March 28, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 54 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages H2891-H2899]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          OPPOSING BAN ON TRANSGENDER MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES

  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 
252, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 124) expressing opposition to 
banning service in the Armed Forces by openly transgender individuals, 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Johnson of Georgia). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 252, the resolution is considered read.
  The text of the resolution is as follows:

                              H. Res. 124

       Whereas, on July 26, 2017, President Trump announced via 
     Twitter that the United States Government would reverse the 
     existing policy of allowing transgender servicemembers to 
     serve openly in order to implement a ban on transgender 
     people from serving in the Armed Forces;
       Whereas transgender servicemembers have served openly since 
     2016, bravely defending our Nation with distinction while 
     preserving unit cohesion and contributing to military 
     readiness;
       Whereas a 2016 study by the RAND Corporation found that 
     allowing transgender Americans to serve openly in the Armed 
     Forces would ``have minimal impact on readiness and health 
     care costs'' and ``little or no impact on unit cohesion, 
     operational effectiveness or readiness'';
       Whereas thousands of transgender Americans currently serve 
     actively in the Armed Forces and in the Reserves throughout 
     all branches and military occupational specialties;
       Whereas the American Medical Association, the American 
     Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric 
     Association, and three former military Surgeons General each 
     have affirmed the medical efficacy of transition-related care 
     and have expressed opposition to President Trump's 
     discriminatory ban;
       Whereas the claims attempting to justify President Trump's 
     ban are based on flawed scientific and medical assertions;
       Whereas the Department of Defense report from 2018 falsely 
     asserts there is ``considerable scientific uncertainty'' 
     regarding the efficacy of transition-related care;
       Whereas there is a global medical consensus that such care 
     is effective, safe, and reliable;
       Whereas the Department of Defense has failed to provide 
     evidence the existing policy has impaired morale, unit 
     readiness, or unit cohesion;
       Whereas all five military Chiefs of Staff have testified 
     publicly that the existing policy has had no adverse effect 
     on military readiness;
       Whereas, on August 1, 2017, fifty-six retired generals and 
     admirals released a statement affirming, ``This proposed ban, 
     if implemented, would cause significant disruptions, deprive 
     the military of mission-critical talent, and compromise the 
     integrity of transgender troops who would be forced to live a 
     lie, as well as non-transgender peers who would be forced to 
     choose between reporting their comrades or disobeying 
     policy'';
       Whereas at least 18 nations allow transgender people to 
     serve openly and effectively in their armed forces;
       Whereas transgender members of the Armed Forces have fought 
     in defense of our freedoms with honor and distinction since 
     our Nation's founding and have been bestowed with such 
     commendations and awards as the Bronze Star and Purple Heart 
     for their courage and sacrifices;
       Whereas President Trump's ban on transgender members of the 
     Armed Forces targets and stigmatizes a whole class of people; 
     and
       Whereas President Trump's ban on transgender members of the 
     Armed Forces would affect all transgender members of the 
     Armed Forces and force them to serve under a policy that 
     stigmatizes and devalues their contributions to our Nation's 
     defense: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
       (1) strongly opposes President Trump's discriminatory ban 
     on transgender members of the Armed Forces;
       (2) rejects the flawed scientific and medical claims upon 
     which it is based; and
       (3) strongly urges the Department of Defense to not 
     reinstate President Trump's ban on transgender members of the 
     Armed Forces and to maintain an inclusive policy allowing 
     qualified transgender Americans to enlist and serve in the 
     Armed Forces.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution shall be debatable for 1 
hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Armed Services.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Thornberry) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and to include extraneous material on H. Res. 124.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution is very straightforward. The Department 
of Defense, in cooperation with the White House, recently issued a 
policy, which will be implemented in a couple weeks, that would, 
effectively, bar transgender people from being able to serve in the 
military. We have this resolution to reject that policy. It is that 
simple and that straightforward.
  We believe the policy that the Pentagon is putting forward is unfair, 
based on ignorance and bigotry, and will actually harm national 
security. We ask the House, in this resolution, to express the sense of 
Congress that we oppose this policy from the Pentagon.
  Again, what this policy is primarily based on is ignorance and bias 
against the transgender community. The policies being implemented will 
make it virtually impossible for them to serve in the military. This is 
unfair discrimination, and it is also harmful to national security.
  The Army last year failed to meet its recruitment quotas. It is a 
constant challenge in the military to find the people who have the 
character, the capability, and the ability to serve in our military.
  We have the best military in the history of the world. We need high-
qualified people to serve. To single out a particular group of people, 
to discriminate against them and say that they cannot serve, not 
because they can't meet the qualifications--it is not because they 
can't run fast enough or shoot straight enough or work hard enough--to 
be a member of the military, but because of something that literally 
has nothing to do with their ability to do their job, is bad for 
national security and is unfair discrimination.
  We have heard a lot from people about how difficult it is for unit 
cohesion to have transgender people in the military, a whole bunch of 
arguments. The only problem with that is the military leaders who have 
actually been responsible for this--and I am just going to read one 
quote. There are many, and some of my colleagues will say it as well.
  Army Chief of Staff Milley, who is about to become the Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, last year said

