Doug LaMalfa

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the importance of pipelines to our Nation's energy use and national security. It should be obvious, but with Colonial Pipeline being out of commission this week and the resulting gas shortages, price spikes, and long lines at the gas pump, this highlights the importance of this method of transit. Pipelines offer guaranteed, reliable delivery and are cheaper and safer than any other delivery method. The extremely rare event of a pipeline being out of commission shows how much we often take them for granted. We have 2\1/2\ million miles of energy-related pipeline in this country. If it can be completed, the Keystone Pipeline, the fourth phase, only 1,179 miles, would make our energy security even stronger. I am hopeful that the events of the past week will cause the Biden administration and many of my friends across the aisle to rethink their hostility toward this project. Let's work on protecting these systems from cyberattacks. Let's work to build redundancy systems to operate when these attacks get through. But let's also remember what the alternative is when dogmatic policies get in the way and take options off the table. We will continue to need these fuels for the foreseeable future, and I hope we can agree to smart courses of action to embrace the most efficient and safe manner of delivery.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the life of Sergeant First Class Donald Keith Strickland. Donald passed away recently after a long life of service to his country, his fellow Americans, and his family. Standing with me today is my good friend, Representative Alex Mooney of West Virginia. We are both dear friends of Donald's son, Tony Strickland, who I served in the legislature with and who has a long relationship with this great person here. What you see in a legacy with a man like Donald, who was an Army staff sergeant, also known as a drill sergeant--which, by the way, the family home was known as ``strict land'' because it was very strict there due to that background. The legacy shows the great family that we know with Tony and his kids and all the wonderful grandchildren that Mr. Donald Strickland had. He is survived by his wife, Antonie; his three children; and many grandchildren and great-grandchildren. The legacy of how we are measured is truly in your family and what you leave behind as you touch your country. For our dear friend Tony, our hearts are with you in the loss of your father, and God bless you all.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today during National Police Week to recognize the law enforcement officers serving on the front lines. Without them our streets would erupt into chaos, and the law and order our society relies on would crumble. We have seen this happen already too much in this country. Our law enforcement officers have already incredibly difficult and dangerous jobs. That is why recent attacks on law enforcement by extreme elements wanting to upend our society deeply sadden millions of Americans, myself included, who support the police. Instead of providing the resources to assist our police, these radicals want to defund our police departments altogether. This is insanity. We should ask ourselves how we can help police do their jobs more safely and effectively, not vilify them. I am proud to back the blue. The majority of Americans who recognize their security and well-being depend upon the police to back the blue too. All our law enforcement officers who serve us so faithfully should know that they have our sincere thanks and appreciation, not only during Police Appreciation Week, but always.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at the smoke and mirrors and fog of obfuscation surrounding the debate on this bill. What Republicans are doing here today is defending the Constitution and what was put in place by the Founders, that Washington, D.C., the District, would not be part of a State, where it could be coerced or leveraged by a State to get things from it. I have just heard the last few minutes solutions offered to my colleagues that could probably be passed in 6 weeks or less, to allow what it is they claim they are saying for the citizens of Washington, D.C. Folding those 700,000 residents through a Maryland retrocession, as has happened with Virginia in 1846, would accomplish the goal of the same type of representation they are talking about. No, the politics is over on that side of the aisle because they have turned down a constitutional solution that this would be, instead, for an unconstitutional one that flies in the face and produces a 66- square-mile State that is \1/18\th the size of Rhode Island, with a population just a little bit larger than the city of Fresno, California, because they want to accomplish a political goal while we defend the Constitution.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, yet another blatant political power grab is underway on the heels of H.R. 1, nationalizing all that is wrong with our elections, the packing of the Supreme Court, and now we have H.R. 51, an unconstitutional bill to create a State of Washington, D.C. The Founders were very clear and specific to leave our District out of the coercion and the tentacles of a State trying to influence it. No. This is yet another naked power grab to ensure two new Democratic Senators in a 90 percent Democrat district. That is the result they are trying to get. This new State would be 1/17th the size of Rhode Island and about the same population as Fresno, California. In 1847, the Virginia Retrocession Act took some of the excess land that they weren't using and put it back into Virginia. We can do the same thing with a bill I am coauthoring, taking the unneeded part and putting it back into Maryland, instead of trying to create a State against the Constitution. This is a power grab that must be stopped. It is unconstitutional, and it goes against the grain of what our Founders had in mind to have separation.