Suzanne Bonamici

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the so-called End Woke Higher Education Act. There is a lot we could be doing in Congress to improve higher education, and this is not it. This bill combines two extreme bills into one, attacking intellectual freedom and diversity on college campuses while fanning the flames of culture war rhetoric to score political points. This so-called End Woke Higher Education Act would allow institutions of higher education to eliminate policies and programs that protect students and staff from discrimination because of who they are, where they come from, what they believe, or who they love. By forbidding accreditors from considering diversity and inclusion efforts and allowing schools to require all applicants and employees to abide by a statement of faith, colleges and universities would be free to remove curricula that highlight the historical experience of marginalized groups. They could reject students from attending federally funded institutions based on the student's religious beliefs. Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia on college campuses is a pervasive problem, yet this bill would open the door for more schools to discriminate against Jewish or Muslim students solely because of their faith. Is it woke to believe that Jewish and Muslim students should be able to attend the schools they choose and join the clubs that fit their interests? Is it woke to ask schools not to subsidize speakers that make certain groups of students feel unsafe on campus? Though it is not typical to have a term in a bill that is undefined, there is no definition of ``woke'' in this bill. What is it? Do they believe it when they see it, or do they define it when they want to? Instead of limiting access to inclusive, accurate curricula, we should be focused on vigorous enforcement of our civil rights laws that protect all students and provide equal opportunities. For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill. My amendment would increase funding for the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Education. That is important because the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, OCR, enforces a number of civil rights laws that apply to colleges and universities receiving Federal funding. The Office for Civil Rights has the crucial responsibility to uphold and enforce core nondiscrimination statutes that protect students on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, and age. Despite the massive increase in complaints received over the past several years, this office has only half the staff it had when it was established 45 years ago. In fact, House Republicans on the Appropriations Committee recently proposed a $10 million cut to the Office for Civil Rights. That is right. They proposed a $10 million cut to the Office for Civil Rights.