[[Page H2892]]

there are precisely zero reports of issues of cohesion, discipline, or 
morale as a result of transgender people serving.
  There is no issue in terms of readiness, despite what the proponents 
of this policy will say. It is discrimination, pure and simple, and it 
is unnecessary.
  We also hear opponents say that the policy doesn't ban transgender 
people from serving and, under certain circumstances, they can. But 
those circumstances, as described, are so limiting and restricting. 
Worst of all, as I will explain in a minute, in certain parts, it 
allows them to serve only if they are willing to deny who they are. 
That amounts to a ban. If you cannot be who you are and serve in the 
military, then that is a choice nobody should have to make.
  Let's start with the fact that, right now, under this policy, anyone 
who wants to join the military, if they have transitioned to a 
different gender, either gone through the surgery or began hormone 
therapy, this ban says they cannot join. Again, this doesn't say 
anything about their fitness to serve, in terms of their physical 
ability or anything. If they have simply had transition surgery or gone 
through hormone therapy, they are barred from serving.
  Worse than that, the people who are already in the military who are 
transgender are, to a certain extent, grandfathered in. In many 
different places throughout this policy, it says over and over again 
that they have to serve in their biological sex. A lot of people go: 
Well, what the heck does that mean? That gets at the essence, at the 
very heart, of what it means to be transgender.
  This is not something that is just in people's minds. It is a 
physiological condition that people are born into in which they decide 
they are more comfortable being in the opposite gender. That is one of 
the cornerstone difficulties that all these people have to go through: 
Who am I? What gender do I want to be?
  Working with therapists and working with other people, they make that 
determination. They decide: I know who I am, and this is who I am going 
to be.

  This policy now says: Sorry, we don't care what your doctor says. You 
cannot be the gender that you know that you are. You have to deny who 
you are in order to stay in the military.
  In many places throughout this policy, that is a consistent theme and 
points out what is so totally and completely wrong about this policy.
  You have also heard, undoubtedly, that there are higher healthcare 
costs for people who are transgender. There are a number of studies out 
that show that actually isn't true. Yes, healthcare expense is part of 
people who serve in the military, and, regrettably, people who join the 
military have all manner of different healthcare expenses that we do 
have to pick up, but there is no evidence that this has an increased 
cost over an average servicemember.
  Furthermore, we know that the purpose of this policy is not about 
cost because one of the first points that I made was about how they are 
not now going to be allowed to join the military even if they have 
already gone through transition surgery or hormone therapy. So even if 
they are all done with that, and there is no additional medical cost to 
come, this policy says that they are barred and banned from joining the 
military.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 15 
seconds.
  It makes it perfectly clear that this policy is unfair discrimination 
based on bigotry and ignorance, and I urge this House to reject it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a sense of Congress resolution that 
makes no change whatsoever in law or policy. It is a messaging bill 
rather than legislation that actually does something on a substantive 
issue.
  So, one may ask, why bother opposing a bill that doesn't do anything? 
I have a couple answers.
  Part of the answer, to me, is that we normally do not bring isolated 
issues in the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee to the 
floor.
  Part of the reason that a national defense authorization bill has 
been signed into law every year for 58 straight years under Presidents 
of both parties and Congresses of both parties is that we try to look 
at national security as a whole as it relates to the Department of 
Defense. There have been a few isolated instances where something 
needed immediate attention, but, generally, we try to look at the 
whole, not bring isolated issues to the floor. I worry that doing so, 
even with a messaging bill, undermines that bipartisan approach that 
has been so successful.
  Another part of the reason, Mr. Speaker, is that we also normally try 
to keep our troops above and beyond politics. Bringing a messaging bill 
that does nothing to law or policy also threatens to undermine that, 
and I worry about that.
  On its face, the resolution, the messaging bill that is before us, 
includes a number of statements that are just flat wrong. It says that 
President Trump reversed the prior policy on transgender individuals in 
a tweet. In fact, well before any Presidential tweet, Secretary of 
Defense Mattis had put a delay on implementation of the policy that had 
previously been announced so that there could be a 6-month review. 
There was a 6-month review with experts, with uniformed and civilian 
people from all the services, with medical experts, with a whole 
variety of folks.
  It is serious and thoughtful, despite some of the characterizations 
that have been made from time to time. I recommend that Members 
actually read it, because I think they will be impressed. They may not 
agree with all of the recommendations, but they will see the serious 
and thoughtful approach that the Department took to this issue.
  As a result of this review, the previous policy was modified. It 
didn't go back to the way it was. Again, those details are in the 
report.
  The resolution before us today says that the Mattis policy is a ban. 
It is not. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found, on January 4, 2019, 
that it is factually inaccurate to call it a blanket ban. In reversing 
the lower court, the court of appeals said: ``The district court made 
an erroneous finding that the Mattis plan was the equivalent of a 
blanket ban on transgender service.''
  This resolution before us says that there is a global medical 
consensus on transgender care. But the World Professional Association 
for Transgender Health says that they offer flexible clinical 
guidelines that cannot possibly reflect all the differences and 
situations which exist.
  Mr. Speaker, turning to the substance of the matter for a second, to 
me, the heart of the issue is contained in the very first sentence to 
the Department report, which was issued in February 2018. The first 
sentence says: ``It is a bedrock principle of the Department of Defense 
that any eligible individual who can meet the high standards for 
military service without special accommodations should be permitted to 
serve.''
  Any eligible individual who can meet the standards without special 
accommodation should be permitted to serve. That is what I believe, Mr. 
Speaker. I think that is what this policy attempts to achieve.
  Now, it is a fair point to say it went too far this way or it didn't 
go far enough this way. We can have those substantive, serious debates 
at an appropriate time and place. But a messaging bill is not going to 
get that job done.
  I would say, finally, Mr. Speaker, that our committee heard the day 
before yesterday a reminder that only 29 percent of Americans aged 17 
to 25 are eligible for military service. Only 29 percent meet the 
physical, mental, and legal requirements to be eligible for military 
service, even if they want to. That means 71 percent are not eligible, 
for whatever reason.
  There could be, and maybe there should be, a debate that the 
standards are too high, that we need to lower the standards, that we 
need to make some changes in the standards so that more people are 
eligible. But the point is, our view of military service is that anyone 
who meets those standards should be allowed to serve. If someone

[[Page H2893]]

cannot meet those standards, for whatever reason, through no fault of 
their own, then they are not able to serve. They can serve in a 
different way, but not in military service.

