Floor Statements

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.

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.

Mr. Chair, gender-affirming care is safe, effective, and medically necessary. It is supported by every major medical association in the United States representing more than 1.3 million U.S. doctors.

That is why I find it incredibly concerning that many of my colleagues across the aisle choose to demonize the transgender community, but I don't think they have ever met someone who is trans. Many of them seek to restrict, deny, and disparage gender-affirming care but have never met anyone who has actually received it.

Forgive me if I am not convinced by their naive talking points when this is something I know about personally.

Earlier this year, my trans brother, Dylan, received gender-affirming surgery after consultations with his doctor. He will tell you, Mr. Chair, that it was life-changing, and that is the case for so many in the trans community. He will tell you, Mr. Chair, contrary to my colleague's remarks, that he knows who he is. His body just doesn't match that.

Prohibiting gender-affirming care for our servicemembers not only compromises our national security, but it also hinders our recruitment and retention efforts.

Trans people are about twice as likely as all adults in the U.S. to serve in the Armed Forces. Why would we want to alienate this patriotic, selfless community from serving?

When servicemembers get the medical care they need, then they can focus on their mission without distraction. However, by denying servicemembers this medically necessary care, this amendment will hurt our military readiness and likely lead to servicemembers leaving the military. Our efforts to recruit would be severely weakened.

This amendment isn't only bigoted, it is shortsighted and would hurt our national security.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to listen to someone who actually knows something about the trans community and gender-affirming care and oppose this amendment.

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.

Madam Speaker, 3 years ago during my first year in Congress, I froze my eggs, which means I went through the initial stages of IVF, except that after egg retrieval, my eggs were frozen and stored.

For weeks, I took hormone pills, gave myself injections, and went to the doctor for checkups. Then I had a procedure under twilight sedation to harvest my eggs.

Many people use IVF if they are single or LGBTQ+, if they are older or experiencing fertility issues or have suffered multiple miscarriages, but no matter the reason for IVF, it should be a valid and viable choice for anyone.

Unfortunately, IVF, like many reproductive healthcare options, is under attack in the courts and here in the Halls of Congress.

Madam Speaker, 184 of my Republican colleagues have cosponsored legislation that supports ``fetal personhood'' giving embryos the same full legal rights as a person.

This fringe ideology is dangerous and could be used to prosecute people for miscarriages or for having an abortion and could potentially affect access to birth control, too.

It could threaten access to IVF. During IVF, doctors often create more fertilized embryos than they plan on using, because some may be genetically unviable or result in miscarriages.

I have 17 mature eggs frozen. Patients like me pay for the storage of our eggs or embryos, and eventually some embryos are usually donated for medical research or destroyed.

Fetal personhood legislation, and even court rulings like the one in Alabama, could force patients to pay for storage of their embryos forever or leave clinics liable to criminal charges if embryos are damaged. That is why at least one IVF clinic in Alabama is ending the service.

This is just the beginning. Last week, Supreme Court Justice Alito acknowledged fetal personhood in his line of questioning in Moyle v. United States, a case that could decide the future of emergency abortion care.

I say this to my Republican colleagues: You can't support fetal personhood and support IVF access. You can't falsely claim to be pro- life and then rip away people's dreams of having children, and you can't hide and try to bury your true end goal.

I call on all 184 House Republicans, including Speaker Johnson, who have cosponsored legislation that would treat embryos as children and threaten access to IVF and other reproductive health services to come to the House floor and publicly remove their name from this bill, prove that they support IVF access, prove that they support families, and prove that they are not a hypocrite.

Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Chula Vista Assistant Police Chief Phil Collum, a 29-year veteran of the department who we sadly lost to cancer. His service and his legacy will always be remembered.

Those who knew Assistant Police Chief Collum best emphasize his empathy, his compassion, his reputation for being fair, his work ethic, and more than anything, his dedication to his community.

Community was at the heart of everything Assistant Police Chief Collum did. He gave the directive in 2022 to create the Community Engagement Division to help foster community relationships--and he personally led this division.

He was committed to building bridges between officers and the community they serve.

Through the Community Engagement Division, he worked to make sure that the Chula Vista Police Department was actively connecting with community members including residents, students, and business owners.

Assistant Police Chief Collum was also deeply involved in charity work. He volunteered at his church. He went to Tijuana every month to support orphanages and help children in need as part of the Corazon de Vida Foundation--his empathy and compassion for others on full display.

And, Assistant Police Chief Collum was a true trailblazer. He was the Chula Vista Police Department's first Black lieutenant, first Black captain, and first Black assistant chief.

