W. Steube

Mr. STEUBE

Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Chairman, I will make this very quick and to the point. If this bill were to become law, illegal immigrants illegally crossing our border will have better access to healthcare at government expense than our veterans with service-connected disabilities. And not just better healthcare access to specialty doctors and psychiatric care, not just that, but within a timeframe 30 to 60 days faster than veterans can get appointments for medical care at a VA facility. The requirements in this bill show that, depending on the scenario, CBP has 6 to 12 hours to provide care to the immigrant. A veteran under the MISSION Act that was passed by Congress last session, has 30 to 60 days to get an appointment. So we are treating an illegal immigrant within a day, a requirement by law, where veterans have to wait 30 to 60 days just to get an appointment. And let's discuss the cost. Oh, that is right, we don't know the cost because the majority didn't consult CBP or Homeland Security, and we have absolutely no idea how much this is going to cost. We are going to put this unfunded mandate on CBP when they are already taxed and already tolled with the crisis that we have on the border and not know how much it is going to cost them to implement all of these medical requirements that are in this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment; however, I do not oppose it.

Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Chair, this amendment would direct the DHS Office of Inspector General to investigate CBP's compliance with Federal regulations promulgated to prevent, detect, and respond to sexual abuse in CBP facilities. I have no objection to the amendment insofar as the inspector general is already directed by statute to conduct audits to ensure compliance with Federal regulations, and I have no doubt that the men and women of CBP are effectively carrying out the mandates of regulations, implementing a zero tolerance for sexual abuse policy. CBP is currently bound by duly published regulation at 6 CFR 115 that the agency mandate ``zero tolerance toward all forms of sexual abuse.'' The regulation contains extensive and detailed requirements implemented to prevent sexual assault. Those requirements detail the steps CBP must take relating to prevention planning; responsive planning in the case of an allegation; training and education; risk assessments; reporting mechanisms; the official response following a detainee report; investigations; disciplinary sanctions for staff, contractors, and volunteers; medical and mental care; data collection and review; and audits for compliance. These regulations are designed to ensure the safety of not only those in custody, but also of CBP personnel and staff in CBP facilities. The Inspector General Act already requires the DHS Office of Inspector General ``to conduct, supervise, and coordinate audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations'' of the DHS. And the inspector general routinely conducts audits of DHS programs and facilities to ensure compliance with Federal regulations. I have no objection to the amendment, which directs the OIG to do what it already does under the Inspector General Act, which is to conduct audits to ensure compliance with regulations promulgated by the DHS to ensure the safety of CBP personnel and those in custody. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Chair, this amendment is in keeping with the clear hostility with which the majority views the men and women of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, including the Border Patrol agents who have put their lives on the line to effectuate over 3,800 migrant rescues so far this fiscal year and the officers of field operations who are in peril each day when they search vehicles and pedestrians for dangerous and deadly narcotics like fentanyl. The amendment requires quarterly publication of complaints of sexual abuse in CBP facilities. Of course, preventing sexual abuse in any government facility is an extremely important endeavor, but this amendment does not do that. Instead, it requires premature publication of mere allegations without any context. The effect is the maligning of the men and women who serve on our border and at our ports of entry without doing anything to actually prevent such abuse. This amendment requires all complaints to be aggregated and published quarterly, regardless of whether an investigation is complete, regardless of whether the complaint was substantiated, and regardless of whether the victim was a CBP employee, contractor, or detainee. We will not know whether those complaints were ever substantiated or unsubstantiated pursuant to an investigation. We will not know whether those complaints were against CBP personnel, contracted staff, or against other aliens in the facility. We will not know whether the victims were CBP personnel, contracted staff, or an alien in the facility. I am also concerned that the amendment requires CBP to exclude personally identifiable information of the individual who reported the abuse, but it is silent as to the personally identifiable information of the accused. It would be inappropriate to publish a complaint against an individual without any context, especially if an investigation later determines that the complaint is unsubstantiated. The Judiciary Committee already went through a similar situation with Health and Human Services, where one member of the majority claimed that hundreds of sexual abuse allegations were made against HHS employees when, in fact, the allegations by unaccompanied alien children were against contractors and other UACs. The requirements of this amendment will simply give the appearance, regardless of the facts or ultimate outcome of the investigation into the complaints, that CBP facilities are rife with sexual abuse. And the further implication is that CBP personnel condone sexual violence. Such a characterization is offensive to the hardworking men and women of CBP who follow existing regulations and policies to prevent sexual abuse in their facilities. In fact, CBP is bound by a duly published regulation at 6 CFR 115, that the agency mandate ``zero tolerance toward all forms of sexual abuse.'' And ``zero tolerance'' isn't a mere buzzword. The regulation contains extensive and detailed requirements implemented to prevent sexual assault. Those requirements detail the steps CBP must take relating to prevention planning; responsive planning in the case of an allegation; training and education; risk assessments; reporting mechanisms; the official response following a detainee report; investigations; disciplinary sanctions for staff, contractors, and volunteers; medical and mental care; data collection and review; and audits for compliance. The manager's amendment to the bill already makes clear that the bill does not abrogate existing policies designed to prevent, detect, and respond to sexual abuse. In fact, it acknowledges that CBP has a zero- tolerance policy for sexual abuse. Furthermore, the DHS OIG is already directed to conduct unannounced inspections of CBP facilities in the bill, and CBP's own existing regulations require periodic audits based on the risk assessment of the facility. CBP is already confronting a crisis that is worsened by congressional inaction to fix the loopholes in our laws that fuel illegal immigration. The men and women who protect our border have been given an enormous task made more difficult by offensive rhetoric. Congress shouldn't make their job more difficult by requiring premature publication of complaints without context, which will have the effect of wrongfully painting the civil servants as sexual predators. I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STEUBE

