Sara Jacobs

Ms. JACOBS

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

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Chair, my colleague says that we are just fear- mongering about what these bans would actually mean, but we have actually already seen how trans sports bans have been used to target all girls. A high school athletic association secretly investigated a female athlete without telling her or her parents to see if she was trans. She was not. The same association had investigated other complaints, receiving them because ``an athlete doesn't look feminine enough,'' and none of those allegations that the students were trans were verified to be true. In another incident, a Utah State school board member falsely suggested in 2024 that a high school basketball athlete was trans, subjecting her to relentless harassment and bullying, including threats of violence. In Florida, a school investigated a trans student's participation in girls' sports, and investigators repeatedly asked other individuals, all children, to describe how the student appeared in various stages of undress. If this does not disturb you about how our young girls will be treated in sports, then you are clearly not paying any attention. Let's be clear: Trans girls and trans women are much more likely--four times more likely than Cis people to be the victims of violent crime, not the perpetrator. Let's also be clear about something. The author of this amendment has led her own investigations that have failed, trying to prevent our colleagues from being able to use the restroom. She is talking about the right to vote. Her side of the aisle is literally pushing to take away a woman's right to vote because of the SAVE Act, and Secretary Hegseth doesn't think women should have the right to vote or serve in the military. This is absurd. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Chair, it is unfortunate that, once again, I am here fighting with my colleague from South Carolina to prevent her from injecting culture wars into our military. Let's clear up a few things. This amendment isn't about the Olympics. It isn't about the World Cup. It isn't even about college-level athletics. It is about discriminating against kids in preschool, from preschool to high school, whose parents are serving this country. These are kids who are trying to find a place where they fit in and belong, and this amendment makes them a political and physical target. Military kids change schools frequently due to their parents' careers. They have mastered the art of saying good-bye to their new friends, their home, their routine because they do it so often. They have missed birthdays and holidays and milestones with their parent when they are deployed, and sometimes they have to grow up too soon, taking on additional responsibilities when one parent is away. We should be doing everything we can to make sure that these kids get to be kids. However, this amendment does the opposite. It politicizes kids who just want to play on a soccer team with their friends. My colleague talks a lot about men forcing their way into girls' locker rooms. Well, this amendment actually is about forcing men into girls' locker rooms. It actually makes young girls more vulnerable to the likes of Larry Nassar, who would celebrate a policy like this because it makes it easier to victimize little girls. Think about it: Actual predators will be happy about this amendment. It could force any girl, especially tall, muscular, or more masculine- presenting girls to have to undergo invasive exams to prove that they are a girl. It could require girls of all ages to answer personal questions about their bodies and physical development to adults they may not know. I remember being a girl growing up, and as comfortable as I may be now talking about my period with all of you, that would be my worst nightmare in middle school, but that is the experience we would be forcing on millions of little girls around the country; not just trans girls, all girls. Talk about an invasion of little girls' privacy. At the end of the day, what is this really accomplishing? The number of trans girls in DODEA schools competing in sports is incredibly small. I bet the author of this amendment doesn't even know of any. This isn't a crisis, but my colleague is pretending it is to score political points. The parents of these military kids serve so we can have debates in this Chamber. The least we can do is not make their kids the collateral damage in culture war fights. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Chair, I don't believe that 435 Members of Congress should play pretend doctor and try to decide the medical care of servicemembers or their children that we have never met. In fact, even the physicians in this body know that there is a legal and ethical standard: that a doctor has to establish a patient-physician relationship, like an evaluation or an exam before prescribing care. None of us should be overriding the actual doctors who decide what kind of care is and isn't necessary. For the record, every major medical association in this country, representing over 1.3 million American doctors, recognizes that trans healthcare and gender-affirming care is safe, effective, and medically necessary. Prescribing any kind of care, whether it is puberty blockers or hormones or anything else, doesn't happen on a whim. It is after a rigorous, deliberate, multi-step physical and psychological evaluation by doctors. Here is the worst part about all this, the double standard at the heart of this amendment: Gender-affirming care is standard evidence- based care. In fact, the military relies on it for cisgender troops: troops with thyroid conditions, low testosterone, or other hormone needs. They just made a whole new policy about it. My colleague literally said: It is to make sure someone is more masculine. Making someone who is masculine more masculine is literally the definition of affirming one's gender with gender-affirming care. The same medical treatment can't strengthen readiness for a cis man and hurt readiness when a trans servicemember or our military families need it. A blanket ban on healthcare is a cruel punishment for kids. Denying them mental health care and therapy is especially disgusting when they are more likely to feel alone and isolated because of the vitriol they hear from people in this very body, people in power like my colleagues. We are better than this. Our troops are better than this. Our troops deserve better than this.