He was also the first openly gay male officer in the department. In his own words, during an interview in 2022, Assistant Police Chief Collum said that he was proud to be a member of the LGBTQ community. He was proud to be a law enforcement officer. He was proud of his husband. He was proud of his community. And that he wanted to celebrate that.

I can't think of a better way to sum up his incredible contributions to our community. He broke down barriers and was a role model for so many.

Assistant Police Chief Collum is survived by his loving husband, William Lopez, and my heart is with his family, his friends, his colleagues, and our entire community as we mourn this immense loss.

We will always remember Assistant Police Chief Collum.

Mr. Chair, I thank Ranking Member Nadler for his leadership on this issue.

Under almost any other circumstance, law enforcement and intelligence agencies need a warrant to access our personal information. Even in the cases of utmost national security like when Americans are suspected of terrorism, espionage, or cybercrimes, our government gets a warrant.

This process isn't too burdensome, and it doesn't prevent law enforcement from investigating crimes or bringing people to justice.

But there are a few loopholes in this process when it comes to section 702 queries and this data broker loophole, which allows our government to circumvent our Fourth Amendment rights to access our personal information without a warrant, a court order, or even a subpoena.

This is only legal because they are buying the information. But our rights shouldn't have a price, and cash shouldn't hold the same legitimacy as a warrant.

Law enforcement claims--they say this, this is their claim--this loophole, this data that they buy from data brokers is most useful before probable cause can be demonstrated. That is the whole point of the Fourth Amendment, of our right to prevent unreasonable seizures and searches.

If you can't establish probable cause, you shouldn't be able to access or buy this information unless a court says otherwise.

That is why we need this bipartisan Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act, which I am proud to co-lead.

Our bill doesn't inhibit law enforcement's investigations. Instead, it ensures that police searches are above board, follow due process, and protect Americans' privacy.

In a Congress where it feels almost impossible to get anything done and where the American people think all we do is disagree, this shows that we can do big things and there is a bipartisan consensus especially when it comes to Americans' privacy rights.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, we are just a few days from what would have been the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, so it is sadly predictable that we are here debating a MAGA Republicans' bill that would stigmatize students who parent while in school or who seek abortion care.

Now, I can't help but chuckle at the ridiculous arguments coming from the other side of the aisle, because, while I will admit that my Republican colleagues are good at naming bills, they are not good at caring for parents or kids after they are born.

This so-called Pregnant Students' Rights Act ironically fails to give pregnant students any new rights. It gives them no meaningful information and support like campus childcare, family housing, or nutrition support if they choose to be pregnant or parent while in school.

Instead, it provides a biased slate of options that pushes students to keep their pregnancy and raise a child, with no mention of contraception or that seeking an abortion is a viable and valid choice.

Pregnant and parenting students deserve comprehensive information about their rights and the resources and support they need to thrive at school. What they don't need are lectures about their choices. They don't need

obstacles to accessing abortion and the full spectrum of healthcare. They certainly don't need this condescending legislation that is more interested in advancing an anti-abortion agenda than genuinely helping students.

The decisions about keeping pregnancy to term and raising a child are serious, private, and personal. Women denied an abortion are four times more likely to live below the Federal poverty line. They are more likely to be evicted, go bankrupt, or have debt. They are more likely to stay in contact with a violent partner and raise the resulting child alone. Their children's financial well-being and development are more likely to suffer, too.

We shouldn't deprive students of making these informed decisions by withholding their full, comprehensive options. This bill does a disservice to pregnant and parenting students.

Instead, we should focus on strengthening Title IX protections, expanding support systems for families on campus like the CCAMPIS program that has been so successful at UC San Diego, and protecting pregnant students from discrimination.

I have to say that I have been in college more recently than just about anyone here, and I don't remember a single person being pressured into having an abortion.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.

Mr. Speaker, as the youngest Jewish Member of Congress, I know personally how hard it feels to be Jewish because I live it every day.

I was in the House Chamber on January 6 when insurrectionists stormed the Capitol wearing T-shirts saying six million was not enough.

I have experienced anti-Semitism my whole life: Jokes about my big nose, my fuzzy hair, being called a kike while waiting to get a drink at a bar.

Anti-Semitism was on the rise before October 7, and now it is running rampant. In San Diego, we know how hateful and deadly it can be. Four years ago, we mourned a beloved community member who was killed in the Chabad of Poway, and it seems like every other week we are washing swastikas off our buildings or sidewalks.