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

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

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to raise serious concerns about the ongoing underfunding of our Federal public defender program. Nearly 90 percent of defendants in Federal court cannot afford their own attorney. Defendants have a constitutional right to an attorney in criminal cases. Without Federal defenders, the justice system can't function, and defendants are not able to get a speedy trial. Any loss of Federal public defenders increases court delays and costs, sometimes significantly, because of reliance on private panel attorneys, who are usually more costly and often have less experience. This is a particularly precarious moment for the Federal defender program. In fiscal year 2024, an inadvertent budgeting error resulted in initial funding levels that were more than $100 million less than what the program needed across the country. In response, the program implemented a series of cost-saving measures, including a hard hiring freeze, suspension of training opportunities, and deferral of cybersecurity upgrades. Insufficient funding for the Federal public defender program affects not only the rights of indigent individuals charged with Federal crimes, but also the overall operation of the Federal criminal justice system. When the Federal public defense system is underfunded, it creates delays in processing criminal cases, backlogs in U.S. Attorney's Offices, and an increase in appeals. Additionally, we are seeing more complex cases that require increased forensic evaluation. These cases are not given the attention they deserve in an underresourced public defense system. A strong Federal public defense system, which is something that has historically been bipartisan here in the Capitol, enhances the confidence of everyone who has an interest in an efficient, reliable, and fair Federal justice system, including crime victims and the public at large. Congress must adequately compensate Federal public defenders for the unintended consequences of the fiscal year 2024 cost-saving measures. We must restore training and cybersecurity infrastructure investments, and we must address the cost pressures for personnel in those offices and other essentials. This is important for our criminal justice system and for fairness. Let's get it done.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a longtime staff member of my office, Joyce Fleming, and to offer her most heartfelt congratulations on her retirement. Joyce embodies what it means to be a public servant. As an outreach and constituent caseworker in my Beaverton office for the past 12 years, she treated all Oregonians with courtesy, respect, and empathy. Like most of our best congressional staff, Joyce understands that advocacy for our constituents often takes more time and effort than one letter or phone call. She patiently navigated Federal agencies, looked for creative solutions to complex problems, and she explored every avenue possible to find a positive outcome for the people we serve in northwest Oregon. In fact, during the last townhall meeting I hosted, it seemed that more constituents showed up to see Joyce and seek out her assistance than to talk with me. I am grateful for her work serving the First District of Oregon for the past 12 years, but Joyce's career in public service began well before my service in Congress and has spanned decades. She began her congressional career in the office of U.S. Senator Mark Hatfield before we had email and iPhones. Senator Hatfield was a former Governor who spent 30 years in the U.S. Senate where he ultimately chaired the powerful Appropriations Committee. He was a special kind of public servant, a statesman who worked across the aisle and focused on getting things done for Oregonians. Joyce's service has followed this model. She also spent more than 12 years in the Oregon office of my friend and colleague, Congressman Earl Blumenauer, and took a brief hiatus from Federal service before coming to work in my Oregon office in 2012. A talented professional, Joyce was always one of the first staffers on my team who has always conducted herself with kindness and integrity. She has helped guide and mentor many new staff members and has been a steadfast advocate for the people of northwest Oregon. In closing, and on behalf of my entire team and the people of northwest Oregon, I would like to reiterate my gratitude and appreciation to Joyce Fleming who made it possible for me to do my job well and to help the people I am so honored to represent. Madam Speaker, I congratulate Joyce on her retirement and on her exemplary career serving the people of our State and country.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 165, a Congressional Review Act resolution to repeal the Biden- Harris administration's Title IX rule. The administration's final Title IX rule does three things. First, it safeguards against all forms of sex-based harassment and discrimination by making several improvements to the 2020 Trump administration's Title IX rule. These include requiring schools to take prompt and effective acts to address sexual harassment as opposed to the lax Trump standard that a school's response just not be deliberately indifferent. The new rule places the duty to report possible discrimination on more employees, in contrast to the old rule, which only required some employees to report when they had actual, not possible, knowledge of sexual discrimination or assault, and it recognizes that discrimination based on sex includes discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity following Supreme Court precedent. Second, the Title IX rule promotes accountability and fairness in how schools respond to and discipline sex-based discrimination by mandating that schools handle complaints in a timely manner and implement a fair and transparent process. Finally, this rule empowers students and families to exercise their rights under Title IX. The administration's Title IX rule explicitly protects sexual assault survivors and people affected by discrimination from retaliation for seeking to have their Title IX rights enforced. Further, the rule guarantees access to supportive services for survivors of sexual assault and accused individuals and, despite what my colleagues repeatedly claim--I thought I was in the wrong debate for a minute--this rule does not address students' participation in sports. This false narrative follows the many attacks against the LGBTQI+ community in this House and State legislatures across the country. We have had more than 60 anti-LGBTQI+ votes on the House floor this Congress, and it is a distraction to claim that this rule harms women in sports. For example, the Department has not issued a separate proposed rule to address athletics. They are working on it, but it has not been finalized. That is not the debate we are having today. Let me be clear: Trans girls like all girls deserve the opportunity to participate on school sports teams, but my colleagues across the aisle keep talking about athletics because they don't want to admit the truth behind this resolution. The resolution is an attempt to undermine nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQI+ students. LGBTQI students, including trans students, deserve to go to school free from discrimination, and that is what this rule is about. It is not about bathrooms. In fact, the real risk of violence occurs when transgender people are barred from using the appropriate facility. Transgender people experience shockingly high rates of sexual and physical violence and are much more likely to be a victim than a perpetrator. I am also extremely concerned about the false narrative that my colleagues have invented to portray trans individuals as criminals attempting to enter restrooms to harm others. That is not supported by evidence or data. Transgender people want the same thing everyone else wants: safety, comfort, and privacy. We must work to protect the transgender community from discrimination and stop the false narratives that exacerbate and encourage prejudice against innocent people. This bill is particularly extreme because passing it would prevent any substantially similar rule from being enacted on these issues in the future. Voting for this bill would prohibit protections for sexual assault survivors and protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in schools that receive Federal funding. If Republicans truly cared about protecting women and children, they would stop this prejudiced rhetoric and take action on bills that would actually protect women from discrimination and harassment and defend women's reproductive healthcare, make childcare more affordable, and preserve opportunities in workplaces for all parents, especially women. Instead, this joint resolution is another attempt to undercut this administration's efforts to empower survivors and protect all Americans from discrimination. I do want to note that this is another plank in the extremist Project 2025 takeover of government that will sanction discrimination and strip Americans of their rights and freedoms. That is on page 333 if you are looking for it. I also note that yesterday my Republican colleagues were supporting dignity for dishwashers. I implore all of you to show some dignity to the LGBTQI students who just want to go to school and learn free from discrimination. Show some dignity to the girls and women who survive sexual assault and deserve justice. Madam Speaker, for these reasons and others, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I will note that the Bostock case did not expressly rule, but they did not say it does not apply. The issue is not before them, and that is why several courts have actually extended the ruling from Bostock to other civil rights laws. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Tokuda).