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, with so much talk about infrastructure in the air lately, let's do a quick review. The last sizeable infrastructure bill was done in 2015, to the cost of about $300 billion. Now, what we see is a so-called infrastructure plan put out by the Biden administration and the House and Senate Democrats nine times that size, $2.7 trillion. We can probably find that much infrastructure to do, except there is a whole lot in this bill that is not infrastructure. Much is social spending and other things that might be good in a different bill, but not this bill. Also, in order to pay for it, they would seek to dismantle the 2017 tax reforms that did so much to promote and boost our economy and bring jobs back to the United States. It unleashed record growth. Instead, we would hurt that economy by what is in the plan. How about, instead of tax hikes to cover what is essentially socialist spending tucked into a bill being labeled as infrastructure, let's focus on the work needing done: highways, bridges, levees, dams for water storage, and broadband. These are the things people need and can actively use. What they don't need are choking taxes that harm our economy.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, I rise out of great concern for the violence and looting that has taken over Minneapolis. Even more troubling is the seeming endorsement and, yes, incitement of it by Members of this body. It is unconscionable that a Member of Congress sent to Washington to make the laws that govern our Nation would encourage Americans to disregard those laws. Yet one of our Democratic colleagues, only one day after 136 rioters were arrested, called for protesters to ``stay on the street,'' ``get more active,'' and ``get more confrontational'' against our law enforcement, urging this escalation by asking protesters to ignore the citywide curfew. Hours later, that inevitable escalation did occur, with National Guardsmen and police being fired upon. These are very dangerous actions. Is this the standard by which we want this House to represent the people of this country, that incitement? I recall a lot of talk some months ago about a much lesser speech being inciteful, language must less geared toward that being inciteful, yet it happens here. Strong action needs to be taken by Speaker Pelosi and this House against these types of words.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, April is Limb Loss and Limb Difference Awareness Month. More than 2 million Americans live with limb loss or limb difference, and an additional 28 million are at risk of amputation surgery. It is estimated that more than 500 Americans lose a limb each day. With great advances in prosthetics, sometimes we may not even know that those around us may be missing a limb. There are many causes of limb loss, some not immediately apparent to us, including, number one, vascular disease, 54 percent of which includes diabetes. Americans of all ages, from children to our seniors, are affected. Eighty-eight percent are over 45 years old. Of course, many of our brave servicemembers suffer injuries resulting in limb loss, over 1,500 currently from Iraq and Afghanistan. Each of these Americans has their own story and faces unique challenges. Many amputations result from some preventable disease and have preventable issues, such as diabetes and peripheral vascular disease. This is another reason to raise awareness of limb loss and educate ourselves and others about what it is like to live with limb loss and limb difference.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, Harriet Salarno is a remarkable woman who went through the greatest tragedy a parent can suffer, inspiring her to change the lives of families across the nation. On September 3, 1979 her eldest daughter Catina was murdered execution style on her first day of college. After being thrust into the criminal justice system Harriet soon learned that crime victims had no voice or rights in the system. She mustered a strong resolve that only a remarkable woman can, and she began the fight for a voice for crime victims and survivors as well as for public safety in California and throughout the nation. To accomplish her mission, she founded Crime Victims United, the only political action group of its kind in the nation dedicated to advocating for survivors of crime and for public safety. Starting in 1982, she began her work by successfully getting the legislature to amend the California constitution to include crime victims' rights (the first one in the history of the nation). Nearly forty years later, she endeavors daily to ensure the victims of crime, survivors, and first responders are not forgotten. Her efforts have led to state and national reforms including constitutional amendments, legislative and regulatory changes. Her vision, passion, and mission is clear in her formidable resolve to educate those that are often the most forgotten in our society. To this day she can be found at the legislature or in communities educating and advocating