                              {time}  0930

  I think, again, Mr. Speaker, if we were to really be discussing the 
substance of the issue rather than a messaging bill, then we could talk 
about the high standards for military service without special 
accommodation and there would be a substantive discussion. That is not 
what we are doing today. It is a messaging bill, and that is too bad 
because there are serious issues that need to be discussed.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, just briefly, I will agree, 
this is a messaging bill, and the message is this is a bad policy. That 
is what the House is doing.
  I will also agree that, when it comes to crafting the right policy in 
this area, it should be done in committee, and it will be done in 
committee. That is why we didn't bring that out here on the floor.
  But I think it is important for the House of Representatives to make 
it clear how wrong we think this policy is.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, equal has always been our Nation's North 
Star.
  Endowed by our creator, inscribed by Jefferson in our Declaration of 
Independence, engraved above the doors to the highest court in our 
land, codified in our Constitution after a war tore our country apart, 
it is that pursuit of equality, that journey for a more perfect Union, 
that sets America apart.
  At times, we have stumbled. We have enslaved men, women, and children 
because of the color of their skin. We have segregated those same 
families in the first breaths of their freedom.
  We have stigmatized fellow Americans based on their race, their 
ancestry, their god, the nation of their birth, the hand that they 
hold, and their very identity.
  Some willing to die for our freedom fought wars only to meet a 
government that offered them a handshake and a return to second-class 
citizenship.
  Today, this House has a chance to not repeat the mistakes of our 
past, to move one step closer to that sacred promise by telling brave 
trans men and women in uniform that they cannot be banned from military 
service because of who they are--because that is the very foundation 
for this policy: targeted discrimination against transgender Americans.
  Supporters will say otherwise. It is about unit cohesion, they say--
except for the fact that the five chiefs of staff for the military 
branches have testified that they are aware of exactly zero instances 
of a transgender servicemember negatively impacting discipline or 
morale.
  It will degrade our military, they say--except that 56 retired 
generals and flag officers told us that it is the ban that would 
degrade readiness, ``even more than the failed Don't Ask, Don't Tell 
policy'' did.
  It is science, they say--except that the Department of Defense relied 
on data nearly half a century old and ignored plenty of other studies.
  Just ask the American Medical Association, the American Psychology 
Association, the American Psychiatric Association.
  It is about cost, they say--except that the military spends ten times 
more annually on erectile dysfunction medication than we have on trans-
related care in the past 3 years combined.
  It is not a ban, they say. Ask any one of the brave transgender 
servicemembers or veterans in the gallery today exactly what this ban 
means.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from 
Massachusetts an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, in a country that celebrates freedom, this 
policy tells our servicemembers that they do not have the freedom to be 
who they are. Where is the freedom in that?
  Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of the House to support this 
resolution.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).
  Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you about a sharp, young 
patriot from my district.
  She worked hard, earned straight A's, and was accepted into law 
school to join the JAG Corps. She, however, was denied entry into the 
military because she had bunions on her feet.
  She is an amazing woman and a long-distance runner, but DOD's policy 
was clear that, due to the risk of future surgery, she could 
potentially be temporarily undeployable and, so, was denied entrance 
into military service. She did not meet the physical-mental-medical 
standards.
  Another constituent was denied service because he had asthma. He, 
too, wanted to serve his country, but the health risk outweighed the 
benefits to the military. He did not meet the physical-mental-medical 
standards.
  DOD's military exception standards state:

       Individuals must be free of medical conditions or physical 
     defects that may require excessive time lost from duty for 
     necessary treatment or hospitalization.

  Our all-volunteer military is the greatest military force in the 
world, and we must allow it--we must allow it--to make the best medical 
and military judgment about what medical conditions should qualify or 
disqualify an individual from serving. We should not carve out 
exceptions for an entire population.
  Military service is a privilege, not a right. That is why Secretary 
Mattis reviewed and issued a new policy on transgender service and the 
medical condition of gender dysphoria.
  The policy is not a ban, and it allows transgender servicemembers to 
serve in their biological sex. The Mattis policy does not kick anyone 
out of the military for being transgender, nor does it give 
preferential treatment to transgender persons. All persons, unless 
grandfathered or granted a waiver, must serve in their birth gender.
  It is a fair policy, allowing transgender individuals to serve openly 
as long as they are willing to serve in their biological sex and they 
can meet the medical behavioral standards.
  This resolution we are voting on today is riddled with inaccuracies. 
First, as I just stated, the policy is not a ban.
  Second, it claims there is a global medical consensus that 
transgender care is effective, safe, and reliable. That is not true. 
RAND, the Mayo Clinic, CMS, and others have all determined that there 
is not enough quality evidence to be able to say that. And there are 
valid concerns.
  There are costs as well. The Department of Defense announced already 
that they have spent $8 million on those individuals who have 
identified as transgender last year, and that money has been spent on 
psychotherapy, on sex change operations. That is money that could have 
been spent on bullets, body armor for our troops.
  Third, the resolution claims there is not an adverse effect on 
military readiness. This is false. The individual readiness of those 
undergoing treatment for gender dysphoria will be impacted. It takes 
over 260 days just to recover from the surgery.
  Individual readiness directly impacts the readiness of our forces, so 
the diagnosis and treatment for transgender personnel takes them away 
from their jobs for an indeterminate amount of time. This lost 
deployment time means someone else will have to step forward and go in 
their place. This is unfair.
  The military has valid reasons for excluding people with certain 
medical conditions from service. It is not the job of Congress to 
dictate what medical conditions the military should accept.
  We should not degrade the efficiency and lethality of our Armed 
Forces. This resolution is riddled with false claims, and I urge my 
colleagues to oppose its passage.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding time and, really, for his leadership on this very important 
issue as to who we are as a nation, how we honor our oath to protect 
and defend the American people, and, in doing so, recognizing the 
contribution of all who want

