana for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today we consider a rule for two bills that do not 
address the most pressing issues in our country. Over the last 2 weeks 
in New Mexico, I spent my time in my beautiful, large district in 
classrooms, meeting with healthcare providers, learning from Tribal 
leaders, and talking to students and their parents.
  They shared their worries about poor access to healthcare, about 
affordable housing, their worries about whether we were going to target 
Social Security and Medicare in this House.

[[Page H1776]]

  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.

                              {time}  1245

  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.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, Democrats have had ample opportunities to work with 
Republicans during the 117th Congress on bills that protect students in 
schools, including H.R. 7966, the STOP II Act, sponsored by 
Representative Richard Hudson of North Carolina, that would have 
increased funding for school resource officers and mental health 
guidance counselors and would have provided Federal grants for better 
securing our schools; and H.R. 7942, the Securing Our Students Act, 
sponsored by Representative Burgess Owens of Utah, that would have 
allowed school district to use unspent COVID-19 emergency relief funds 
to improve school buildings and strengthen security.
  Unfortunately, the Democrat then-majority blocked these bills from 
coming to the House floor.
  In addition, the House recently passed H.R. 5 which includes 
provisions ensuring the rights of parents to be informed about violent 
incidents in school and ensuring that school boards cannot censor the 
voices of parents who are expressing concerns about any such violent 
incidents.
  This is not about bullying kids. It is about fairness. It is about 
standing up for biological women and girls when no one on the left 
seems to care about that.
  Our colleagues across the aisle have even said it is okay for 
biological males to share locker rooms and showers with biological 
females even if they don't consent.
  If supposed groups that support women oppose this bill, then they 
don't support women. We aren't saying that they can't participate in 
sports with children or biological males that might have a different 
identity. We are not saying they can't participate in sports. We are 
saying they must compete according to their biological sex.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Langworthy).
  Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule which 
provides consideration of legislation to protect women and girls in 
athletics, and the resolution to curb the reckless anti-cop, pro-crime 
policies being carried out by the D.C. Government.
  I would be remiss to not point out the irony that my colleagues 
across the aisle have twisted themselves into a knot trying to malign a 
bill that seeks to protect a fair playing field for

[[Page H1777]]

women and girls, a historically marginalized group, but it is telling 
about how far out of the mainstream some of these policies have become.
  Ensuring that biological female athletes can compete fairly and 
honestly with other biological female athletes is the epitome of common 
sense. For the self-described party of science to ignore the biological 
realities between men and women is convenient and willful ignorance.
  What kind of message do we want to send to our young female athletes 
who work hard putting in the time, sweat, and tears into their sport 
only to find out that they lose a competition because the deck has been 
knowingly and purposefully stacked against them?
  It is just plain wrong.
  Achieving notoriety and fairness in female sports has come a long way 
over the last several decades in this country, but there is still a 
very long way to go. This bill would take us a half century backwards.
  Everyone should have a right to compete in sports, but it can't come 
at a cost of trampling on the rights of women and girls to compete 
fairly.
  I am proud to support this legislation that protects the original 
intent of Title IX: to prevent discrimination on the basis of sex.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that 
respects the realities of natural biology and protects fair 
opportunities for women and girls to compete and to win.
  Additionally, I would like to share my support for H.J. Res. 42. As a 
member of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, I was present 
to question the leadership of the D.C. Council about the latest efforts 
to vilify and defund the police.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LANGWORTHY. It was shameful to see how the leadership of our 
Nation's Capital shrugged their shoulders at the alarming spikes in 
violent crime sweeping across the district. D.C. residents are fed up. 
Visitors to our Nation's Capital are fed up.
  Americans deserve to be safe, not subjected to repeat offenders 
shooting up the Metro stop while they commute to work, as happened 
earlier this year. Our police officers and first responders deserve to 
be supported, not vilified. Where Congress can, under current law, it 
should act to preserve law and order and prevent these reckless actions 
from taking effect.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the rule, and I urge my colleagues to 
do the same.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation would not protect kids. We must 
remember that this legislation could require female student athletes to 
be subjected to invasive genital examinations or forced to disclose 
their menstruation data.

