“I oppose this amendment to ban transgender girls from sports. These bans harm all girls by leading to unfair investigations, harassment, and bullying of students who do not look feminine enough. Transgender girls are far more likely to be victims of violence than to cause it.”

“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.”

“I oppose this amendment. It creates a school voucher program that will strain the military's budget. The military already does not give enough money to the public schools that teach military children, and this amendment would make that problem worse.”

“Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee and the Education Committee, I represent a military district with about 7,000 sailors and officers. Many of those children use local schools which the Federal Government partially reimburses through the Impact Aid Program. The notion that we are going to start a new program--and really this program is about who pays. It is about funding vouchers. It is not really whether or not military families have a choice in terms of whether they themselves want to go to a parochial school or to a private school. That is not the point. The point that we are talking about here is, again, that this is going to put a stress on the Pentagon’s budget, who already, as I said, underfunds Impact Aid and DoDEA schools. If you look at the President’s budget that came over, Mr. Chair, there was actually a cut to Impact Aid in terms of what was sent over. We are going to be in a fight over at the Appropriations Committee to restore funding. Again, as someone who represents a district with public schools that are proudly in the business of offering education for K-12 students, this, again, is just going to be another pressure, external pressure, in terms of reducing what, in fact, these communities really deserve, which is to have the military fully compensate an item that families really depend on in terms of making sure whether they are deployed or whether when they are on base they are getting education and that the local community is not taking an unfair hit in terms of paying for those services. Again, this amendment would generate a new cost to the Pentagon’s budget in terms of DoDEA funding and Impact Aid funding who, again, today are not actually up to the levels that fully paid for those services. For that purpose, I oppose the amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I oppose this amendment. It creates a school voucher program that takes tax money away from public schools and gives it to private and religious schools. Most military children go to public schools, and we should invest our money there instead. Private schools also do not have to protect children with disabilities or follow federal civil rights laws.”

“Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chair, we all want the same thing for our military families. While our servicemembers carry out the mission to protect and defend our Nation, we have a duty to care for the loved ones whom they leave behind. For families with school-aged children, that means investing in safe, stable, high-quality schools where every child can learn, grow, and thrive. This amendment does the opposite. It creates a new, unfunded voucher program that diverts taxpayer dollars to private, including religious, schools instead of strengthening the public schools that educate most of our military-connected children. This year, taxpayers are investing $3.6 billion in DoDEA schools, but the majority of military-connected students attend local public schools, which receive just $70 million in Impact Aid, even though they lose local property tax revenue because of nearby military installations. These schools welcome military children every time new orders arrive, helping them navigate new classrooms, new communities, and the challenges of constant moves and deployments. If Congress is prepared to invest more in military children’s education, and I fully support that, we should be investing where most of them are already learning: our public schools. This amendment also falls short for families raising children with disabilities. Public schools are legally required to identify students with disabilities and provide the services and accommodations they need. Private schools are not. They may lack specialized staff or refuse to admit a child altogether. Unlike public schools, private schools are not required to follow the same Federal civil rights protections. Taxpayer dollars could fund schools that discriminate in admissions based on disability, religion, sex, sexual orientation, and other characteristics. A voucher is not a real choice if a school can simply turn a child away. Our military families deserve better. Let’s strengthen the schools they rely on, fully support DoDEA and public schools through Impact Aid and ensure every military child has access to a well-funded, accountable education.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 4 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

“Vote no on this proposal. Towns with military bases do not get enough federal money to pay for educating military kids. We should not start new education programs until we fully pay these towns back.”

“Mr. Chair, I think Congresswoman Tokuda did a very nice job in terms of laying out the reality of what is actually going on in communities where military installations and military bases exist. Those are tax exempt properties where the communities are, again, more than glad to educate the children of military servicemembers. They have to find a way to finance the cost of that education. Unfortunately, the existing programs in place today, DoDEA and Impact Aid, fall short in terms of making sure that those communities are fairly reimbursed. Mr. Chair, we are not in a place where there should even be a discussion about starting new funding programs for education paid for by the taxpayer until we keep the promise to those communities that we are going to reimburse the cost of educating military schoolchildren. For that reason, Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no’’ vote from all our colleagues, and I yield back the balance of my time.”