[[Page H2894]]

to serve our country. I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) 
for his leadership.
  I also acknowledge the leadership of our colleague Joe Kennedy, 
sponsor of this legislation, for his relentless leadership and his 
forming and chairmanship of the Transgender Caucus that has been so 
important in making clear, in our policy, that we respect the dignity 
and worth of every person.
  Mr. Speaker, the men and women who step forward to serve in the U.S. 
military are patriots, all of them, people of great strength and 
courage whose sacrifice keeps us safe. We owe those heroes our must 
humbled gratitude and our most steadfast support, and I want to thank 
our trans friends for their service, their courage, their patriotism in 
serving our country.
  Instead of honoring their service, the President continues to insist 
on his cruel transgender servicemember ban. This is an act of cruelty.
  Let us all salute, again, Congressman Joe Kennedy, a champion for 
equality, fairness, and dignity in this Congress, for his firm, moral 
leadership on this resolution to oppose the President's bigoted ban.
  The resolution that our distinguished chairman, Mr. Smith, and our 
colleague, Joe Kennedy, are putting forth is bipartisan because 
protecting transgender servicemembers is a matter of patriotism and it 
transcends politics.
  The President's ban, as I said, is cruel and arbitrary, a decision 
designed to humiliate the transgender Americans who are risking and 
giving their lives for the United States of America.
  There is no moral justification for this ban, which violates every 
value of our American democracy and betrays our fundamental belief in 
fairness, dignity, and respect.
  There is no medical justification for this ban, which the American 
Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and the 
American Psychiatric Association all oppose.
  And there is no military justification for this ban which would 
undermine our military readiness and make America less strong and safe, 
and that is according to our own military.
  After the President first unleashed his ban, 56 retired generals and 
flag officers issued a statement asserting that the ban ``would cause 
significant disruptions, deprive the military of mission-critical 
talent, and compromise the integrity of transgender troops who would be 
forced to live a lie, as well as non-transgender peers who are forced 
to choose between reporting their comrades or disobeying policy. As a 
result,'' they go on to say, ``the proposed ban would degrade readiness 
even more than the failed Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.''

  Other military leaders have spoken out to denounce this ban: Former 
Joint Chief of Staff, Mike Mullen; Army Chief of Staff, General Mark 
Milley; Commandant of the United States Coast Guard, Karl Schultz; 
Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Jon Richardson; Commandant of the 
Marine Corps, General Robert Neller.
  Yet the President has chosen to ignore the expertise of these 
military leaders, making clear that prejudice, not patriotism, drives 
his decisions.
  The President's ban, again, is cruel. No one with the strength and 
bravery to serve in the U.S. military should be turned away because of 
who they are.
  The House will continue to fight this discriminatory action, which 
has no place in our country. We will never allow hate and prejudice to 
dictate our national security. I hope we have a resounding ``yes'' vote 
to reject the President's ban today.
  Again, I thank the distinguished chairman, Mr. Smith, and our 
colleague Joe Kennedy for his leadership and courage.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, at some point 
someone has got to tell me what ``engaging in personalities'' means. I 
have served in this body for a long time. I still don't know what that 
means.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Davis).
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in solidarity 
with our transgender servicemembers and to stand against President 
Trump's proposed ban of transgender people serving in the military.
  Transgender troops have been serving openly since 2016--at home, 
overseas, and in combat zones--without incident.

                              {time}  0945

  When I met with transgender servicemembers last month, I was 
impressed to learn that by serving openly--I want to make a note of 
that--by serving openly, the quality of their service improved, and, in 
fact, the obstacles--and there are many obstacles, Mr. Speaker--the 
obstacles they have overcome informed their greater ability to do their 
job. Their impressive records speak for themselves, and there is no 
doubt that each of the servicemembers I met with have served their 
country with distinction.
  As already stated, this ban is blatant discrimination poorly 
disguised as concerns over readiness, unit cohesion, and medical costs 
associated with transitioning. We already know that there have been 
zero reports of issues regarding unit morale or cohesion since the ban 
was lifted in 2016, a fact that has been supported by the chief of 
staff of every service. The cost of medically transitioning has also 
been proven to have minimal impact on the military's healthcare budget.
  This administration is resorting to misinformation; misinformation to 
exclude capable, qualified people from service to their country.
  At a time when the Army is failing to meet recruitment goals, and the 
Navy and Air Force opted to lower their quota in order to reach their 
own recruitment goals, we cannot be turning away dedicated, able-bodied 
recruits simply because they happen to be transgender.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this resolution with 
vigor.
  Last month, the Subcommittee on Military Personnel within the Armed 
Services Committee held a hearing. It was the first time in the history 
of this Congress that five transgender members of the military were 
allowed to testify.
  Four of them are trans female. One of them is trans male. All five of 
them have served our country with distinction. All five of them have 
served more than 12 years in the military. One of them is a West Point 
graduate. All of them have served either in Iraq, Afghanistan, multiple 
deployments, and in submarine service.
  To the servicemember, all I saw was pride to be in the military, 
pride to serve their country, pride to put themselves on the line.
  The testimony from the administration was like a twisted pretzel. 
They offered a weak and dithering defense of their cruel policy. Two 
things became clear at this hearing:
  First, the administration policy is a ban. Make no mistake about it. 
Those who are in the military and serving as transgender can continue 
to do so. No one can come into the military who is transgender. If you 
are in the military and transgender and have not identified, you cannot 
identify. So it is a ban.
  Captain Alivia Stehlik put it best:

       Currently, soldiers are allowed to seek care no matter 
     what, trans related or not. If the policy changes, soldiers 
     will no longer be able to seek care, because if you say, I am 
     trans and get a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, regardless of 
     your job performance, you are ineligible and will be 
     terminated.