  What parent would want their child to go through that?
  This is a grotesque violation of privacy and the complete opposite of 
protecting our children.
  If Republicans really want to protect our girls, they should focus on 
real issues. The sexual abuse of female athletes and students goes 
unreported too often. The U.S. Center for SafeSport found that 93 
percent of athletes experienced sexual harassment or unwanted contact 
and they were too afraid to report it. We must address the real issues 
that our children face.
  With regards to the D.C. bill, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this rule. I will have more to say 
tomorrow about the police accountability and transparency legislation 
enacted by the District of Columbia's local legislature, but I want to 
take this time to discuss democratic principles.
  It is true that Congress has the constitutional authority to 
legislate on our local D.C. matters, but it is false that Congress has 
a constitutional duty, obligation, or responsibility to do so. Instead, 
legislating on local D.C. matters is a choice.
  I remind my Republican colleagues, who claim to revere the Founders, 
what James Madison said in Federalist 43 about the residents of the 
Federal District: ``A municipal legislature for local purposes, derived 
from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them.''
  The Supreme Court has held that Congress may delegate ``full 
legislative power'' on local D.C. matters.
  D.C. disapproval resolutions are profoundly undemocratic and 
paternalistic legislation.
  D.C.'s local legislature, the D.C. Council, has 13 members. The 
members are elected by D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do not like 
how the members vote, they can vote them down. This is called 
democracy.
  Congress has 535 voting Members. The Members are elected by residents 
of the States. None are elected by or accountable to D.C. residents. If 
D.C. residents do not like how the Members vote--even on legislation 
that applies only to D.C.--they cannot vote them out of office.
  The Revolutionary War was fought to give consent to the governed and 
to end taxation without representation. Yet nearly 700,000 D.C. 
residents cannot consent to any action taken by Congress, whether on 
national or local D.C. matters, while paying full Federal taxes. 
Indeed, D.C. pays more Federal taxes per capita than any State and more 
total Federal taxes than 23 States.
  If the House cared about democratic principles or D.C. residents, it 
would be voting on my statehood bill, the Washington, D.C., Admission 
Act, instead. Congress has the constitutional authority to admit the 
State of Washington, D.C. The House is choosing not to. It is a choice.
  Mr. Speaker, I will close by saying to all Members of the House: Keep 
your hands off of D.C.
  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.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Alford).
  Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for the rules 
package of H.R. 734, the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act.
  Here we are again, Mr. Speaker. This side of the aisle is advocating 
for sanity and humanity while that side of the aisle raises their hands 
saying: What are we doing here?
  Just like in our debate where we had to denounce socialism on this 
floor, and just like our debate where we had to defend the lives of 
abortion survivors, we are here to protect America. We are here for the 
sanity and humanity of America.
  Women's sports are meant for biological women and biological women 
alone. Let's follow the science. For generations, female athletes such 
as Lisa Leslie, Serena Williams, Katie Ledecky, Mia Hamm, and, most 
recently, Riley Gaines--who sat in this very gallery during our State 
of the Union Address and most recently was violently assaulted by a 
radical mob of activists--have fought tirelessly to tear down societal 
barriers in sports.
  This movement, Mr. Speaker, is making a mockery--a mockery--of their 
brave dedication and overall progress for women in general.
  Now my colleagues across the aisle want to insult the hours of blood, 
sweat, and tears that these women have invested into their sports and 
their careers. We are not going to stand for it. Enough is enough. The 
emperor has no clothes.
  Some 50 years ago, Congress passed Title IX to give women the 
opportunity to compete at levels never seen before. Women broke 
barriers, and now this radical movement wants to break their spirit.

  It is an insult to that legislation and to the progress society has 
made. It is

[[Page H1778]]