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

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, in making these important decisions, it is important to rely on experts like child psychiatrists and pediatricians. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), my colleague from the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, before yielding to Mr. Takano, I reiterate that this rule is not about athletics. There is a separate rule being drafted about addressing athletics. This is not it. Also, I am concerned about the scare tactics that are being used. Studies show that allowing trans people to use facilities consistent with their gender identity does not result in increased safety risks. Nondiscrimination laws do not allow men to go into women's bathrooms, period. The claim that allowing transgender people to use facilities that match the gender they live every day allows men into women's bathrooms or women into men's bathrooms is based on a flawed understanding of what it means to be a transgender person or a misrepresentation of the law. The real risk occurs when transgender people are barred from using the appropriate facilities. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), my colleague from the Education and the Workforce Committee.

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

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to point out that it is definitely not the first time that the definition of discrimination based on sex included sexual orientation and gender identity, because Trump-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch did exactly that in the Bostock v. Clayton County case. I also note that in this resolution, they are saying it is going to hurt girls and women. It absolutely will not. It is going to strengthen protections for girls and women because it ensures colleges and universities properly address sexual violence, violence that disproportionately impacts girls and women. The rule clarifies protections for pregnant and parenting students, and the rule explicitly clarifies protections for the LGBTQI community, including lesbian, bisexual, and transgender girls and women. As Representative Jayapal said, these rules and protections have been in effect in many States, and the sky is not falling. People are free from discrimination in those places. Republicans are just repeating the lie that they are standing up for women to hide from the radical antiwomen agenda. You don't have to take our word for it. Leading gender justice organizations, like the National Women's Law Center, the American Association of University Women, and Girls Inc., all oppose this resolution to repeal the Title IX rule. That is why these groups, and more than 100 organizations working to advance gender justice, LGBTQI rights, civil rights, and student rights have written to Congress urging us to oppose this resolution. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Coalition of Gender Justice, LGBTQI+ rights, civil rights, and student rights groups, opposing H.J. Res. 165. June 13, 2024. Re Coalition of Gender Justice, LGBTQI+ Rights, Civil Rights, and Student Rights Groups Urges Members to Oppose H.J. Res. 165 Dear Member of Congress: The undersigned organizations who work to advance gender justice, LGBTQI+ rights, civil rights, and student rights urge you to oppose H.J. Res. 165, and its companion legislation in the Senate, which would undo the U.S. Department of Education's recently published final rule that strengthens Title IX's protections against sex-based discrimination in federally funded schools. Not only would H.J. Res. 165 overturn the entirety of the protections set out in the rule, it would prevent any future effort to reinstate any of these protections. This effort must be rejected, as the U.S. Department of Education's recently finalized rule reinforces and restores Title IX's protections, ensuring that every student has the right to a safe and welcoming learning environment, free from sex discrimination, including LGBTQI+ students, survivors of sexual assault and other sex-based harassment, and pregnant and parenting students. The updates clarify that Title IX protects against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. With a staggering 83% of LGBTQI+ youth reporting in school victimization--and 62% of those who have faced victimization never reporting an incident to school staff-- the Title IX updates will clarify remedies for students facing all types of sex-based harassment and hold school officials accountable for fostering safer school environments. This regulatory clarification ensures that LGBTQI+ youth will be able to equally participate in educational opportunities, from being able to attend prom with a date of their choice and wearing clothes that reflect their gender expression to using a restroom that corresponds with their gender identity. We collectively reject the false narrative that equal educational opportunity for transgender and non-binary students undermines protections for cisgender girls and women. Transgender women are women and transgender girls are girls who deserve the full protection of federal civil rights law. Policies that seek to undermine protections for transgender women and girls--whether in accessing school restrooms or playing sports--harm all women and girls by allowing them to be subjected to unwarranted and inappropriate scrutiny. This scrutiny also falls particularly hard on women and girls of color who do not follow white standards of womanhood, and any cisgender woman or girl who fails to conform to sex-based stereotypes of femininity because of how they look or act. Further, schools across the