for others about crime victims and public safety. Her commitment to never have another family feel the pain and isolation she has felt, remains clear and strong to this day. Harriet has never forgotten what victims need most; someone to listen, someone to grieve with, and someone to support them in their darkest of times. At the age of 88, she still goes to her office daily answering phone calls and emailing letters to assist victims. She sends cards to families on the days of remembrance; and she strives to allow families not only to grieve but gather the strength to move forward. Truly she has changed the lives of those in despair. While creating this unique organization, she raised two daughters and grandchildren who also share the same aspirations for assisting victims, ensuring public safety, and she has served as their role model to inspire community service. Harriet has given our world multiple generations of those who are the helpers of those who most need it in their darkest time. It has been my privilege to work with Harriet over the years and a true honor to call her my friend.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, the absurd proposal brought forth now to pack the U.S. Supreme Court out of thin air with four new Justices is the latest in a breathtaking effort to seize and seal power for Democrats. They know their policies frequently don't win at the ballot box or in fair elections, so they seek to stack a Court with a new set of Justices that they hope will hand them victories outside of the hallowed legislative process. Justice Breyer, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and even Joe Biden himself--who is quoted as saying packing the Court is a ``bonehead idea''--all disagree, at least at one time, that packing the Court to simply grab a majority is wrong-headed and un-American. I am glad to enter into a constitutional amendment with Representative Dusty Johnson to ``Keep the 9'' and save our Supreme Court, to keep it above politics. This is one of the most blatant, naked power grabs we have seen, ever. If this effort is somehow successful and allowed to stand, then you will not recognize the America we know, once knew, as pure power politics will indeed have won over our process that the Founders put in place.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, weeks ago, the Biden administration made Vice President Kamala Harris the border czar. The question I have is: Which border? We learned today that Czar Kamala is traveling to Guatemala. While we do need cooperation from Guatemala in halting the flow of illegal entrants from Central America, it defies logic that weeks after her appointment, Czar Kamala Harris has not visited the very border--our border--with Mexico that she has been tasked with protecting. It seems as if the Biden-Harris administration has gone out of its way to ignore the seriousness of the border crisis it has created. Even as the number of illegal border crossers and unaccompanied minors shatter records, Democrats have declared that everything under the sun is infrastructure except a border wall. In fact, a wall protecting our border might be the only thing Democrats do not want to throw money at right now. To the Biden administration and Czar Kamala: Border security is national security, and the American people are pleading for you to take steps to end this crisis you created. It is time to answer their call.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, last year Portland, Oregon, cut $16 million from their police budget. This has led to a twenty-fold increase, unfortunately, in deadly shootings. Mayor Wheeler has been forced to reverse course now and ask for more funding for police. Similar to this, the Biden administration is having to reverse course due to the crisis on the border. Now, many are getting hung up on using the word ``crisis,'' so FEMA is now involved, and they deal with disasters, hence, the Biden border disaster. Less than 2 months in, the border is worse than it has been in two decades. And now, Biden has been forced to reverse course and ask Mexico to help control the flow of migrants once again, after previously dismantling the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy. Also, on his first day in the Biden administration, they issued a proclamation to halt all border construction, despite Congress funding it and demanding that it be built. Now, just yesterday, the administration has said it was moving forward with border wall construction. Good. As they are learning in Portland, Seattle, and Minneapolis, the Biden administration is learning law and order is also required on our border or you get a disaster.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, what this bill is not is amnesty, even though it may be dismissed as such. Americans have demonstrated they will not step forward to do this work, not with the nonworking benefits they can already access. Frequent anecdotes show that those that might, frequently quit after a few days because the work is too hard, even at dramatically increased wages. This law does not hand out citizenship or allow anyone to cut ahead in line to apply for it. The same goes for green cards. No express lane for green cards, not even government benefit eligibility. This is simply a way to get right with the law, have a capped pool of already in-place ag workers with legal status. That is better for the worker, the farmer, and for our system of ID'ing who is in this country currently. It is a vast improvement over what we have now.

Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, let's acknowledge the reality of what we have right now, a big mess of a situation that hasn't been cured in several decades. We used to have a system of invited workers, called the bracero program. Political battling has caused no new fix in all of this time. Similarly, this bill allows good workers, decent people, to get right with the law, with background checks, with restitution, and requirements to stay right with their ag worker status. The same bill passed this House through committee last Congress with good bipartisan support. It has benchmarks that must be met by workers who are already here with history in ag, not opening the floodgates to more illegal entry and benefits. More recent entrants are required to remain in ag work for 8 additional years to remain eligible. We have caps in this bill to the current approximately 700,000 workers already here, with capped ratchets if more are needed. It establishes an E-Verify for ag, with strong biometric screening for all these certified ag workers, something we have never had under E-Verify. It codifies in law many of the pieces adopted in the Trump administration's H-2A rule, including staggered H-2A and making it much less burdensome for farmers to get these workers, especially dairy, which needs year-round workers and cannot have it now.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the House voted on H.R. 485, Stronger CAPTA, a reauthorization of the Child Abuse Protection and Treatment Act. Abuse is obviously a horrible thing that no child should have to suffer. However, this legislation has multiple issues which I call on the Senate to fix. Notably, it would create a national registry of child abuse and neglect. Now, this sounds good, but under current law, a person does not need to be convicted or even charged with a crime to be put on a State abuse registry, which leads to many parents being added due to misfiled paperwork or perhaps overzealous CPS workers. Homeschooling parents in particular face this issue, and an appeal can take months or even years to get a name removed from the list. By nationalizing State registries, this problem will spread nationwide without a fix. The legislation attempts to address this concern by creating a working group to study and make recommendations on due process concerns, but that is not a sufficient safeguard for Americans' due process rights. A 2009 HHS report on the feasibility of a national child abuse registry noted that a national registry would be plagued by false positives, where an innocent person sharing a name with an abuser would be flagged in background searches. I call on the Senate to fix this legislation.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. President Trump is owed yet another apology from fake news outlets. The recent revelation about the Washington Post and its retraction and other disinformation sources going with a made-up narrative from ``sources'' in the Georgia election scandal prove, once again, that no act is out of bounds for the media, Democrats, and others with Trump derangement syndrome in their effort to discredit President Trump. The Washington Post even went so far as to criticize all conservative media for not covering this story. Two distorted accounts of phone calls by President Trump got us two phony, baseless impeachment proceedings by this House. With no real review, witness testimony, or anything else resembling due process in the bum-rush to have round two of impeachment, the blatant political usage of this process is a stain on this institution and should be an embarrassment to all who drove it. Apologies are owed not only to President Trump, but, more importantly, to the citizens of the United States, who lived through a year of being clamped down, their jobs lost and damaged, savings used up, and a giant legacy of deficit and death that this institution should be tackling. Instead, many weeks and costs wasted on two impeachments in two years in the House. Shame on this institution for fulfilling this fake news.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas, Mr. Roy. Indeed, as another representative of a border state, we feel the effect as well of the Biden border crisis. President Trump saw the importance, as did many law-and-order Americans, of having a secure border. The Biden administration stopped construction of the security fence hours after being inaugurated. This has given us now the Biden border crisis. Really bad enforcement of immigration, that seems to be their priority. Risking health of Americans with virus superspreaders is a result. As my colleague mentioned, the catch-and-release program is in full force. Do we really expect people to be released in this country to come back to have a hearing within 2 years? Past pattern shows not. The Biden administration has just canceled an agreement with Mexico to keep the asylum seekers on that side of the border, which worked pretty well to keep the numbers down from those coming through Mexico from Central America. Now the incentivization of that is another big green light. Look at the numbers we are talking about here. Just in January, the numbers increased to 78,000 and change. In February, 100,000 so-called encounters at the border for people who our personnel have to deal with or might be sneaking through without dealing with our personnel. To add final insult to this policy, to Americans, to taxpayers, in the so-called COVID relief bill, checks can go to illegal immigrants who are coming here via this manner. I mean, whose side is this administration on? The hardworking Americans coming through a COVID crisis, high unemployment? Who are they working for? I don't think it is us. I don't think it is the American people. As a Californian, I also want to harken back to two tragedies amongst many. In northern California, just a few short years ago, we lost a beautiful young lady named Kate Steinle in San Francisco, who was killed by an illegal immigrant who shouldn't have been here, who should have been deported at least five times over. Jamiel Shaw from the Los Angeles area, whose father I have met. His dad lost his son to a killing by an illegal immigrant. Whose side is this administration on when they carry out this policy just to either show they are different from Trump or that it is a political gain for them in their twisted view? Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, after good results and success in recent years of defending and controlling our border, the Biden administration has turned on the green light that is seen all the way to Central America for immigrating here illegally, giving us the Biden border crisis. It is not a matter of asylum, as asylum can be sought in Mexico. Continuing the trek to the U.S. border shows it is really about employment and economics. Meanwhile, as our citizens struggle with unemployment and the shutdowns from COVID, the Biden border crisis has subjected border States, like my State of California, to COVID outbreak risks from those bypassing our laws. This begs the question: Whose side is the Biden administration on, America's unemployed and COVID high-risk vulnerable or foreign interests for politics? Indeed, it doesn't seem like they are on the side of Americans, and we are given, after less than 2 months, the Biden border crisis.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I am from California, and almost 2 years ago, the State passed a bill known as AB-5, where all workers would be presumed as employees unless the worker can show that they satisfy all three prongs of what is known as the ABC test. It went into effect in January 2020, and it had quite a few exemptions in it--barbers, musicians, translators, home inspectors, golf caddies, things like that. But after the bill passed, flaws were found in it. They had to go back and legislate again to add newspapers. They had to go back and extend the time for others for when it would kick in. So, what is happening? Here in this House, we are on H.R. 842. Now, I had an amendment that would provide for some of those exemptions. This provides for zero exemptions for this requirement that all would be presumed as employees. We are going to go ahead and do actually worse than the State of California, passing the PRO Act without the exemptions. Government should be here to foster economic growth, not restrict it. The PRO Act would kill growth, squash innovation in the gig economy and the American economy. Why are we going backward here when we can learn from California's mistake?

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, this week our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are proposing more gun control measures under H.R. 1446 and H.R. 8. Mr. Speaker, our Constitution protects all your rights, not selectively by the State or issue. One bill makes you ask permission via background checks with no limits when and how you can purchase a firearm. If they don't complete their work in time, then no gun for you. This is an indefinite delay of your rights. Another supposed background check bill is designed to make criminals out of Americans who are merely trying to help out others. Under this bill if a neighbor with issues, domestic violence, or maybe a suicidal situation decides to give you their gun for safekeeping, you could end up with a fine and a year in prison--$100,000 fine and a year in prison for helping them by possessing that gun for them. The same if someone has a problem with stalking or domestic violence. Maybe you loan a woman a gun. You could be also threatened with prosecution under that guise. Neither of these bills work because they violate a simple truth: criminals don't follow gun laws. They are criminals. I have a more reasonable path: amendments to guarantee your rights under the Second Amendment.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, American voters deserve to have confidence in their election process. This is not it. A few basic principles: voter ID so we know who is showing up and who is receiving ballots; a clean set of voting rolls so the people who are eligible--of all types, the people who are truly eligible in this country--are voting from their proper domicile; we know they are citizens; and we know they are the right age. But somehow we find these things to be problematic and somehow this is going to be suppressing votes--what, for people being eligible to vote being the actual voters that they live in the right State, that they are the right age, and that they are citizens? It is ridiculous the lengths that the Democrats want to go to upset our election process and the confidence people have in it. It could be really quite simple. Have the election end on election night. In one place in my district, they found a box 30-something days after the election. They had to open back up the certified election to take care of a box that had drop-off ballots in it. We are making a farce out of our elections in this country. And this, by nationalizing them, will make it that much worse. In the Constitution, the Congress established the States will run their elections. We only need to have very narrow guidelines for how our Federal ones are conducted.