Ms. JACOBS. The same medical treatment can't strengthen readiness for a cisgender man and hurt readiness when a trans servicemember needs it.

Ms. JACOBS. Madam Chair, it seems like my colleague on the other side of the aisle has just as little understanding of parliamentary procedure as she has understanding of military readiness. This amendment is a waste of time. The trans military already exists. This executive order is already in effect. So what does this amendment actually do? It makes discrimination permanent. RAND and the Pentagon have already studied this. They concluded that allowing trans Americans to serve openly doesn't hurt unit cohesion, operational effectiveness, or readiness. Commanders said it made their force stronger. Do you know what actually hurts readiness? Kicking out trans servicemembers despite their stellar performance and discharging people we have spent time, money, and resources training because of who they are, not how they performed. That costs money. That hurts readiness. Secretary Hegseth loves talking about the importance of meritocracy in the military, but kicking out qualified people because he doesn't like their identity is the exact opposite of meritocracy. If you are really cynical and think that trans people only serve to get their healthcare paid for, you would be wrong. The Pentagon spent 6,400 times more on trans servicemembers' career development than on their healthcare. One of the trans servicemembers I met told me that their most costly procedure was for their shoulder reconstruction after being injured in the line of duty. For the record, shoulder reconstruction has nothing to do with being trans. Here is the double standard at the heart of this amendment. Hormone therapy is standard, evidence-based care. They just made a whole new policy about it.

Ms. JACOBS

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to honor the lives of Amin Abdullah, Mansour Kaziha, who went by AbulEzz, and Nadir Awad who were murdered at the Islamic Center of San Diego on Monday, a holy day in the final and most sacred month of the Islamic year. I am heartbroken for their families, for all of the students who were scared for their lives and were evacuated out of the school hand in hand, and for the greater Muslim community in San Diego and across the country. The Islamic Center is a special place for the Clairemont community, a sanctuary for peace, comfort, and safety. Unfortunately, that was ripped away from our community by two people armed with guns and hate. This tragedy didn't happen in a vacuum. We let it happen by refusing to actually do something and stop the rise of Islamophobia and anti- Muslim hate and hatred of all kinds. For decades, the Islamic Center has been the target of hate speech and vandalism and yelling by people driving by, so this is a very resilient community because they have had to be a resilient community, but this has to be where we draw the line. It has to be because I refuse to let Amin, AbulEzz, and Nadir's sacrifices be in vain. Amin worked as a security guard at the center for years. He came to work every day, prepared to protect his place of worship, and when confronted by the gunmen, he gave his life to save others. AbulEzz was the heart and soul of the mosque for nearly 40 years. He was a constant presence, a pillar of the community, and a beloved husband, grandfather, and father who treated every child at the mosque as his own. He died doing what he loved most in the world: caring for the children of the mosque. Nadir was a devoted member of the Clairemont community who gave his life shielding others from the gunmen. This tragedy could have been so much worse had it not been for all of their sacrifices. They had the courage and bravery to stand up in the face of danger, to distract, delay, and even engage with the gunmen to save others. We owe it to them to prevent the next hate crime, the next attack on our Muslim community because this is an attack on all of us. It is an attack on everyone's right to gather, worship, learn, and live in peace and safety. It is an attack on pluralism, on our right to celebrate our differences and coexist. It is an attack on our entire community, and we won't tolerate it. To our Muslim community, we are here for you. We mourn alongside you. We will honor the lives of these great men we lost by coming together and showing that our response to hate is love. It is compassion. It is understanding. It is community. Mr. Speaker, I ask all of us to join in a moment of silence in honor of Amin Abdullah, AbulEzz Kaziha, and Nadir Awad.