country have had gender identity nondiscrimination policies in place for years without any issue, and comprehensive nondiscrimination policies that explicitly enumerate gender identity are associated with safer school environments that result in lower rates of discrimination. Such policies are especially critical for sex-separated spaces such as bathrooms and locker rooms. Transgender and nonbinary students avoid sex-separated spaces at higher rates than their LGBQ+ peers, and delayed use of bathrooms can result in adverse impacts on a youth's physical and physiological state, mental health, and academic success and attention at school. Forcing transgender and nonbinary students into sex- separated spaces that are inconsistent with their gender identity may result in increased risk of bullying and physical harassment. In fact, survivor-led organizations and anti-sexual assault and domestic violence organizations support full and equal access for transgender people to use restrooms and locker rooms that align with their gender identity. Additionally, the Title IX rule reverses the Trump administration's 2020 Title IX rule that significantly weakened protections for student survivors seeking help in the wake of their victimization and incentivize schools to further sweep sexual harassment and assault under the rug. Undoing the 2020 Title IX rule brings justice to survivors by ensuring they are not denied their right to educational opportunities in the wake of sexual assault or harassment. The updates to the Title IX rule no longer allow schools to ignore many reports of sexual assault and remove unfair hurdles uniquely faced by student survivors in their schools' investigations--hurdles that students and employees complaining about any other type of misconduct do not have to experience. Lastly, the updates to the Title IX rule provide greater clarity on pregnant and parenting students' rights, including affirmative steps schools must take to ensure those students are aware of their rights. Schools must provide reasonable accommodations, such as the ability to take breaks and access to a sanitary and private lactation room. According to the CDC, roughly 50% of teenagers who become pregnant and give birth withdraw from school and do not receive their high school diplomas by age 22. Research indicates that discrimination plays a major role in students having to withdraw early from school, despite pregnant and parenting students earning higher GPAs than their non-parenting peers. These Title IX rule clarifications are much-needed to ensure pregnant and parenting students have a right to equal education opportunities. Every student deserves to have an education free from discrimination and harassment, including on the basis of sex. We urge you to oppose H. Res. 165, and any efforts to undermine this milestone rule that ensures equal educational opportunity for LGBTQI+ students, survivors of sexual assault and harassment, and pregnant and parenting students. Sincerely, A Better Balance, AFT, All* Above All, Alliance for Girls, American Association of University Women, American Atheists, American Humanist Association, American Psychological Association, Arab American Institute (AAI), Ascend, Athlete Ally, Autistic Self Advocacy Network, CA LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network, Center for WorkLife Law, CenterLink: The Community of LGBTQ Centers, Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation (CAASE), Clearinghouse on Women's Issues, Clery Center, Colorado Teen Parent Collaborative, Doctors for America. EdTrust, Education Law Center, Education Law Center Pennsylvania, End Rape On Campus, Equal Rights Advocates, Equality California, ERA Coalition, Esperanza United, Family Equality, Feminist Majority Foundation, Generation Hope, Girls Inc., GLAAD, GLSEN, Guttmacher Institute, Healthy Teen Network, Human Rights Campaign, Human Rights First, Immigration Equality, Institute for Women's Policy Research. interACT: Advocates for Intersex Youth, Ipas, It's On Us, Japanese American Citizens League, Jewish Women International, Just Solutions, Justice and Joy National Collaborative (formerly National Crittenton), Know Your IX, Advocates for Youth, Legal Momentum, The Women's Legal Defense and Education Fund, Los Angeles LGBT Center, MomsRising, Monsoon Asians & Pacific Islanders in Solidarity, Movement Advancement Project, Mujeres Latinas en Accion, National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum, National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities, National Association of Social Workers, National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Center for Parent Leadership, Advocacy, and Community Empowerment (National PLACE), National Council of Jewish Women. National Education Association, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice, National LGBTQI+ Cancer Network, National Organization for Women, National Women's Law Center, National Women's Political Caucus, Network for Victim Recovery of DC (NVRDC), Nevada Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence, PFLAG National, Population Institute, Public Justice, Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly NARAL Pro- Choice America), Rocky Mountain Victim Law Center, Sexual Violence Prevention Association (SVPA), Silver State Equality-Nevada, Stop Sexual Assault in Schools, Supermajority, Tahirih Justice Center, The Trevor Project, Trans Empowerment Project. Trans Formations Project, Transgender Law Center, Ujima, The National Center on Violence Against Women in the Black Community, UltraViolet, Victim Rights Law Center, VOICEINSPORT Foundation, Women's March, Women's Sports Foundation, YWCA USA.