I am so grateful to President Biden for his leadership, for not politicizing our pain, and for bringing together Jewish Members to discuss a whole-of-society approach to countering anti-Semitism.

We need to fully fund and implement the U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism to ensure that Jewish people are safe and respected everywhere.

I am committed to this work, not just for a news cycle but for life, and I hope my colleagues will join me in that effort.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank my colleagues for their unanimous support of H. Res. 793, which passed the House this week.

I was proud to be an original cosponsor of this resolution, calling on Hamas to immediately release the 240 hostages taken during the horrific and inexcusable attack on Israel on October 7.

In the 55 days since the attack, I have met with family members of many of the hostages. They have experienced unimaginable pain and loss but still have hope, and so do I.

I am deeply grateful to President Biden and his administration for their leadership in negotiating the vitally important deal to release many of the hostages. I am relieved that 110 of them have been reunited with their loved ones, but we won't rest until every single one is home safely.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intention to raise a question of the privileges of the House.

The form of the resolution is as follows:

H. Res. 846 censuring Representative Brian Mast.

Whereas, Representative Brian Mast served honorably in the United States Army with distinct sacrifice, dedication, and bravery;

Whereas, Representative Brian Mast has repeatedly made inflammatory statements regarding innocent Palestinian civilians in Gaza who are in harm's way through no fault of their own as a result of horrific terrorist attacks conducted by Hamas on October 7, 2023;

Whereas, Representative Brian Mast 's refusal to distinguish innocent Palestinians from Hamas terrorists is false, misleading, dehumanizing, dangerous, and unbecoming of a Member of Congress;

Whereas, on October 19, 2023, during a House Foreign Affairs Committee markup, Representative Brian Mast emphatically asserted that any urgently needed humanitarian aid for innocent Palestinian civilians who are in harm's way through no fault of their own ``should be slowed down'' and that there should be ``every effort made to slow down any perceived assistance'';

Whereas, on October 19, 2023, during the same House Foreign Affairs Committee markup, Representative Brian Mast stated that terrorism is ``absolutely supported by the Palestinian people, from elementary school all the way up into the elderly'';

Whereas, on November 1, 2023, during a speech on the House floor, Representative Brian Mast inexcusably compared innocent Palestinian civilians, including children, who are often used as human shields by Hamas terrorists, to Nazi collaborators that perpetrated the Holocaust against the Jewish people;

Whereas, the horrific crime against humanity perpetrated by Nazis that resulted in the murder of more than 6 million Jews during the Holocaust should never be trivialized;

Whereas, on November 1, 2023, during a speech on the House floor, Representative Brian Mast stated that ``there are very few innocent Palestinian civilians'';

Whereas, on November 2, 2023, Representative Brian Mast again incorrectly conflated innocent Palestinian civilians with Hamas terrorists by tweeting a video of a Hamas leader and asserting that ``a two-state solution means making a state out of these murderous terrorists who are openly calling for the atrocities of October 7 to be committed over and over again'';

Whereas, Representative Brian Mast's repeated conflation of innocent Palestinian civilians with Hamas terrorists sends a message to the world that violence against all Palestinians is legitimate and risks the incitement of brutal attacks across the Middle East region, including settler violence in the West Bank and Hezbollah aggression in northern Israel;

Whereas, instances of anti-Arab hate and Islamophobia have been on the rise, including the hate-fueled murder of Wadea Al-Fayoume, a 6- year-old Palestinian American who was stabbed to death in his home in Illinois on October 15, 2023, because of his identity; and

Whereas, Representative Brian Mast's comments regarding innocent Palestinian civilians in Gaza are dehumanizing, inflammatory, unacceptable, and can be reasonably construed as inviting the targeted murder of innocent Palestinians, fanning the flames of violence in the Middle East, and violating the international rules of war:

Now, therefore, be it resolved that Brian Mast be censured.

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

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in a unique position to oppose this bill, especially section 8146.

I am proud to represent San Diego, the largest military community in the country. I am also proud to serve as one of the youngest Members of this body and the youngest woman on the House Committee on Armed Services.

I am in a unique position to understand the importance of access to reproductive healthcare, including abortion and fertility care for our servicemembers and their dependents, because, as a young woman, reproductive care is my healthcare. That is the case for the 1.62 million women of reproductive age in the military health system, too, not to mention our LGBTQ+ servicemembers, who already have difficulty accessing necessary care. This care is essential to our health, well- being, freedom, economic security, and empowerment, and for our national security, too.