an insult--yes--that we are even here today having to debate this very 
issue. Women deserve protections and a fair playing field and a fair 
swimming pool.
  Is that too much to ask for, Mr. Speaker?
  This legislation will give them just that. H.R. 734 states that sex 
in the athletic context must be recognized based only on a person's 
reproductive biology and genetics at birth. It also clarifies that a 
recipient of Title IX funding is violating the prohibition against sex 
discrimination if a school allows a person whose sex is male to 
participate in a women's athletic activity.
  Simply put, we cannot ignore the biological differences between a 
male and a female. To do so would be ignorant and a disservice to the 
sporting world.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not about hate. This is about love. This is 
about love for our country, love for the advancement that women have 
made, and love for sanity.
  Let's give women the protection that they deserve and the protection 
that they have earned.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, all opposition to this bill is not radical. Indeed, the 
Republican Governor of Utah also opposed a similar bill, and in his 
veto message he talked about the fact that even though he might not 
understand what it means to be trans, even though he doesn't understand 
the science which might be conflicting, he said: I choose to err on the 
side of kindness and compassion.
  He wanted to make sure that the children live, the few children in 
his State who play sports, the few trans children in his State who play 
sports, he said: Why are we heaping so much hatred on those children?
  I want them to live.
  The reason why that concern is so profound is because of the fact 
that transgender kids have an extremely high risk of suicidal behavior. 
In 2021, suicide was the second leading cause of death for kids ages 
10-14 and 20-34. Nearly one in five trans kids attempted suicide that 
year. I want our trans kids to live.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Rules.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, our Rules Committee meeting last night was 
an embarrassment.
  Republicans went on and on about locker rooms, the same creepy 
stereotypes they leaned on when they tried to stop gay marriage.
  They went on and on about fairness, but no mention of the unfairness 
girls' sports teams face when it comes to unequal resources, unequal 
pay, and unequal treatment.
  They went on and on about safety, but no mention of the number one 
reason America's schools are unsafe: gun violence. Our kids are being 
slaughtered, for God's sake. Does anybody on the other side even care?
  Republicans claimed trans people don't even exist, which makes me 
wonder why they wasted all our time on their creepy obsession with 
controlling the lives of people they think aren't even real.
  Republicans now believe Congress--Congress--should be empowered to 
pick and choose which kids should be allowed to play on the soccer 
team.
  You can't make this stuff up.
  What is next? A bill about who can play together at recess?
  Republican hypocrisy is breathtaking. Republicans want to ban trans 
kids from sports, but they won't ban child marriage in States like West 
Virginia and Tennessee.
  The same party systematically taking away women's reproductive rights 
across the country, the same party that won't lift a finger as our kids 
are massacred in our schools, that takes NRA blood money instead of 
addressing an actual problem like gun violence, now wants to use 
protecting girls as their sick excuse for targeting trans kids.
  Enough is enough. Stop the fearmongering.
  The truth is that this bill would mean more trans kids, already 
vulnerable as it is, would be bullied, beaten, and killed. It would 
deprive trans kids of the opportunity to learn about teamwork, 
discipline, and sportsmanship.
  Finally, let me just say that the trans community deserves so much 
better than this. I hope they know that they have allies in Congress 
and across the country who care about them and who will fight for them. 
It shouldn't be a radical idea to respect people for who they are, and 
it shouldn't be a radical idea to love people for who they are.
  I urge my Republican colleagues to stop the lies, stop the bigotry, 
stop the hate. Leave kids alone. I urge a ``no'' vote on this awful, 
rotten rule and a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill.
  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.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  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.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Sorensen).
  Mr. SORENSEN. Mr. Speaker, every day I hear from parents who worry 
about their children's safety in school, from bullying to gun violence. 
Yet, instead of addressing the issues that are relevant today, we are 
debating a bill that takes away certain kids' ability to learn, like 
how to be a part of a team, how to build friendships, how to set goals, 
and how to work with one another. Every child in America should learn 
this.
  It is hard to be a kid today. It is hard to go to school. It is hard 
to make friends. It is hard to fit in. We need to give kids the 
opportunity to be healthy and happy and to have joy.
  This isn't about protecting sports. This is about every child setting 
their own goals, being a part of their team and overcoming challenges, 
and being, finally, proud of who they are and what they can achieve.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to 
the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. SORENSEN. Mr. Speaker, stop the nonsense. Let's get back to work 
and solve the real problems, which is what the people back home sent us 
here to do.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Vermont (Ms. Balint).

  Ms. BALINT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill and to 
speak clearly and directly on H.R. 734, which Republicans are 
ironically calling the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act. 
This bill is undeniably an attack on our kids and does nothing of 
substance to protect girls.

[[Page H1779]]