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to note that there are so many groups, domestic violence and sexual assault organizations, such as the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence, that have all signed onto a national consensus statement of anti-sexual assault and domestic violence in support of full and equal access for the transgender community. They noted: Nondiscrimination laws do not allow men to go into women's restrooms or locker rooms, period. The claim that allowing transgender people to use the facilities that match the gender they live every day, that it allows men into women's bathrooms or women into men's, is based on a flawed understanding of what it means to be transgender. I will note that out of approximately 110,000 collegiate athletes, there are approximately 35 who identify as transgender. Nondiscrimination laws protecting transgender people have existed for a long time. In some cases, these protections have been in place for decades. The laws have protected people from discrimination without creating harm. None of those jurisdictions have seen a rise in sexual violence or other public safety issues due to nondiscrimination laws. Assaulting another person in a restroom or a changing room or a locker room is against the law in every State, including under this rule. I include in the Record a letter from the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women in opposition to this resolution and in support of full and equal access for the transgender community. National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, April 21, 2016.

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to respond to ``the natural laws of this world.'' It is not a new concept. There are two-spirit people in Native-American culture. There are hijra people in South Asia and many more in Judaism. For example, the Talmud, the sacred text, lists six genders. The sky is not falling. I also note that the gentleman referred to redefining ``sex'' to include sexual orientation and gender identity as some sort of novel or woke concept. I suggest you take that up with the Trump-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch because he wrote the opinion making clear that sex discrimination includes discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. I include in the Record letters from the American Library Association, the National Education Association, and the Consortium for Constituents with Disabilities. These three letters are all in opposition to H.J. Res. 165. ALA American Library Association, June 11, 2024. Re H.J.Res. 165, Title IX rule disapproval--OPPOSE Hon. Virginia Foxx, Chairwoman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, US House of Representatives. Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Ranking Member, Committee on Education and the Workforce, US House of Representatives. Dear Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member Scott: On behalf of the American Library Association (ALA), I write to respectfully oppose H.J. Res. 165, ``Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to `Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance.' '' The Department of Education's Title IX rule, issued April 29, 2024, applies the Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020), to codify that Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. By doing so, the rule clarifies that recipients of Education Department funding may not discriminate against LGBTQI+ library workers or students in employment opportunities or the delivery of library services (e.g., removal of library materials in a discriminatory manner). All Americans deserve equal opportunity in education, employment, and the freedom to read. We urge Congress to defend the rights of students and library workers by rejecting H.J.Res. 165. If we can provide more information, please contact Gavin Baker (gbaker@alawash.org). Sincerely, Alan S. Inouye, Ph.D., Senior Director, Public Policy & Government Relations and Interim Associate Executive Director, American Library Association.

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

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

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining.