  The policy is a solution in search of a problem. Worse, it 
discriminates against our servicemembers.
  Second, the hearing demonstrated resoundingly that the last 2\1/2\ 
years of open service have been unequivocally successful.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say, transgender servicemembers have been there 
for us. It is time for us to be there for them.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader.
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H2895]]

  

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. I thank 
the ranking member for his service, and his leadership as chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to reject the President's executive 
order and to support this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution introduced by 
my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy). His 
resolution simply states what millions and millions of Americans know 
to be true, that the Trump administration's ban on transgender people 
serving their country in our military is discriminatory. It reflects 
bias. It reflects prejudice. Indeed, it reflects bigotry.
  Martin Luther King tried to teach us that what we said in the 
Declaration of Independence, we ought to live out. He said that all of 
us--and, certainly, he would have included women as we did yesterday in 
our Paycheck Fairness Act--are created equal in the image of God.
  Martin Luther King said that we ought to judge one another on the 
content of our character. The President's order does not do that. The 
President's order is based upon a prejudiced view of somebody because 
of a distinction that is not the content of their character nor the 
quality of their performance.
  I was proud to be a sponsor of and brought to this floor as majority 
leader, the repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell legislation. That has 
enhanced our national security, not diminished it.
  The President's resolution states what millions and millions of 
Americans know to be true: that the Trump administration's ban on 
transgender people serving their country in our military is 
discriminatory; that it denigrates the service of patriotic Americans. 
That is a facet of their character. They are patriotic, and they want 
to serve, and the service judges them able to do so.
  This resolution, millions of Americans understand, undermines our 
national defense at a time of serious global threats. This resolution 
rightfully calls on the Trump administration not to implement such a 
ban on April 12. To do so would be a blow to our country and the 
principles it represents.

  Let me remind my colleagues that there was a time when we said 
African Americans ought not to serve with White Americans together 
because that would undermine morale and undermine the security of our 
country. That was a manifestation of prejudice and bigotry, not of 
intellectual honesty, content of character.
  Have we not yet learned that lesson? Are we not big enough to live 
out the premise that all men and women are created equal? This 
resolution seeks to redeem the best of America's principles, not the 
worst of our discriminatory past.
  I was proud to bring legislation to the floor as majority leader that 
ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and it was overwhelmingly supported in 
this House and in the Senate, and passed. It has been a benefit, not a 
detriment.
  In the years since, we have seen our military strengthen by the open 
service of many LGBT Americans who have contributed a great deal to 
keeping America safe and advancing our national security interests 
around the world.
  To say to transgender servicemembers in uniform that they must leave 
their units, not because they are not performing well, not because they 
are not needed, but because of who they are, not the content of their 
character, not their service, not their performance, but because of who 
they are, would be a shameful action for our country and deprive us of 
their talent and contributions.
  To deny transgender Americans the opportunity to put on that uniform 
and wear the flag of the country they wish to serve--as I do every 
day--would be to diminish that flag, that Declaration of Independence, 
that Constitution of the United States of which we are so proud.
  I hope my colleagues in this body will join in sending a clear 
message that the House, not Republicans or Democrats, that the people's 
House reflects the values, the service, and patriotism of our 
transgender fellow Americans.
  Let us today reflect the best of our values, not the worst of our 
values. Pass this resolution. Make America proud of its Declaration of 
Independence and its Constitution, and of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s 
admonition to make our judgments based upon content of character.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Carbajal).
  Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Speaker, as a veteran, I rise in support of this 
resolution. When this country first debated the possibility of African 
Americans, women, or LGBT people serving in our military, the same 
doubts, the same reports, and the same concerns were raised regarding 
their service.
  One of these misleading claims is that allowing transindividuals to 
serve could harm our military readiness. Mr. Speaker, allowing 
patriotic Americans who are willing, capable, and ready to serve their 
country does not harm readiness.
  I will tell you what does: diverting military personnel and billions 
of dollars in military construction funding to build an unnecessary 
wall to respond to a nonmilitary fabricated emergency.
  I want to ask my friends who support this shameful service ban 
whether they believe they have the right to deny an individual their 
right to be who they are, to limit opportunities because of their 
gender identity? Are these the values America was founded upon?
  We as a nation are much better than this. During the repeal of Don't 
Ask, Don't Tell, critics invoked fear upon America saying that it would 
disrupt unit morale and readiness. Today, 9 years later, we have the 
most powerful and capable military in the world.
  For almost 3 years, transgender troops have been able to serve 
openly. During that time, there has been no evidence of lack of 
military readiness or unit cohesion. Unfortunately, in return for their 
service, we are requiring they suppress their identity. This is 
absolutely unacceptable and discriminatory.
  I believe former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General 
Dempsey responded best when he stated:
  ``The service of the men and women who volunteer and who meet our 
standards of service is a blessing, not a burden.''

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my vehement 
opposition to banning service in the Armed Forces by openly transgender 
individuals because the Trump administration considers transgender 
identity to be some medically disqualifying condition. Gender identity 
is not a medical condition; it is who we are as individuals.
  Since President Truman desegregated the military, we have torn down 
barriers to the equal treatment and opportunity of every American to 
serve. Women now serve in combat roles defending our Nation as Rangers, 
infantrymen and submariners. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual Americans serve 
our country openly and with distinction.
  In 2016, the Pentagon lifted the ban on transgender Americans, 
allowing them to serve without having to hide their true identity. The 
fact that thousands of transgender servicemembers are currently 
serving, meeting, and exceeding standards and are deployed worldwide 
speaks volumes about their dedication and contributions to our Nation. 
We need their skills, their experience, their courage, and their 
patriotism.
  In 1948, many Americans agreed that racial segregation in the Armed 
Forces was right, but history shows all of us today that they were 
wrong. Former Defense Secretary Gates said: ``No aspect of Black 
Americans' quest for justice and equality under the law has been nobler 
than what has been called the `fight for the right to fight.'''
  My 30 years in the Army leads me to believe that all Americans who 
want to serve and who can meet our standards should be given the right 
to fight. My deep belief is shared by General Dunford, Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, who reiterated that very belief to me just 2 
days ago.
  We have an obligation to allow transgender Americans the right to

