Sara Jacobs

Ms. JACOBS

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

Ms. JACOBS

Ms. JACOBS. 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.

Ms. JACOBS. 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.

Ms. JACOBS. 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.

Ms. JACOBS

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Chair, had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 344. Amendment No. 35 Offered by Mrs. Miller of Illinois

Ms. JACOBS

Ms. JACOBS. 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.

Ms. JACOBS

Ms. JACOBS. 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.

Ms. JACOBS

Ms. JACOBS. 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.

Ms. JACOBS. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The ACTING Chair. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.

Ms. JACOBS. 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.

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

Ms. JACOBS. 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.

Ms. JACOBS. 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).

Ms. JACOBS. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to my colleague-- The ACTING Chair. The gentlewoman from California has 45 seconds remaining.

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

Ms. JACOBS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. JACOBS. 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.

Ms. JACOBS

Ms. JACOBS. 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.

Ms. JACOBS

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Ira Sharp, a beloved member of the greater San Diego community who passed away this month. Ira was a native of St. Louis, where he came of age organizing sit- ins at segregated restaurants, activating students in support of civil rights, and eventually practicing law. He later lived here in Washington, D.C., where he and his wife Rose Ann ran a successful small business in legal services and court reporting, and in Naples, Florida, until they retired for good in San Diego. After their grandson was born and after the Parkland shooting, Ira and Rose Ann cofounded NeverAgainCA, and Ira served on the national board of the Brady Campaign. His fingerprints are on nearly every piece of gun safety legislation in San Diego County and California in the past decade. Beyond his immense advocacy, Ira was a good friend. If he was proud of you, he would tell you. If you had a cause for him to support, he was there. May his legacy live on as we continue the work to end gun violence, and may his memory be a blessing.

Ms. JACOBS

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Chair, I rise today to protect public safety and honor the original intent of this bill through a simple, commonsense amendment. Many of us on both sides of the aisle agree with the goal of H.R. 3091, to allow Federal law enforcement officers to buy retired handguns, many of which are already required to be destroyed. However, an oversight could enable domestic abusers, including those subject to restraining orders, to get firearms, which we all know can have deadly consequences. Police officers are human. They aren't immune from mental illness, domestic and family conflict, and other stressors that can lead to tragedies. We can and should have guardrails to prevent those tragedies. That is why my amendment simply ensures that each Federal law enforcement agency has procedures for determining whether an officer is in good standing to buy a firearm. Agencies would have the flexibility to tailor those determinations based on the qualifications of each agency, but these guidelines should be clear and concise. Existing Federal law already carves out special treatment for law enforcement officers by allowing them to have a gun even if they have a domestic violence restraining order. That is dangerous. All gun owners should meet the same standard, and law enforcement agencies shouldn't consider an officer who is perpetrating violence against a family or household member to be in good standing and able to buy a handgun. While I am thankful that the Committee on Rules supported my amendment, I am disappointed that they rejected my other amendment and several of my colleagues' amendments to provide additional guardrails for this buyback program. With this amendment, we have an opportunity to improve this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to save lives, protect public safety, and honor those who put their lives on the line for our communities. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Chair, I will just note that there is a loophole where law enforcement officers can keep a gun even when they have a domestic violence restraining order. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Chair, I would just like to add that by requiring agencies to have procedures to determine whether an officer is in good standing, this amendment would ensure that officers are treated fairly and only denied the purchase of their handgun for good and objective reasons. By establishing a deadline for Federal law enforcement agencies to establish these procedures, this amendment will ensure that an agency is not caught off guard when an officer who may have issues related to performance or behavior requests to purchase a weapon. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. JACOBS

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Chair, Dr. Maya Angelou once said: ``When people show you who they are, believe them the first time.'' Well, House Republicans have shown us over and over again who they are, and it is time we believe them. They have introduced a national abortion ban. They oppose paid family leave. They blocked the ERA. They fought against universal childcare. Now they are using the false guise of protecting women to blatantly discriminate against the trans community and threaten the privacy of all women and girls. House Republicans make trans kids' participation in sports seem sinister and conniving, and that couldn't be further from the truth. Trans kids are kids. They should be able to live full lives with unlimited opportunities, including playing sports. Despite what some of my colleagues have falsely claimed, trans girls and women do not have an overwhelming physical advantage compared to others. Just like all athletes, sometimes trans athletes win and sometimes they lose, but we know this isn't about facts. This is about discrimination and scoring political points. To my colleagues who haven't been exposed to the LGBTQ+ community or met someone who is trans or may not understand all of the different terms, you still know this is wrong. You know it is wrong to isolate and stigmatize and shame kids. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.