Opposing Ban on Transgender Members of Armed Forces

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source