  Bills like this are aimed at taking away rights from LGBTQ Americans, 
specifically our kids. Kids and their families are being targeted and 
harassed for political gain. I ask, is this really the Nation that we 
want to live in?
  Sports bans for kids are cruel and unnecessary. These bills are 
clearly, at their core, un-American. They are about restricting rights. 
They are about barring kids--kids, kids--from full participation in 
sports.
  The U.S. House of Representatives must not participate in this 
obvious fear-based hate and discrimination of trans youth. We risk 
lives when we don't stand up clearly and loudly against discrimination 
of all kinds.
  This bill would have us believe that we should be afraid of trans 
youth. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  When I talk to these kids and their families, when I listen deeply to 
these kids and their families, what they say is: I just want to live my 
life. I just want to have friends. I want to be myself. I don't want to 
go to school and be picked on.
  They need our support. They do not need us demonizing them and 
fearmongering and bullying.
  Today, Republicans blocked our amendments, which would have actually 
supported our girls in schools. My amendment would have strengthened 
protections against harassment in schools based on sex, race, color, 
national origin, disability, and age. It would have restored 
protections against harassment and ensured equal opportunities for all 
students. It would have also required schools to take additional steps 
to protect students that have experienced sex-based harassment.
  We cannot keep putting our children in harm's way with this hateful 
rhetoric that is coming directly from inside the Halls of Congress. 
Instead, let's do our job and take real steps to actually protect our 
children.
  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.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Gomez).
  Mr. GOMEZ. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Republicans are attacking 
one of the most marginalized, most discriminated groups in our 
country--trans Americans--just to score cheap political points. Yes, 
cheap political points because this is something from the top down, 
from the head of the Republican Party here in Congress to each of the 
States that have introduced anti-trans legislation.
  It is especially sick when you look at the statistics. Over 50 
percent of trans youth considered suicide just last year. Let that sink 
in: 50 percent--not a fraction, 50 percent.
  Yet, rather than address pressing issues like gun violence, the 
leading cause of death for our children, Republicans are attacking 
trans and other LGBTQ kids. It shows exactly who they are--bigots and 
bullies. I said that once and I will say it again: bigots and bullies.
  This isn't their first attack on the trans community, as I mentioned. 
At the start of this Congress, my Republican colleagues threatened to 
revoke funding for an organization in my district that helps trans 
Americans find jobs and mental health resources. Oh, big conspiracy, 
trying to help people with mental health issues and help them find 
jobs.
  If they think their attacks will stop me from supporting the trans 
community, they are simply wrong.
  Transgender, nonbinary, and intersex youth want to participate in 
team sports for the same reason as their cisgender peers: to be part of 
a team, learn sportsmanship, and challenge themselves.
  As the brother of an LGBTQ American, I find their attacks offensive. 
I will vote ``no'' on this piece of legislation.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  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.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, 
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 
1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle).
  Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, my Democratic colleagues and I are 
here to defend Social Security and Medicare and to support our Nation's 
seniors.

  My district has the lowest median household income in Oregon. We have 
over 160,000 seniors who rely on Social Security for their retirement.
  My colleagues across the aisle are approaching Social Security as if 
it is an unearned handout. That is beyond offensive. That is not what 
it is meant to do. That is not what it is meant to be.
  People have paid into this system their whole lives. They should be 
able to get their contributions back, and that is the promise of our 
Social Security program.
  Right now, we only tax income up to $160,000 a year to fund Social 
Security. Millionaires and billionaires who get their income from 
investments instead of earning their money by the hour, like most of my 
constituents and like most working Americans, aren't paying their fair 
share into Social Security at all.
  We must change the system. By finally requiring the wealthiest 
Americans to pay into Social Security at the same rate as all the 
hardworking nurses and firefighters across this country, we can expand 
benefits, not cut them.
  I am not in Congress to protect billionaires. I am here to make sure 
those who have paid into the system their whole lives and who have 
worked hard, including our fishermen, electricians, and schoolteachers, 
can retire with dignity and welcome a new generation to the workforce. 
It is our responsibility to make sure that Social Security can be 
successful in the future.
  It is time for the House majority to stop playing games with people's 
lives with bills that don't do anything and support Social Security and 
Medicare.

                              {time}  1315

  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia).
  Ms. GARCIA of Texas. Mr. Speaker, across the country, State 
legislatures, including my home State of Texas, have advanced 
legislation seeking to ban transgender kids from participating in 
sports. Very sadly, this bill here today in Congress is seeking to do 
the same.
  The so-called Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act up for 
consideration today is nothing more than another extreme MAGA 
Republican political stunt, taking away the focus from the real issues 
affecting American people.
  It would stipulate that Title IX compliance ban gender and intersex 
girls and women from participating in sports.
  Denying children access to a place where they can gain mental and 
physical benefits does not protect women in sports. It harms women in 
sports.

[[Page H1780]]

  This bill sanctions discrimination against transgender students, 
which is mean-spirited and just plain bullying. This is not the role of 
Congress.
  I have heard directly from trans and intersex constituents in my 
district. They are worried every day about what political stunt and 
what political attack will come next. No one should live in fear just 
for being who they are.
  I strongly oppose the rule and strongly, strongly oppose final 
passage of this bill.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Texas, Ms. 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?
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  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.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  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.

