Erin Houchin

Mrs. HOUCHIN

Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 298 provides for consideration of two measures, H.R. 734 and H.J. Res. 42. The rule provides for H.R. 734, the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, to be considered under a structured rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce or their designees, and provides for one motion to recommit. The rule also provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 42, disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022, under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability or their designees. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying pieces of legislation. The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act would reaffirm the principle of fairness in opportunity within Title IX by specifying that sex shall be recognized based solely on a person's reproductive biology and genetics at birth. Mr. Speaker, I am going to say something I never thought I would have to say on the House floor, in Congress, or anywhere for that matter, but here it is: women and men are different. That is not meant to be controversial, mean-spirited, outlandish, or anything other than the factual statement that it is. Perhaps I can be more specific, Mr. Speaker. Women and men are physically different. Women and men have different physical characteristics, and that is okay. That is why Title IX exists: to ensure that despite these differences, women and men have the same opportunities. Saying women and men are different does not lack empathy for people who struggle with their identity. However, because some people struggle with their identity should not and does not change facts. Speaking of the facts, I would be remiss if I did not include some for the House to consider, specifically in the context of athletics, one study coming from the Duke University School of Law's Center for Sports Law and Policy. They note the various differences between male and female athletes leads to a 10 to 12 percent performance gap between the sexes in athletic competition. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the Record the results of this study.

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.

Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

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).

Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

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).

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.

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.

Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve 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.

Mrs. HOUCHIN

Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate National PEO Week, which starts May 21 and ends May 27, 2023. National PEO Week will celebrate the important contributions of the professional employer organization (PEO) industry, which provides payroll, employee benefits, compliance assistance, and HR services to hundreds of thousands of small and mid-sized businesses that employ more than 4 million people. PEOs play a critical role in helping businesses survive and thrive, particularly during challenging times. In the dark days of the COVID pandemic, PEOs ensured that that their clients stay afloat by securing PPP loans and loan forgiveness, managing employee leave, and applying for available tax credits. In fact, businesses that partner with a PEO were nearly 60 percent less likely to have permanently closed than those that did not use a PEO during the pandemic. PEOs help small businesses improve productivity and profitability, focus on their core mission, and grow. Through a PEO, the employees of small businesses gain access to important employee benefits such as: 401(k) plans; health, dental, life, and other insurance; dependent care; other benefits they might not typically receive as employees of a small company. I can attest to the value of PEOs. Before coming to Congress, I worked for a PEO and saw firsthand the positive impact they had on small businesses in Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the PEO industry for all they do to help our Nation's small businesses and their employees prosper.

Mrs. HOUCHIN

Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 241 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), 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. Last night, the Rules Committee met and reported out a rule, House Resolution 241, providing for consideration of H.R. 5. The Parents Bill of Rights is to be considered under a structured rule with 2 hours 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. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation. The Parents Bill of Rights would secure a fundamental right parents should always be guaranteed: their right to make informed decisions about their children. As my first time managing a floor debate, I couldn't think of a better bill to focus on. Our families in Indiana and across the country deserve debate on H.R. 5, and we plan to deliver. As a mother of three children in school, I know how important it is for parents to know what is happening in the classroom. Unfortunately, this bill is necessary because school districts across the country have failed to deliver basic transparency. That became painfully obvious to parents during the pandemic. Our living rooms became classrooms. Parents came to realize exactly what their children's days looked like. Many parents were surprised and disappointed by what they were learning about their children's educational experiences. Like many of my colleagues, I prefer that most decisions regarding education be made at the State and local level, and this bill does not change that. The actions over the past few years have compelled us to stand up and to act. There has been example after example of this becoming a bigger problem. In one example, a father from Virginia had to learn his daughter was assaulted in the high school bathroom from his child, not the school. Stories like this one shouldn't become the new normal. As I said in the Rules Committee during the hearing about the bill just last night: ``Sending a child to public school does not terminate parental rights at the door.'' I worked in child services. I have cared for children in foster care. When foster parents are caring for their children who are in the custody of the State, they can't give those kids a haircut without getting permission from the child's biological parents. Shouldn't the same rules apply to the students' safety and well-being in our schools? Yet, parents are left pleading. They are left to plead for information; to plead for the safety of their kids in public restrooms; to plead for the quality of their kids' education; and to plead for anyone who would listen to help restore their parental rights. This bill would restore transparency, consultation, and notification requirements to existing law. In doing so, it would give parents the right to obtain critical information more easily from school administrators, boards, and teachers to make informed decisions regarding their children's education. The bottom line: It gives power back to parents. As the Republican Education and the Workforce Committee members have said, the Parents Bill of Rights contains five basic principles: That parents have the right to know what their children are being taught; that parents have the right to be heard; that parents have the right to see the school budget; that parents have the right to protect their children's privacy; and that parents have a right to keep their children safe. Now, these goals are hard to fight against, but we have heard critics say this bill is somehow politicizing education or that bureaucrats know better than parents or that we are encouraging the banning of books. Let me be clear. Nothing in this bill has anything to do with banning books or even that parent engagement is somehow a better model than parental rights. That is simply not true. Instead, this bill provides an opportunity to ensure our kids are prepared to contribute to this great country of ours. It aims to strengthen parent-teacher partnerships where they exist and close information gaps where parent-teacher partnerships could be improved. While there are many challenges in our schools, one we should all be able to agree on tackling is that administrators, educators, and parents should be on the same page. The first step in achieving that goal is improving our parents' access to information about their kids' experiences. One example of this is an amendment I was able to offer during the markup a few weeks ago. The amendment required notification of parents when a student isn't reading at grade-level proficiency by the end of the third grade. Our child literacy rates are falling behind, and the more parents know, the more they can help, the better. In the end, by passing the Parents Bill of Rights, we are one step closer to what everyone wants, providing our students with the best learning experience inside and outside of the classroom and giving parents a proper say in their children's future. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Alford).

Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).