That is why I am thankful for DOD's policy that covers the travel and transportation costs for abortion and fertility care, a policy that is consistent with the law. This is so important now that nearly half of all servicewomen are stationed in States with abortion restrictions because our servicemembers have little say in where they are stationed. They can't freely take days off work, and many can't afford to travel thousands of miles and pay out of pocket to receive the care they need and deserve.

DOD's policy took important steps to address those barriers and make our military more accessible and inclusive. That is why I will proudly fight for our servicemembers, who have fought so much for all of us here today. The least we can do is ensure they have their necessary healthcare.

For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee.

If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill. My amendment would strike section 8146.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the text of my amendment.

Ms. Jacobs moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4365 to the

Committee on Appropriations with the following amendment:

Strike section 8146.

Mr. Chair, I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to recommit.

Before I yield, I will also mention that while I am opposed to this bill in general, I am very proud of a bipartisan amendment that we were able to get into the en bloc that would set aside $5 million in additional funding to recruit and retain direct-care staff in CDCs.

I have heard time and again that staffing shortages are the main driver of our military childcare crisis. In my community that has sacrificed and served so much for us, recently, more than 4,000 military children were waiting for childcare spots at San Diego's military childcare centers. This amendment will help military families access the care they need so they can focus on the mission instead of wondering where their kids are placed or taken care of.

Madam Chair, I thank Congressman Gaetz for his partnership on this important issue.

Many of us have this idea of American exceptionalism--that America is set apart from the rest of the world.

Well, that is certainly true when it comes to cluster munitions and not in the way that we want.

America is an outlier. We are one of the few countries that hasn't become party to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, and that is a grave mistake.

These weapons maim and kill indiscriminately. 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 bomblets are small, colorful, and interesting shapes, so to children they look like toys. So when kids find these unexploded bomblets stuck in trees or in the water or simply on the ground and try to pick them up and play with them, they can lose a limb or their life in the blink of an eye.

Unfortunately, there is no amount of guardrails or promised precautions for cluster munitions that are enough.

These weapons are unpredictable, and the human cost is far too high to justify.

Now, let's be clear. This isn't about one country. This is not about Ukraine. This is about protecting civilian lives and ensuring our national security all over the world because sending these weapons anywhere makes us complicit in unavoidable civilian harm and creates blowback that undermines our national security.

Our partners and allies look to us and expect us to do the right thing to protect the marginalized, defend human rights, and strengthen democracy. This reputation is what allows us to build and maintain international coalitions that further our goals.

If other countries don't look up to us and don't expect us to do the right thing, we will be alone on the world stage.

I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to avoid all of these horrific consequences and support our bipartisan amendment to ensure that no funds can be used to transfer cluster munitions.

Mr. Chair, had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 344.

Amendment No. 35 Offered by Mrs. Miller of Illinois

Mr. Speaker, gun violence is the number one killer of kids and teens in America.

For so many problems facing our country, we don't know what to do, we don't know exactly how to fix it. Gun violence is different. We know what to do, but Republicans lack the backbone to do it, and, frankly, their justifications why aren't good enough.

Bucking your party, alienating the NRA, or potentially risking your seat is worth it to save lives.

We can save lives by reinstating the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. The 1994 ban that was implemented when I was only 5 years old decreased gun massacres by 37 percent, and when that ban expired, gun massacres rose by 183 percent.

Reinstating this ban would prevent parents from having to say their final good-byes to their children. It would prevent the trauma we knowingly pass on to future generations. It would prevent the never- ending what-ifs, if-onlys, and what-could-have-beens when thinking about the loved ones we have lost.

I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and reinstate the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the Gentleman from Ohio for your partnership on this amendment.

My team and I have loved working with you and your team on this issue and appreciate your commitment to making this a bipartisan effort.

Right now, an existing data broker loophole allows our government to make an end-run around our 4th amendment rights to access our personal information without a warrant, court order, or subpoena.

How? Because they're buying it.

Cash doesn't hold the same legitimacy and authority as a warrant--but right now, it's treated like it does.

This is wrong.

I'm sure that many of my colleagues don't want the Department of Defense to see what they're looking at online. . . . but there's nothing right now to prevent that.

Our search and browsing history, location data, health information-- all of this should be off-limits unless a court order says otherwise.

And that's why I'm so proud to lead this bipartisan amendment to prevent the Department of Defense from purchasing data that would otherwise require a warrant, court order, or subpoena.

Our amendment would rein in unauthorized surveillance practices and take a big step forward to protect Americans' privacy.