  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218, 
nays 203, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 185]

                               YEAS--218

     Aderholt
     Alford
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bean (FL)
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Bost
     Brecheen
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Burlison
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chavez-DeRemer
     Ciscomani
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Collins
     Comer
     Crane
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     D'Esposito
     Davidson
     De La Cruz
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duarte
     Duncan
     Dunn (FL)
     Edwards
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ezell
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Finstad
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flood
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fry
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher

[[Page H1781]]


     Garbarino
     Garcia, Mike
     Gimenez
     Gonzales, Tony
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hageman
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hern
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Houchin
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunt
     Issa
     Jackson (TX)
     James
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Kean (NJ)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kiggans (VA)
     Kiley
     Kim (CA)
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaLota
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Langworthy
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lawler
     Lee (FL)
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Luna
     Luttrell
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McCormick
     McHenry
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Mills
     Molinaro
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moran
     Murphy
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunn (IA)
     Obernolte
     Ogles
     Owens
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reschenthaler
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Santos
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Self
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Strong
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Van Orden
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (NY)
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Yakym
     Zinke

                               NAYS--203

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Balint
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bowman
     Boyle (PA)
     Brown
     Brownley
     Budzinski
     Caraveo
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Casar
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crockett
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (NC)
     Dean (PA)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deluzio
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Foushee
     Frankel, Lois
     Frost
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Garcia, Robert
     Golden (ME)
     Goldman (NY)
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Hoyle (OR)
     Huffman
     Ivey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson (NC)
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kamlager-Dove
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Landsman
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (NV)
     Lee (PA)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lynch
     Magaziner
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McClellan
     McCollum
     McGarvey
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Menendez
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moskowitz
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Mullin
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neguse
     Nickel
     Norcross
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peltola
     Perez
     Peters
     Pettersen
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Quigley
     Ramirez
     Raskin
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan
     Salinas
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scholten
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Sorensen
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Sykes
     Takano
     Thanedar
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tokuda
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Vasquez
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Boebert
     Bush
     Cohen
     Doggett
     Evans
     Kildee
     Lee (CA)
     Miller (OH)
     Moore (UT)
     Neal
     Ross
     Scott, David
     Swalwell

                              {time}  1357

  Messrs. THOMPSON of California, TAKANO, CLYBURN, Ms. CROCKETT, 
Messrs. THOMPSON of Mississippi, MORELLE, and GRIJALVA changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. BURCHETT changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Tenney). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 217, 
noes 202, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 186]

                               AYES--217

     Aderholt
     Alford
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bean (FL)
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Bost
     Brecheen
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Burlison
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chavez-DeRemer
     Ciscomani
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Collins
     Comer
     Crane
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     D'Esposito
     Davidson
     De La Cruz
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duarte
     Duncan
     Dunn (FL)
     Edwards
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ezell
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Finstad
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flood
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fry
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Garcia, Mike
     Gimenez
     Gonzales, Tony
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hageman
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hern
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Houchin
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunt
     Issa
     Jackson (TX)
     James
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Kean (NJ)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kiggans (VA)
     Kiley
     Kim (CA)
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaLota
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Langworthy
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lawler
     Lee (FL)
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Luna
     Luttrell
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McCormick
     McHenry
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Mills
     Molinaro
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moran
     Murphy
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunn (IA)
     Obernolte
     Ogles
     Owens
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reschenthaler
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Santos
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Self
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Strong
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Van Orden
     Wagner
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (NY)
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Yakym
     Zinke

                               NOES--202

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Balint
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bowman
     Boyle (PA)
     Brown
     Brownley
     Budzinski
     Caraveo
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Casar
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crockett
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (NC)
     Dean (PA)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deluzio
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Foushee
     Frankel, Lois
     Frost
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Garcia, Robert
     Golden (ME)
     Goldman (NY)
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Hoyle (OR)
     Huffman
     Ivey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson (NC)
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kamlager-Dove
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Landsman
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (NV)
     Lee (PA)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Magaziner
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McClellan
     McCollum
     McGarvey
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Menendez
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moskowitz
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Mullin
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neguse
     Nickel
     Norcross
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peltola
     Perez
     Peters
     Pettersen
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Quigley
     Ramirez
     Raskin
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan
     Salinas
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scholten
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Sorensen
     Soto

[[Page H1782]]


     Spanberger
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Sykes
     Takano
     Thanedar
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tokuda
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Vasquez
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Boebert
     Bush
     Doggett
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Kildee
     Lee (CA)
     Lynch
     Miller (OH)
     Moore (UT)
     Neal
     Ross
     Scott, David
     Swalwell
     Walberg

                              {time}  1406

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________