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, the top priority bill of the House of Representatives this year for the Democrats seems to be H.R. 1, known as the For the People Act. What people is this going to benefit? For the politicians act, you might call it. It helps politicians and hacks like The Lincoln Project, not the people. For example, if this bill passes, a political candidate raising approximately $800,000 in their campaign under certain guidelines could have the Federal Government match funds up to $6 million that could be used for anything put into campaign--$6 million of your Federal dollars going into a single congressional race under the right conditions. These formulas are geared to ratchet up from the previous election cycle. As we know, campaigns get more expensive each time; so does the match. Also, under this bill, the Federal Government would hand out $25 vouchers to every voter in three chosen States to donate to candidates. How much will that cost just to administer a program like that? We know the Federal Government doesn't do that cheaply, maybe $25 per check to give each $25 contribution. If you hand a bureaucrat a hammer, they will see everything as a nail. The new system fines more people in order to raise funds for this campaign giveaway. The fines will go up, and businesses will be hurt, all in order to provide something not for the people.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Arkansas. I appreciate the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 803. In my Northern California district, we are devastated year after year after year, as we are all over the West by wildfire and unmanaged forests. Adding 1.5 million more acres of untouchable lands because of wilderness designation does not help. It will merely make the problem worse. What is the purpose of a new wilderness designation? What does it achieve? It isn't needed to prevent a new highway or a new mine, oil and gas operations, or a new dam. Those are already difficult things to get permitted, taking years and years. So why do we have to have this designation? We are already so far behind on forest management that I don't know when we will ever get out of it, because every year--every year--we have devastating fires affecting our public lands, the access to those lands, the private lands that are near them, and the towns of the people that live nearby them as well. The economy has already been devastated in those areas because of regulatory ideas that come out of Washington, D.C., and California to stop the type of work that needs to be done for those logging communities. Mr. Speaker, this is wrongheaded legislation and is unnecessary.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, I rise tonight in sadness to acknowledge and commemorate the loss of an American icon, Rush Limbaugh, who, since 1985, extolled the virtues of conservatism on radio. Starting in Sacramento, California, for the first 3 years, 1985 to 1988, he was within range of my tractor and my pickup out in the fields, where I was working at the time. He was really a breath of fresh air for radio, for a different type of talk and a different style. I know he inspired millions around the country during his many years on radio. With his loss, he won't be replaced. He surely led the way for many others to take on that mantle, but nobody will do it quite like Rush Limbaugh. He did so well at it, and he touched so many that he was even recognized about 1 year ago right here in this Chamber by President Trump with the Medal of Freedom, one of the highest honors anybody can receive. Mr. Limbaugh may be controversial to some, but he was always coming from truly a humble heart to try to get a message out to what America was about, his love for this country, and a love for its ideals. So I know that many will miss him, and I am glad to be honored to help touch on his legacy here tonight.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, the Equality Act's supporters claim it will protect students from discrimination, but in reality it makes schools more dangerous and unfair for everyone. By expanding the definition of ``sex'' to include self-declared gender identity, it requires schools to allow biological males into girls' restrooms, locker rooms, showers, and sport events usually reserved for women. And by incorporating sexual orientation and gender identity into Title IV of the Civil Rights Act, which appropriately mandates the desegregation of public education, this bill could order the incorporation of radical gender ideology in sex education or other aspects of curriculum, far outside the original law's scope. Activists are already pushing graphic, age-inappropriate content on these topics on students in places like Arlington, Virginia. This bill puts teachers and administrators at risk too. Those who ``misgender'' a student or fail to use the individual's preferred pronouns could be accused of harassment and subject to discipline or even lose their jobs. Girls would also face unfair competition in sports. The Equality Act would force schools to allow biological males to compete on female-only teams. We have already seen consequences of this. One transgender MMA fighter has broken the skulls of two female opponents (and counting), and transgender runners and basketball players are dominating female competitors, leaving many females' long ambitioned goals of trophies and scholarships dashed. For years, supporters of Title IX have fought to encourage and empower girls through athletic competition. Democrats would like to erase those gains, shattering countless girls' dreams and dignity, to appease the woke mob. Americans of faith would suffer too. Religiously affiliated colleges and universities that maintain student codes of conduct, hiring practices, or housing rules reflecting their faith's sincerely held belies about marriage and sexuality would lose federal funding under the Equality Act, as such policies would be deemed discriminatory and open them to countless lawsuits to threaten their very existence. All-female universities, whether religious or secular, would be required to accept male students identifying as female students, and male students identifying as males, since this bill provides no exemptions for female-only institutions. Is that a policy Americans want? The misnamed Equality Act erases opportunities for girls and women and harms all students and teachers. It must be opposed.