[[Page H2896]]

fight for our Nation. We cannot, Mr. Speaker, settle for this 
discriminatory policy.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cisneros).
  Mr. CISNEROS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Kennedy for his 
leadership on this issue and the members and staff on the House Armed 
Services Committee for helping bring this important resolution to the 
House floor.
  I served in the Navy during the time of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Too 
many were forced to live their lives in secret, unable to be true to 
themselves. In 2016, transgender servicemembers were allowed to serve 
openly in the United States military, individuals like Lieutenant 
Commander Blake Dremann, who is still currently on Active Duty and who 
has deployed 11 times.
  During his testimony in the Military Personnel Subcommittee, he 
stated that his transition meant that he was no longer 
compartmentalizing parts of his life. He also stated that his decision 
to transition made him a better officer and a better leader. He has 
proven it by receiving the Navy Batchelder Award, which is given to 
Navy top Supply Corps officers.
  My support for Lieutenant Commander Dremann and all our transgender 
servicemembers is unequivocal. They have shown tremendous courage, and 
it is why I fight for inclusion and equality for the LGBTQ community.
  The President's policy is taking not only our military, but our 
country, backwards. It is unnecessary, and it is purely a 
discriminatory action against a group of individuals who want to do 
nothing more than serve their country.
  It is a disgusting attack on a community that he once swore to 
protect. He is attacking servicemembers who have already proven their 
ability to meet strategic needs and who pose no risk to unit cohesion 
or military readiness.
  As far as I am concerned, any person who has the courage, spirit, and 
commitment to serve our country in uniform when so many choose not to 
should be allowed to do so.
  I will vote to pass this resolution, and unlike the President, I will 
continue to advocate for and protect our LGBTQ community. I urge my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in support of this 
resolution and denounce the President's hateful policy toward our 
servicemembers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and in 
opposition to the administration's ban on openly transgender 
individuals in the armed services.
  Throughout history, each time we expand who may join the armed 
services to better reflect the diversity of our Nation, the same tired 
and disproven arguments are brought back: that any individual within a 
new group, regardless of their ability, is unfit to serve and that they 
will disrupt unit cohesion. We heard these arguments with respect to 
Black and Latino men; women; and gays, lesbians, and bisexuals.
  But we know that is simply untrue. There are no issues with 
transgender individuals serving in our military. You don't have to take 
my word for it. The service chiefs of all five branches of our military 
have testified that there have been zero instances of transgender 
servicemembers hurting cohesion or readiness since the ban was first 
lifted.
  The conservative obsession with targeting and attacking transgender 
individuals in all areas of American life is cruel and immoral. It is 
astonishing that, after years of ``support our troops'' demagoguery 
from my colleagues across the aisle, they would choose to turn their 
backs on Active-Duty servicemembers and vote to specifically deny them 
medically prescribed care.

  After 2\1/2\ years of transgender servicemembers serving with no 
issues, there is one reason and one reason alone for this 
administration to be bringing back a ban on transgender servicemembers: 
to force a bigoted agenda on the military that they cannot force on the 
rest of the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, much of the history of this country is the history of 
expanding our understanding of whom the Declaration of Independence 
meant when it said that all men are created equal. It didn't mean, in 
1776, Black men; it certainly didn't mean women; it didn't mean Native 
Americans; and it didn't mean LGBTQ people. We have come to the point 
where we understand, at least aspirationally, it means all of those 
things.
  This resolution gives us a choice:
  Do we join the march? Do we continue the march to expand the meaning 
of the Declaration of Independence to declare equality for everyone 
regardless of specific characteristics, or do we join that dreary 
procession of slavers, confederates, racists, and misogynists who have 
dragged this country through the mud and have besmirched the ideals of 
the Declaration of Independence?
  That is our choice today. Let's take the right one.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
resolution expressing opposition to President Trump's decision to ban 
transgender individuals from serving in the Armed Forces. I am proud to 
be a cosponsor of this resolution, and I thank my friend, Mr. Kennedy, 
for his extraordinary leadership on this issue.
  The President's decision in 2017 to prohibit transgender individuals 
from military service is disgraceful and wrong. Not only is the 
decision based on ignorance and bigotry, but the evidence shows there 
is absolutely no need for this discriminatory policy.
  America has the strongest and most effective military in the history 
of the world, and that is because of the brave individuals who serve in 
uniform. Excluding an entire group of highly qualified and skilled 
individuals from service undermines our national security.
  In 2016, the Obama administration removed the ban on transgender 
individuals after thoroughly and carefully studying how it would impact 
the military and military readiness. A year later, President Trump 
announced he would resume prohibiting transgender individuals from 
serving in a tweet and didn't even bother to tell his Secretary of 
Defense about it.
  The National Center for Transgender Equality estimates that over 
15,000 trans people are currently serving in the military. In 2016, a 
study by RAND Corporation found that service by transgender individuals 
does not adversely affect readiness, and, in fact, many military 
leaders have acknowledged that the ban will degrade military readiness.
  This cruel ban seeks to force transgender members of our military 
back into the closet or out of service. It is a policy that is not 
based on any factor or any careful deliberation, but merely an attempt 
to score points with the hard right faction of his political base. By 
doing this, the President is hurting our military, making our country 
less safe, and making our country less just.
  Transgender individuals who serve our country in the Armed Forces are 
American heroes. They deserve our thanks, and they deserve more than to 
be used as a political prop by their Commander in Chief. We as a 
country are better than this.
  Mr. Speaker, quite simply, it is un-American and immoral to deny 
transgender individuals who want to serve our country in uniform the 
right to do so simply because of who they are, and I urge my colleagues 
to support this resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

