Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment with Congressman Gaetz to prohibit the transfer of cluster munitions.

Most U.S. allies, including almost every NATO member, have joined the Convention on Cluster Munitions, but not the United States. That is a grave mistake because these weapons maim and kill civilians indiscriminately and can be lethal indefinitely.

It is reported that up to 40 percent of these weapons don't explode on impact. If they don't explode, they become literal ticking time bombs, scattering tiny bomblets that are more like landmines. Even if the dud rate is far lower than 40 percent, the risk to civilians, to children, to our moral authority is too great.

In 2021, the Landmine and Cluster Munitions Monitor found that over 97 percent of casualties from cluster bomb remnants were civilians, and two-thirds of those were children. That is because these deadly weapons don't look dangerous. In fact, they look interesting to kids. They look like toys. When kids find these weapons in trees, in water, or on the ground, they often try to pick them up and can end up losing a limb or their life.

No amount of guardrails for cluster munitions is enough. No amount of so-called tactical advantage is enough. It isn't enough to say the other side is doing it, so we might as well, too. It is not worth it when civilian lives are at stake. It is not worth it when our reputation is at stake.

Our commitment to our core democratic values, like protecting civilians, abiding by international humanitarian law, and upholding human rights is the foundation of our reputation on the world stage, and it is what allows us to build and maintain international coalitions to make the world a better place and advance our national security goals. That is why we need to ban the transfer of these weapons. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. JACOBS. Madam Chair, as Americans, we pride ourselves on freedom, freedom to receive information and ideas from anyone and anywhere, to think freely, to speak freely, but this amendment is nothing more than censorship and a violation of our First Amendment rights, all in an effort to erase the existence of transgender and intersex people.

This amendment would reinforce the negativity, hostility, discrimination, and misunderstanding that many transgender and intersex youth already experience. In 2021, 68 percent of all LGBTQ+ students surveyed by GLSEN reported feeling unsafe in their school environment due to their perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression. More than three-quarters of LGBTQ+ students report experiencing in-person verbal harassment based on their sexual orientation, gender expression, or gender at some point in the past year.

Here is the fact: Attempts to erase transgender and intersex people from schools will exacerbate these challenges and increase their isolation, but it won't erase the existence of transgender and intersex people, much to some of my colleagues' dismay.

Parents across the country want their children to learn in safe and affirming environments, but this amendment is an answer to a problem we don't have. It would set a dangerous precedent that politicians can censor a range of school content based on a politician's political ideologies.

It is so broad that it would ban schools from teaching about a range of animals, including, for instance, clownfish, which can change their sex. So, no more ``Finding Nemo'' in DODEA schools, I guess.

Schools should be focused on creating environments that support all students, including transgender and intersex students, not censoring content.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Chair, I think we can all agree we want our military dependents to be safe and healthy. In fact, that is a crucial part of our national security. If our servicemembers are worried about their families, then they are not going to be focused on the mission that we need them to do.

That is why military dependents should have access to gender- affirming care, which is safe, essential, medically necessary care that promotes the health and well-being of transgender people.

Now, I highly doubt my colleagues who support this amendment know someone who has personally received gender-affirming care, let alone talked to them about their experience and about what it was like with the doctor and about how hard or easy it was to receive that care. I have.

Earlier this year, my transgender brother had gender-affirming care surgery. He will tell you it has been life-changing, and it has improved his relationship with his body, his life, and his society. He will also tell you, Mr. Chair, it wasn't easy to get.

That confidence and happiness that my brother has is what I want for everyone, especially those in the LGBTQ+ community who are, too often, misunderstood, judged, discriminated against, and have to hear the hateful things coming from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

However, by denying servicemembers the ability to provide medically necessary care for their children, this amendment will lead servicemembers to leave the military, and it will weaken efforts to recruit other people with trans family members to join the military.

We have already seen this happen where servicemembers have had to dramatically alter their career or leave the service altogether in order to support their trans dependents.

The bottom line is this: The Federal Government should not get in the middle of medical decisions, period.

This amendment will be unconstitutional and will likely lead to costly litigation. We have already seen similar laws struck down in the courts for violating the equal protection clause, by denying transgender adolescents the same care that is provided to cisgender adolescents, and the bans would violate the fundamental due process rights of parents to provide best practice medical care for their children.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source