Ms. JACOBS

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, this isn't just politics for me. Two weeks ago, thousands of San Diego military families got 48-hour deployment notices. That means they need to be ready to drop everything to deploy to the Middle East, get their affairs in order, pack, and say good-bye to their families for a few months or maybe a year. Don't get me wrong, this is what our servicemembers and their families signed up for, and they are not complaining. It is our job in Congress, and my job as a Representative of the country's biggest military community, to make sure that we have explored all the contingency plans, exhausted all diplomatic and nonmilitary options, and figured out the objectives, the strategy, and the exit plan before we have asked them to. We have done none of that. While I will push for oversight and transparency about how we got here, our focus now should be on how we end this war. Instead, President Trump is escalating. The San Diego-based carrier, the USS Lincoln, is already in the region. San Diego's USS Boxer and the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit will be arriving soon, and we are expecting another San Diego-based carrier, the USS Roosevelt, to deploy any day now. When they get there, they will be prime targets for retaliation and charged with the difficult task of enforcing Donald Trump's cockamamie blockade of Iran's ports and partial blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which will put a lot of strain on an already fragile cease-fire. Donald Trump is getting our country further entrenched in another forever war in the Middle East, and the longer we stay, the harder and more expensive it will be to get out. Yes, we should support our troops. That means doing our jobs and asking these questions before they are asked to sacrifice their lives. That is why Congress needs to do our job or else we will keep paying the cost in terms of lives lost and taxpayer dollars. Captain Cody Khork, Sergeant 1st Class Noah Tietjens, Sergeant 1st Class Nicole Amor, Sergeant Declan Coady, Major Jeffrey O'Brien, Chief Warrant Officer Robert Marzan, Sergeant Benjamin Pennington, and all of the other servicemembers who have been killed in this war deserve for us to do our job. Mr. Speaker, my constituents' lives are in our hands and their fate is now up to us. Vote ``yes.''

Ms. JACOBS

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because our country has normalized something that should never be normal: locking up kids. Under the Trump administration, ICE has detained thousands of children, many of them under 5 years old. As a Representative from San Diego, an immigrant and border community, I have seen firsthand the consequences of our immigration system. As someone who has spent my career working on human rights, I can tell you that this is state-sanctioned child abuse. These children are not threats. They are not statistics. They are kids, some just babies and toddlers, who have fled violence, poverty, and instability. They have done nothing wrong. Many have experienced trauma before they ever set foot on American soil. Instead of care and instead of compassion, we are detaining them and traumatizing them for life. To be honest, I don't actually care what their parents may or may not have done. Children should not be punished for their parents' actions. Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago, I went to the Dilley immigration detention center in Texas, the primary site for family detention in our country. What I saw and what I heard would rattle any parent, and it should disturb everyone. Kids have nightmares so bad that they wake up screaming in the middle of the night. Teenagers are regressing developmentally and wetting the bed. The classrooms were empty. The playground was empty. There was no joy or laughter, just the look of fear and despair in people's eyes. The mom of a 3-year-old told me that her daughter was anxious and depressed, but the nurse said that she was fine because she hadn't lost too much weight yet, so they didn't help her. This kind of fear and uncertainty doesn't just go away. It will follow these kids. It will shape their development and leave lasting scars. This isn't just my observation. The American Academy of Pediatrics has said for years that detaining children causes toxic stress that can permanently alter brain development. Pediatricians call it institutional harm. When medical professionals are telling us that what we are doing to these kids causes the same neurological damage as physical abuse, we need to stop calling it immigration policy and start calling it for what it is. I know immigration is complicated. I know that there are strong opinions on all sides of this issue, but protecting children should not be controversial. Ensuring that children are treated with dignity and care should not be political or partisan. Apparently, it is because the Republican Party, the so-called profamily party, is complicit in child abuse. I won't be complicit. My colleagues and I will not be complicit. We need to shut down Dilley and end family detention for good. We need to reject the idea that locking up children and their parents is an acceptable response to migration. That means Congress needs to do its job and cut off funding for family detention and claw back the $75 billion blank check that was given to ICE and Border Patrol. While we are at it, not a single committee in this House has held a hearing on conditions inside family detention facilities, not one. Republicans control every gavel in this building, and they have conducted zero oversight of what is being done to children in our government's custody. If they won't do oversight, we will. When we have the majority, Dilley will be the first place we go. Many of us in this Chamber have children of our own. While I don't have kids yet, I wouldn't be able to live with myself and look my four nieces and nephews in the eyes if I weren't doing everything in my power to protect all kids. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to look their kids in their eyes tonight and imagine them locked up in these conditions, and then work with us to end family detention. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Dexter for her leadership on this issue.