I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Chair, this is another amendment that is fearmongering about China when Republicans are continuing to actually undermine our national security by restricting and banning abortion.

Our servicemembers volunteered to serve in our armed services. They didn't volunteer to give up their reproductive rights.

I am thankful that DOD has taken steps to support servicemembers and their dependents' reproductive freedom by covering the travel and transportation costs for abortion and fertility care in the post-Roe era.

Let's be clear: DOD's travel policy is consistent with the law. We shouldn't reverse this progress and take away our servicemembers' freedom when they have already sacrificed so much for us.

In the 1 year since the Supreme Court struck down the constitutional right to an abortion, 20 States have restricted or banned abortion. This decision has disproportionately burdened our military families, who don't often choose where they are stationed. They can't freely take off days from work. Many can't afford to travel thousands of miles and pay out of pocket to receive the care they need and deserve, all because of the current statutory ban on DOD providing abortion services, which I strongly oppose.

That is why DOD's travel policy has been so important. As one of the few women of reproductive age in Congress, I know how important access to abortion and fertility care is to our health, freedom, economic security, and empowerment.

Taking away these fundamental rights doesn't just hurt these individuals. It hurts our military readiness, recruitment and retention, and morale, putting our national security in jeopardy.

With many people having zero access to abortion services where they are stationed, our military's ability to adapt to evolving conflicts and challenges has been very compromised.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The ACTING Chair. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Trans servicemembers have served and served successfully for years.

In fact, trans people are even more likely to serve in the U.S. military than cisgender people, so it is mind-boggling that we would want to deter and discriminate against a group of people who have proven their patriotism and deep commitment to our country.

All of us are well aware that we are facing steep military recruitment and retention challenges. This amendment will worsen this crisis by pushing transgender servicemembers out of the military. That is because gender-affirming care is necessary and medically backed.

Care that gives you the ability to be your true, authentic self is primary care, and it is not something that should be easily dismissed.

If our servicemembers constantly worry about their right to exist, their ability to serve our country is jeopardized, and it harms our readiness and ability to respond quickly and effectively to national security challenges.

I am not alone on this. Secretary Austin agrees that allowing people to serve as their authentic self is the right and the smart thing to do for our military operations.

That is why I urge my colleagues to do the right thing for our values and our readiness and oppose this harmful amendment.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.

Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

The ACTING Chair. The gentlewoman from California has 2\3/4\ minutes remaining.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank Ranking Member Smith for his comments, and I will emphasize that transgender people are people.

They are much more than statistics. They are people serving our country. They are people who care and are patriotic.

They are more likely to harm themselves and suffer from mental health challenges due to the harmful rhetoric they hear from elected officials denying their right to exist.

My youngest sibling, my brother, is trans, and he is one of the most responsible people I know. I would be thrilled if he wanted to serve our country, and you should be, too.

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to my colleague--

The ACTING Chair. The gentlewoman from California has 45 seconds remaining.

Madam Chair, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, let's be clear: Every major medical association in the United States, every single major medical association in the United States representing more than 1.3 million United States doctors, has affirmed that gender-affirming care is safe and effective.

Healthcare decisions for children should be between the patient, the parents, and the healthcare provider, not the government, not some politician who has no idea what he is talking about. I wonder what you would do if your kid came to you, sure that they were in the wrong body.

Madam Chair, I have talked to parents. Many of them didn't think they believed in trans issues either. But it should be between a parent, their child, and their doctor what healthcare decisions get made.

By denying servicemembers the ability to provide medically necessary care for their children, including by relocating, this amendment will likely lead to servicemembers leaving the military and will weaken efforts to recruit other people who do or may have transgender family members.

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

Mr. Chair, cluster munitions maim and kill indiscriminately, and they often fail to explode on impact, leaving communities littered with dangerous, unexploded land mines for years if not decades. Cleaning them up is expensive, dangerous, and takes a long time.

Despite claims about the dud rates, we know that when actually used in war, these weapons are unpredictable and kill more civilians than anticipated. That is why I am opposed to sending cluster munitions to Ukraine.

Unlike some of my Republican colleagues, I am a strong supporter of Ukraine. My bipartisan amendment would have banned the transfer of all cluster munitions to any country, and my amendment would have garnered strong support across both parties.

It is clear that this amendment is not about cluster munitions at all. It is about opposing any support to Ukraine.

We shouldn't be transferring cluster munitions at all, and the U.S. should join 123 other countries in banning this weapon once and for all and protecting the children who are maimed and killed by these horrific weapons.