Mr. STEUBE. Madam Speaker, I missed the following votes due to a family obligation. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 426; YEA on Roll Call No. 427; NAY on Roll Call No. 428; YEA on Roll Call No. 429; and NAY on Roll Call No. 430.

Mr. STEUBE

Mr. STEUBE. Madam Speaker, I unfortunately missed the last vote on H.R. 5 final passage due to personal reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 217.

Mr. STEUBE

Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5. To begin, I would like to echo the comments of my colleagues and express my deep concern for the grave consequences this bill would have for religious freedom. This bill would deny religious organizations their religious liberty rights guaranteed under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 and force many religious institutions to go against their beliefs or risk being in violation of the law. As a nation we cannot turn our back on our religious liberties. Now, while the religious freedom aspects of this legislation are by far the most egregious, there is also another area of serious concern-- the effects of the legislation on female athletes at all levels of sporting competition across our country. Twice during the consideration of this bill, I have offered an amendment to ensure that our daughters are provided an equal playing field in sports for generations to come and that female athletes are not competing against male athletes for athletic scholarships and title IX funding. And twice partisan politics have stopped this commonsense proposal from being added to this bill. This provision would have simply guaranteed that biological women are not forced to compete against biological men at all levels of athletic competition. Science has proven time and time again that there is a significant performance difference between biological males and females from puberty onward. From percentage of lean muscle, to heart size, to body fat, to joint angles, the bodies of men and women are distinctly unique and produce a vast difference in performance ability when it comes to certain activities. In fact, there is an average 10- to 12-percent performance gap between elite biological male and female athletes. These differences are largely due to the large influx of testosterone males receive during puberty. Science is very clear here--there is no doubt that testosterone is the reason that biological men, as a group, perform better than women in sports. That is why both men and women dope with androgens that are high in testosterone. On average, in elite biological male athletes, there is 30 times more testosterone present, leading to physical characteristics that almost guarantee a higher rate of success in sporting events. But don't take my word for it. Here are examples: CeCe Telfer, a biological male, won three titles in the Northeast-10 Championships for women's track and received the Most Outstanding Track Athlete award. Fallon Fox, a biological male, shattered female fighter Tamikka Brents' eye socket and gave her a concussion. Brents said she never felt so overpowered in her life. Gabrielle Ludwig, a 50-year-old, 6-foot-8-inch, 230-pound biological male led the Mission College women's basketball team to a national championship with the most rebounds. The list goes on and on. I, for one, don't think it is fair or equal to make young, biological women compete against biological males. This bill claims to fight for equality, but it seems to be far from equal for the young, female athletes across our country. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mr. STEUBE

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

Mr. STEUBE. I am in its present form.

Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it abundantly clear exactly what this motion to recommit does, so I am going to read it. It is very short. ``Nothing in this act or any amendment made by this act may be construed to diminish any protections under title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.'' The threat that this bill poses for women's sports at every level is profound. As described by the Nation's leading expert on sports, sex, and biology, Professor Doriane Lambelet Coleman, she states: ``There is a significant performance difference between males and females. . . . Testosterone is the primary driver of that difference. There is a wide gap, no overlap, between the male and female testosterone ranges. . . . There is no scientific doubt that testosterone is the reason that men as a group perform better than women in sports. Indeed, this is why men and women dope with androgens. . . .'' Requiring that biological females face competition from biological males will mean the end of women's sports in any meaningful sense. As tennis great Martina Navratilova has written in The Washington Post: ``In its current form, the Equality Act would do significant damage to title IX and to the Amateur Sports Act, which governs sports outside of educational settings. The new legislation would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act by redefining `sex' to include `gender identity.' Without an exception, the definition would apply to all amendments to the 1964 act, including title IX. Most schools, colleges, the NCAA, and the Olympic Committee would be affected because they receive Federal funds and operate in interstate commerce. ``The legislation would make it unlawful to differentiate among girls and women in sports on the basis of sex for any purpose. For example, a sports team couldn't treat a transgender woman differently from a woman who is not transgender on the grounds that the former is male-bodied. Yet the reality is that putting male- and female-bodied athletes together is co-ed or open sport. And in open sport, females lose. ``Some Equality Act advocates argue that this is hyperbole and outdated stereotype. They say, as the ACLU has, that there is `ample evidence that girls can compete and win against boys.' They are wrong. The evidence is unequivocal that starting in puberty, in every sport except sailing, shooting, and riding, there will always be significant numbers of boys and men who would beat the best girls and women in head-to-head competition. Claims to the contrary are simply a denial of science.'' Those are not my words. Those are the words of female tennis great Martina Navratilova. In footnote 44 of the committee report on this bill, the Democrat majority states: ``The committee acknowledges that the addition of sex as a protected characteristic under title VI of the bill raises some questions about how the revised title VI should be read in relation to title IX of the Education Amendments Act. It is the committee's intention not to alter in any way title IX or the scope or availability of its exemptions as they currently stand. Rather, title IX and the revised title VI should be read as being complimentary provisions that provide overlapping protection against sex discrimination.'' But, of course, we all know that allowing biological males to compete against biological females is not an ``overlapping protection.'' It is, instead, a violation of women's rights to engage in competitive sports on an even playing field and to enjoy the protection of their own spaces reserved for biological females. So this motion to recommit is essential to protecting the rights of women and girls in sports that H.R. 5 currently denies. Even the Obama administration wrote a letter to schools regarding title IX enforcements making clear that they should continue to be able to enforce policies that are ``tailored requirements based on sound, current, and research-based medical knowledge about the impact of the individual's participation on the competitive fairness or physical safety of the sport.'' Adoption of this motion to recommit will not kill the bill. It will not delay the bill's consideration. If this motion to recommit is adopted, the bill proceeds directly to final passage. If H.R. 5 becomes law, our daughters will be asking us: ``What did you do when moves were made to eliminate women's sports?'' It is worth considering that question now before it is too late. I urge all my colleagues to join me in protecting title IX and protecting women's sports and supporting this motion to recommit.

Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. STEUBE

Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Chairman, today, I rise in opposition to H.R. 8. Mr. Chairman, this legislation claims to be a solution to gun violence, yet does nothing to actually solve the real problems that contribute to this crisis. As it stands now, this legislation does nothing to make our schools, churches, or communities safer. In fact, it only infringes on the constitutionally guaranteed Second Amendment rights of law-abiding American citizens, something I cannot support. This bill will criminalize the private transfer of firearms and will make exercising basic constitutional rights impossibly expensive for millions of law-abiding Americans. Not to mention, it is essentially unenforceable without a national gun registry. But, let's be honest, that is where my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to end up: registering firearms so they can systematically take them away. We must stop our Nation from falling down this slippery slope. I think we can all agree that something needs to be done to stop the illegal ownership and misuse of firearms, but H.R. 8 is not the answer. This legislation would have done nothing to prevent many of the prominent tragedies that occurred in my home State of Florida. The shooter at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland passed a background check. The shooter at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando passed a background check. And, just weeks ago, a man who murdered five women in my district passed a background check. H.R. 8 would have done nothing to stop these violent acts, just like the previous attempts to require universal background checks have done nothing to prevent actual crimes. If Democrats are serious about gun violence, they would have voted for my amendment. I filed an amendment in committee that would have required law enforcement to be notified upon the attempt of someone to purchase a firearm and failed a background check. Law enforcement would have been notified. But instead of supporting policies that curtail legal possession of firearms, the Democrats on both the Judiciary Committee and the Rules Committee rejected my proposal. How is that unreasonable? Mr. Chairman, I stand for the Constitution. I stand for freedom. And I stand for the Second Amendment. That is why I am not voting for this proposal.

Mr. STEUBE

Mr. STEUBE. Madam Speaker, I missed this vote series due to a death in the family. Had I been present, I would have voted nay on Roll Call No. 72; yea on Roll Call No. 73; yea on Roll Call No. 74; and yea on Roll Call No. 75.

Mr. STEUBE

Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Speaker, I missed this vote series due to a death in the family. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 68, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 69, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 70, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 71.

Mr. STEUBE

Mr. STEUBE. Madam Speaker, I missed this vote series due to a death in the family. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 66 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 67.