[[Page H2897]]

  

  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Smith for his 
leadership and for yielding time.
  I also want to recognize Congressman Kennedy for his tremendous 
leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 124, rejecting the 
President's discriminatory ban on openly transgender servicemembers in 
the military.
  Transgender servicemembers have served with honor and distinction in 
the defense of our country for decades, yet President Trump announced 
on Twitter that transgender servicemembers would no longer be allowed 
to serve, despite the fact that many military leaders concluded that 
being transgender does not impact our readiness. President Trump's own 
Chief of Staff said he hadn't received any reports of problems with 
unit cohesion or morale regarding transgender servicemembers.
  The President's cowardly ban makes it clear that prejudice, not 
patriotism, guides his decisions.
  As the daughter of a career military officer who served in a 
segregated military, I know what it is like for our country to betray 
our American values. As a person of faith, I was taught to treat 
everyone equally. As an African American woman, I will fight 
discrimination wherever it surfaces.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. I continue to reserve the balance of my time, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and the ranking 
member managing this bill, and I thank Mr. Kennedy for his insight.
  We are reminded that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. 
Franklin Delano Roosevelt offered those great words on the precipice of 
World War II, the victory with the United States troops standing side 
by side, some of them African Americans who lived and served in the 
uniform but in a segregated way. But their blood was the same, and they 
shared their blood in the same way; they died in the same way.
  Do we want victory or defeat?
  Let me be very clear. Allowing transgenders to serve and brushing 
them out is a travesty.
  Do you realize that it is clear that the RAND report found that 
healthcare coverage for transgender military personnel would increase 
the military total account by less than zero?
  In addition, when all of this was banned by the Obama administration, 
we recognized it is honored, the sacrifices of selfless transgender 
servicemembers who have endured exclusion, silence, and persecution due 
to discriminatory policies and attitudes against LGBT and military 
personnel such as Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which was rightfully struck 
down under the Obama administration.
  We must be against these destructive practices.
  Do we want victory or defeat?
  There is nothing to fear but fear itself.
  Support this resolution to stand with those who want to serve and die 
for their country.
  I rise in support of H. Res. 124.
  Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, July 26, 2017, the fears of the LGBTQ 
community were confirmed.
  In an unexpected move that immediately sent shockwaves through the 
media and LGBTQ+ community, the President tweeted Wednesday morning 
that ``the United States Government will not accept or allow 
Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. 
Military.''
  Scores of individuals, civil rights groups, and military personnel on 
all sides of the political spectrum unanimously condemned the 
President's announcement as an intolerant and irrational violation of 
the sacred right of Transgender Americans to valiantly serve their 
country.
  In his tweets, the President claimed that ``our military . . . cannot 
be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that 
transgender in the military would entail.''
  This statement directly contradicts the wealth of rigorous evidence 
indicating the exact opposite:
  According to a 2016 study by the RAND Corporation, allowing 
transgender individuals to serve openly in the military poses ``little 
to no impact on unit cohesion, operational effectiveness, or 
readiness.''
  Furthermore, RAND found that health care coverage for transgender 
military personnel would increase the U.S. military's total annual 
health care expenditures by a mere 0.04 to 0.13-percent.
  The President's illogical ban on transgender military personnel 
reverses a previous policy set forth by Former Defense Secretary Ash 
Carter in June, 2016 that allowed transgender troops to serve openly.
  This policy under Obama was a significant step forward that made our 
armed services more inclusive.
  It honored the sacrifices of selfless transgender service members who 
have endured exclusion, silence, and persecution due to discriminatory 
policies and attitudes against LGBTQ+ military personnel such as 
``Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'' which was rightfully struck down under the 
Obama administration.
  Numerous advocacy groups that focus on LGBTQ+ service members and 
veterans organizations have decried the President's transgender ban 
announcement and criticized the hypocrisy and poor leadership of the 
White House.
  Officials at OutServe, which provides legal assistance to LGBTQ+ 
troops and recruits, said Trump's ``pseudo-policy-by-twitter'' 
demonstrated ``blatant disregard for transgender service members.''
  The group then turned the President's hateful rhetoric back on 
itself: ``The disruptive burden to the military comes from indecision 
in a White House which itself is not focused on victory if it's 
targeting service members.
  The readiness, effectiveness, and lethality of the Armed Services 
comes from the commitment of our troops--not the vagaries and bigotry 
of exclusionary policies.''
  The Palm Center, an advocacy group for transgender service members, 
denounced the President's comments as ``creating a worse version of 
don't ask, don't tell'' policy.
  Vote Vets, an organization dedicated to opening U.S. military 
services to diverse Americans, correctly assessed that ``removing 
[transgender service members] weakens our country and our military.''
  There are approximately 15,000 transgender service members currently 
serving in the U.S. military.
  The President's announcement offers no clarity on the status of these 
troops who continue to serve their country with honor, dignity, and 
excellence.
  However, if the President's expression of intent to ``not accept or 
allow Transgender individuals to serve'' entails the removal of these 
service members from the ranks of the U.S. military--this can only be 
understood as a direct violation of the rights and principles laid down 
in the Constitution.
  Angela Davis once said, ``If they come for me in the morning, they 
will come for you in the night.''
  Americans of all races, ethnicities, origins, sexual preferences, and 
gender identities must realize that the reverse is also true: If the 
President comes for them in the morning, he will come for me in the 
night.
  To the brave transgender individuals who have served, currently 
serve, or dream of serving in the military: I recognize your commitment 
to protecting this nation with your very lives.
  I oppose the President's unlawful agenda of discrimination. I will 
not stop until your sacrifices are regarded as equal under the law of 
the United States.
  To all members of the transgender community: I stand with you. I am 
fighting for you. I will not allow your rights to be stripped away by 
bigoted men who have lost sight of what it means to be American. That 
is why I support H. Res. 124.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair whether the 
gentleman from Washington, the chairman, has any further speakers other 
than himself.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I am prepared to close at this time, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the current House leadership seems 
rather consumed by Presidential tweets. As a matter of fact, just a few 
moments ago, the Speaker of the House, herself, was one of those 
Members who had to be reminded that it is a violation of the rules of 
the House to disparage the character of the President.
  I guess we could do this every day. The President could tweet, and we 
would have a sense of Congress to comment on it, and the President 
would tweet. But generally, Mr. Speaker, I think there is a higher and 
better purpose for this House to work on the