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to note in the big picture as we consider this conversation today, LGBTQ youth and trans youth are more likely to have experienced sexual violence than their straight counterparts. Further, nearly 59 percent of LGBTQI+ students report experiencing discriminatory policies and practices at school, particularly those targeting students' gender and limiting their ability to participate in activities consistent with their gender identity. Madam Speaker, 62 percent of LGBTQ students who were harassed or assaulted at school did not report the incident because they don't feel safe. This is creating hostile environments that are leading to adverse outcomes for LGBTQ students. The report that I mentioned found that students who experienced discrimination and higher levels of victimization have higher dropout rates, lower academic performance, and increased mental health issues such as anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation. Madam Speaker, 68 percent of the students reported feeling unsafe at school because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or gender expression. We should not be creating this hostile school climate that is making students feel unsafe because of who they are. I want to again encourage my colleagues to think about the message that this is sending to students, that they do not belong, that they are not safe in their schools. This is the Education and the Workforce Committee. We should be making students feel safe, not making them feel threatened. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for the purpose of closing. The Biden-Harris administration's Title IX rule is a necessary step in protecting all Americans from sex-based harassment and discrimination. It would uplift and empower survivors while holding schools accountable for their handling of these sensitive cases. This Congressional Review Act that Republicans have put forward undermines the rights of survivors of sexual assault and advances a baseless, prejudiced narrative against LGBTQI+, especially transgender, individuals. I am incredibly frustrated that Republicans are spending time obsessing over what bathroom is used instead of addressing the real problems faced by women and children. I also include in the Record, Madam Speaker, a Statement of Administrative Policy providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5 of the United States Code. If this President were presented with H.J. Res. 165, he would veto it, and for good reason because this bill takes us back. Statement of Administration Policy H.J. Res. 165--Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to ``Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance The Administration strongly opposes H.J. Res. 165, which would disapprove the Department of Education's rule, under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, to restore and strengthen vital nondiscrimination protections for students, employees, and applicants in federally funded education programs and activities. Since Title IX was signed into law more than 50 years ago, it has opened doors for generations of women and girls and increased access to educational opportunities for millions of students. Despite this progress, rates of sexual harassment and assault in our nation's schools and colleges remain unacceptably high. Many women see their education derailed because of pregnancy discrimination. And many LGBTQI+ students face bullying and harassment just because of who they are. The Department's rule is critical to ensuring that no person experiences sex discrimination at school. The rule provides protection from sex-based harassment, including sexual violence; promotes accountability and fundamental fairness through a fair, transparent, and reliable process; and ensures that students, employees, and families understand their rights and that institutions know their responsibilities. The rule also advances educational equity by requiring schools that have knowledge of possible sex discrimination in their education programs or activities to take prompt and effective action to end the sex discrimination, prevent its recurrence, and remedy its effects. Passage of H.J. Res. 165 would eliminate these critical protections that keep students safe and able to realize their full potential. The promise of Title IX--an education free from sex discrimination--remains as vital now as it was when the law was enacted. The Administration will continue to fight tirelessly to realize this promise and achieve equal opportunity for all students and all Americans. If the President were presented with H.J. Res. 165, he would veto it.

Ms. BONAMICI. We have made progress in making every student feel safe and be safe in schools. I once again encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this harmful and extreme joint resolution for the sake of women, the LGBTQI community, and survivors across the Nation. Again, Madam Speaker, yesterday we were talking about dignity for dishwashers. Please show some dignity for people who are being discriminated against because of who they are and who they love. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. McGovern for yielding the time. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and in strong support of something my constituents are calling about. It is not dishwashers, and it is not refrigerators. It is support for the Women's Health Protection Act which will provide in law the right for Americans to make their own reproductive healthcare decisions. The rightwing extremists on the Supreme Court who authored the Dobbs decision overturning abortion rights have shown that they will do anything to further their regressive, extreme, and dangerous ideology regardless of the long history of Court precedent. For almost 50 years, the intensely personal decision about whether or when to bear a child or have an abortion was right where it belongs, with the one who is pregnant. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim to be pro-life, but the policies they support are anything but. I remember the days before Roe v. Wade when abortions done without medical care could and often did have tragic outcomes, including death. Even before the Dobbs decision, maternal death rates in 2020 were 62 percent higher in States that ban or restrict abortion than in States where it was acceptable. Restrictive abortion laws also cause infant mortality rates to rise, including in Texas where both infant death rates and the number of babies who died of birth defects have increased since their restrictive law banning abortion as early as 6 weeks went into effect. A study from Johns Hopkins University found that between 2021 and 2022, the infant mortality rate increased by 8.3 percent in Texas, and that is compared with a 2.2 percent increase nationally. While the death rate of babies 28 days old or younger fell in other States overall, it increased by 5.8 percent in Texas. Make no mistake, Madam Speaker, these laws are not about protecting life. They are about control: controlling the bodies of others and removing their personal freedom to make the decision about whether or when to bear a child. This will not stop at the State level. At the first opportunity, congressional Republicans will try to enact a nationwide abortion ban to prevent anyone in this country from getting the care they need. For these reasons and more, we must defeat the previous question so we can pass the very important Women's Health Protection Act to protect the right to abortion and restore the freedoms that the Supreme Court, with support from Republicans, brazenly stripped away.