Ms. JACOBS

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a voice for my generation and for my community in San Diego, the biggest military community in our country. When Presidents from both sides of the aisle have taken military action, it is our servicemembers, our young people, who are sent into harm's way. They sacrifice their bodies, their mental health, their time with their loved ones, and even their lives for us. While they are willing to make those sacrifices, we in Congress should be damned sure it is worth it. Too often, it is not. Too often, wars last longer and cost more than promised. Too often, regime-change plans go awry, like we have already seen with the deaths of six servicemembers, hundreds of civilian deaths, and rising gas prices. My colleagues will try to claim that voting for this War Powers Resolution hurts our servicemembers, but the opposite is true. We owe our servicemembers a real debate before we send them into harm's way. Voting ``yes'' is a vote for our military to ensure that their sacrifices won't be in vain. If any of my colleagues vote ``no,'' they should come to my district, look our servicemembers in the eye, and explain why they believe debating before we risk their lives is a bad thing. I hope every single one of my colleagues votes ``yes'' on this War Powers Resolution for our servicemembers.

Ms. JACOBS

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share a story from Lydia, an Army wife who desperately wants IVF coverage. Mr. Speaker, I hope Speaker Johnson is listening because he just stole her dream to build a family by removing my bipartisan and bicameral provision from this year's NDAA. Here is what Lydia said: ``The very job that injured my husband and caused his infertility, his service to his country, also denies him the medical treatment he needs to become a parent. IVF isn't a luxury for us. It is the only medical path we have to conceive, and TRICARE completely ignores that reality. My husband served 11 deployments, survived a brain injury, and has continued to serve, but we are told the cost of growing our family is ours alone to carry.'' Lydia and her husband have tried everything to conceive. They have already done nine rounds of IUI. Since they can't afford IVF out of pocket, they have considered leaving the military and even divorcing to get coverage in another State. Speaker Johnson is forcing this reality on Lydia and many more military families by refusing IVF coverage. It is especially hypocritical when his own staff has access to this care. This is one of the reasons why I will vote ``no'' on the final NDAA, but this fight isn't over.