[[Page H2898]]

problems that confront the American people.
  As I mentioned a few moments ago, this is a messaging bill. It 
changes no law. It changes no policy. It could also be done down in the 
House radio-television correspondents' gallery. Somebody could give a 
speech, and there could be a press conference. It would have the same 
effect as having this resolution on the floor.
  I don't have the time to correct all of the misstatements in the 
resolution or that have been made on the floor today. I will say this, 
Mr. Speaker: If we are going to do messaging, then my primary message 
is that every individual who serves our Nation in the military is 
entitled to respect and our appreciation--every single individual--and 
I am among those who are very impressed, by the way, by the transgender 
individuals who testified in front of our Military Personnel 
Subcommittee just a few weeks ago.
  But on the substance of this issue, I believe the principle for the 
Department of Defense is that any eligible individual who can meet the 
high standards for military service without special accommodation 
should be permitted to serve.

                              {time}  1015

  Any eligible individual who can meet the standard without special 
accommodation should be permitted to serve.
  I think that is the standard. That is not exactly what we have been 
talking about today, but that is the standard, and it should be the 
standard.
  There may be some differences about what a special accommodation is, 
about various medical diagnoses and conditions. I understand that. But 
the standard is, if you meet the standard without special accommodation 
you should be permitted to serve.
  And those who serve deserve our respect and our appreciation. That is 
the point. But that is not really the point of this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Let's remember one important point. There was no problem. This was 
not an issue. It was not talked about until the President decided that, 
in his words, he wanted to ban transgender people from serving in the 
military.
  I hope that is not engaging in personalities. It is simply saying 
what he said and did. He sent out a tweet saying we should ban people 
who are transgender. Then the military has had to backfill that tweet 
with a policy. I feel bad for the members of the military who have had 
to do that, who have had to waste their time for the last year trying 
to accommodate the ignorance and bigotry of this presidential policy.
  There was no problem. Every single service chief testified there is 
no impact on unit cohesion. We weren't talking about that until the 
President decided that he wanted to discriminate against transgender 
people.
  I think the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee is 100 
percent correct. Every eligible person who can perform the duties 
should be allowed to serve.
  This policy violates that principle in a whole bunch of different 
ways, but I will simply mention two.
  Even if you have already transitioned, even if you have already gone 
through all of the healthcare needs and have fully transitioned to a 
new gender, this policy says you will not be allowed to serve if you 
are transgender.
  That means that fully qualified people--not ones who have potential 
future surgery or anything--are being banned from serving.
  It also says, if you are serving now, you cannot be who you are. And 
this is where the ignorance comes in.
  Wow. What do you mean?
  You have got to be the gender you were born in.
  That is not the way it works. That is ignorance talking. This policy 
saying that, No, sorry, you have to be in your ``biological sex'' means 
you have to deny who you are. And that will also ban people from 
serving who are otherwise 100 percent qualified.
  Without question, trans men and women who are fully qualified to 
serve in the military will be banned by this policy.
  We have already seen the other two arguments: Well, the healthcare 
costs will go up.
  No, they won't. The stats, the evidence, the facts show that 
transgender people have no greater healthcare costs than the average 
person serving in the military.
  And the unit cohesion argument is an absolute joke. This debate, this 
policy, prompted by the President, inserting discrimination where it 
did not belong, is the only thing that has caused any of this issue.
  As General Milley said: zero evidence of any unit cohesion issue.
  So, let's be 100 percent clear here. This policy is based on 
ignorance and bigotry.
  And why are we doing it on the House floor instead of down in some 
press conference somewhere? Because the vote of this House matters more 
than just the individual words of a few Members.
  I, as a Member of the United States House and as a citizen of the 
United States of America, want my Congress to go on record that we will 
not stand for ignorance and bigotry in our military or anywhere else.
  A vote of this House makes it clear just how wrongheaded this policy 
is. And make no mistake about it, this is not the military that wanted 
this. The President drove it, and he is causing problems that do not 
need to be caused. We should reject this policy.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 252, the previous question is ordered on 
the resolution and the preamble.
  The question is on adoption of the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of H. Res. 124 will be followed by a 5-minute 
vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 238, 
nays 185, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 135]

                               YEAS--238

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fitzpatrick
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Hollingsworth
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hurd (TX)
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Reed
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon

[[Page H2899]]


     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--185

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Amash
       

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Abraham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Granger
     Palazzo
     Ryan
     Veasey
     Wilson (SC)

                              {time}  1047

  Messrs. MEADOWS and GONZALEZ of Ohio changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote today because I 
was in my District with the Vice-President. I support anyone willing 
and capable of serving in the U.S. armed forces, including transgender 
individuals. If I had been present, I would have voted `` yea'' for H. 
Res. 124.
  Mr. RYAN. Mr. Speaker, due to unforeseen circumstances on Thursday, 
March 28, 2019, I was not present to cast my vote on the question of 
Agreeing to H. Res. 124, a resolution expressing opposition to banning 
service in the Armed Forces by openly transgender individuals. I agree 
in the strongest terms with the resolution's denunciation of the ban, 
and had I been present my vote would have been yea on rollcall 135.

                          ____________________