[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 54 (Thursday, March 28, 2019)]
[House]
[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.
____________________