This week, the House considered several pieces of legislation, but before I get into them, I want to talk about something that will be important to remember throughout this Congress. And that is bill naming. Over the years I have written to you about how bills are named, and frequently noted that the names are misleading or disingenuous. This week brought that issue to the forefront, and I expect that will continue.
Often, the titles of bills are written to deliver a political message. They are short and simple. And the idea is that, from the title alone, people at home will think “How could you vote against that?”
It’s good politics, but it’s not good policy.
The bills themselves are rarely short and simple. And it’s my job to consider the entire bill, not just the title. As they say, the devil is in the details. Often, bills contain some sentiments that our district supports and some it does not. It takes thoughtful analysis and balancing to determine whether to vote yes or no on many bills that come to the House floor. And using the title alone is simply not a good way to make those decisions. (But it’s a great way to make headlines. And negative ads.)
This week, the House considered two bills that demonstrate this. This first is (H.R. 28), which House Republicans called the “Protection of Women and Girls Sports Act” and House Democrats called the “Child Predator Empowerment Act.” The bill’s sponsors claimed that the bill’s purpose was to “protect women and girls” in sports by revoking federal funding from schools that allow transgender girls and women to play on girls’ sports teams at any age and any level of competition. House Democrats pointed out that the enforcement of the bill would greenlight gender inquisitions and violations of girls’ privacy—making it possible for anyone to question and investigate a child’s sex—inviting harassment, bullying, and privacy violations for female athletes of all ages. We should be protecting the equal rights and fair access to educational opportunities for all, but this bill does not do that—it targets kids and empowers people who may not have their best interests at heart. In the circumstance of youth and competitive sports, there are organizations that are better suited to addressing the complex and deeply personal issues in these cases. For these reasons, I voted against the bill, which passed the House by a vote of 218-206.
The House also considered a bill (H.R.30) titled the Preventing Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act. Domestic violence is on the rise, and Congress should be working on real solutions to keep survivors safe. But this bill has the potential to do the opposite and to put domestic violence victims at greater risk. As written, this bill could punish domestic violence victims—for example, a woman acting in self-defense—and enable abusers to threaten their victims to stay silent. That is why a diverse group of 200 national and local advocacy and religious groups who work on behalf of survivors have opposed it. Congress can and should do more to prevent domestic violence and sexual assault and to support survivors, including appropriating resources for enforcement so that people who commit these crimes are punished to the fullest extent of the law. Despite its name, the bill the House considered does not do these things. It does not improve protections for victims of sexual assault or domestic violence, and it does not solve problems with our immigration system or at our border. For these reasons, I voted against the bill, but it passed the House by a vote of 274-145.
On Wednesday, the House also considered the United States-Taiwan Expedited Double-Tax Relief Act (H.R.33), a bill designed to strengthen the economic partnership between the United States and Taiwan by addressing double taxation of Taiwanese residents who have income from sources within the United States. I voted for the bill, which passed the House by a vote of 423-1.
The House also considered several bills and voted on them under suspension of the rules, which passed on a bipartisan basis, and I am glad to highlight a few here: (1) the Federal Disaster Assistance Coordination Act, H.R. 152, which establishes a working group at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to streamline and consolidate how information is collected and shared between agencies after disasters; (2) the Post-Disaster Assistance Online Accountability Act, H.R. 153, which requires government agencies that distribute grant funds following a disaster to consolidate data on grant recipients and projects into a single website; and (3) the POWER Act of 2025, H.R. 164, which allows electrical utilities that received federal aid after a major disaster declaration to access additional federal funding for resilience improvements.
As a reminder, you can always find a list of all of the votes I have taken for the district on my website.