Ms. JACOBS

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Chair, as you all know, President Trump has already kicked out transgender troops from the military, despite the fact that they are willing and able to serve and despite the fact that it will cost billions of dollars and decades to recruit and train their replacements. This proposed ban on medical care is unnecessary and redundant for our servicemembers because we know the goal here isn't actually about policy. It is a symbolic punishment. It is to send a false political message that trans healthcare is illegitimate, even though those of us who live in reality know that trans healthcare is safe, effective, and medically necessary. It is supported by every major medical association in the U.S., representing more than 1.3 million U.S. doctors. Let's be clear by what we mean by gender-affirming care. We don't only mean surgery. Sometimes it is just using the correct pronouns. Sometimes it is mental health care. Sometimes it is hormone therapy. Yes, sometimes it is surgery. This ban would also take away mental health care from the trans children of our servicemembers. We know that trans youth face significant mental health challenges, not because they are trans to be clear, but because of the external factors they face like: social isolation, discrimination, lack of affirmation, the stress of not getting the care they need, and having to hear colleagues of mine say horrible things about them on the House floor. Like any parent, if a servicemember's child can't get the care they need, they will be distracted from their mission. Ultimately, this ban will hurt our military readiness and likely lead servicemembers to leave the military. This amendment isn't only bigoted; it is shortsighted and would hurt our national security. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Trans people, including trans servicemembers, deserve the basic human dignity and common decency of safely using the restroom. Besides that, let's take the gentlewoman's point at face value. She wants to protect women. Great. So do I. Bathroom bans do not protect women. The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law even did a study on it, and there is zero evidence that allowing trans people to use the correct bathroom increases the risk to others. In fact, it is actually opposite. We have seen that cis women are harassed when people try to enforce or decree bathroom bans. Earlier this year at a Buffalo Wild Wings in Minnesota, a server followed a teenage girl into the restroom and demanded she prove she was a girl. When the server didn't believe her, she unzipped her hoodie to show she had breasts. That is the actual reality of bathroom bans and even the idea of bathroom bans: harassment, discrimination, and body exams. We don't need servicemembers acting like vigilantes to enforce this policy either by surveillance, profiling, or physical inspections. Our servicewomen go through enough. We shouldn't be inviting even more harassment. We don't need this amendment opening up the Pentagon and the entire U.S. Government to a massive lawsuit. This isn't good policy. This doesn't protect women. This is based on misinformation, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez).

Ms. JACOBS. May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Chair, I would just like to point out that I think it is very interesting that my colleague from South Carolina is so obsessed with the issue of trans people, using horrible slurs to talk about them, when many people in this body have received gender- affirming care. Filler is gender-affirming care. Boob jobs are gender- affirming care. Botox is gender-affirming care. Lots of my colleagues have received gender-affirming care. Let me be clear, I think everyone should have access to the gender-affirming care that they need, and I think we should respect everybody in this country.

Ms. JACOBS. The Committee is not in order. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. JACOBS. I request her words be taken down.

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Chair, the Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid account empowers the U.S. to be a global first responder, advancing our humanitarian goals and strategic interests at the same time. This fund makes humanitarian responses possible that otherwise wouldn't be. It enables the quick delivery of food, water, shelter, medical supplies, and transportation during natural disasters or humanitarian crises in areas that are too hard for NGOs and other U.S. agencies to reach as quickly. That means more lives saved. This account is also used to fund the removal of dangerous landmines and other unexploded ordnance that could harm civilians, something I know the amendment's sponsor has been vocal about in the past. This fund helps showcase the U.S. military in a positive light, leading with our values and capabilities while strengthening partnerships and alliances. For example, just a few years ago, OHDACA provided critical humanitarian assistance to Afghan Special Immigrant Visa applicants after the collapse of the Afghan Government. Compared to the rest of the defense budget, OHDACA's budget is modest, but its impact is huge. It yields massive returns in lives saved, crises stabilized, and partnerships strengthened. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Chairman, these AUMFs were literally voted on when I was 2 years old and 13 years old, respectively, and now I am old enough to be a Member of Congress. Let's be clear. Presidents from both parties have abused these AUMFs, and my generation is tired of these endless, forever wars. We know that President Trump will exploit, bend, and break any law. The courts have even said it. That is why this body should leave no ambiguity, no wiggle room, and no daylight about our congressional intent and congressional authority. Congress has the sole constitutional right to declare war, not President Trump or any other President. Yet, we have already seen this President take unauthorized military strikes in places like Yemen, Somalia, Syria, and Iraq. Earlier this year, he launched strikes on Iran without congressional authorization. Right now, he is weighing military strikes on cartels in Venezuela and hasn't sought congressional authorization. This body should not sit idly by while the President makes a mockery of our Constitution and our laws. We--only we--have the power to declare war. I urge my colleagues to pass our bipartisan amendment and repeal these outdated AUMFs.