call me right after his name was announced and said that he understood the role of the congress and having served in congress. we may have a little bit different tenor. that is what i'm hopeful for and he did say that he wanted to work together in a partnership and i'm willing to give that a try. and if we have got the three of you willing to work this out and i am sure staff would be helpful, maybe we could come to something that at the very worst you could present this again on the floor but hopefully you can have something worked out that we can all. >> mr. chairman i'm willing to

give that a try if you will allow me to withdraw the amendment. >> thank you very thank you very much. the gentleman withdraws his amendment and we will work together pending floor action. the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi is recognized for the purpose of presenting the memo. >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> well the clerk please pass out the amendment and that would be to 29r. without objection reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. at the gentleman will suspend until they have a chance to pass out the amendment. >> certainly i will.

the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. trying to figure out which one i have before me. this amendment really started with representative andrews who has been working the issue of, the way in which the department of energy and national nuclear security agency handles proliferation issues and very dangerous materials. mr. heinrich and i looked at some of this early work and thought that there were things we really needed to discuss and this amendment represents the work of the three of us together with committee staff on providing information that we really need about some very important things, some of which we have been talking about here at the s.t.a.r.t. treaty how we are going to deal with bad and how we are going to deal with

the materials that come from the decommissioned weapons and the role of the various nuclear institutions, that is the laboratories in carrying out that so this is designed to get the department through the national laboratories to tell us how they are going to carry out a new tasks that have been given. this was supposed to be an en bloc amendment, however because of a waiver that was slow in coming from the other committees, it was pulled from the en bloc and finally got the waiver and it is now before us. so, there you have it. maybe mr. heinrich would like to take the rest of my three minutes and 60 minutes and explain his view of this. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner for five minutes. >> we would support this

amendment mr. chair. >> i commend you also on your brevity. is there no other discussion on this? if not, questions on the adoption of the amendment by mr. garamendi. those that are favorable say i ago. those opposed, no. the ayes have it and the amended is agreed to. now recognize the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi for the purpose of presenting another amendment, number 233. the clerk please pass out the amendment. without objection reading of the amendment will be dispensed with, and if the gentleman will will -- pass it out.

the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. >> mr. chairman, this amendment was designed to provide us with a study on how we are going to deal with the nuclear waste materials that have been collected at the various military and laboratory sites as well as to deal with the materials that will be forthcoming from the decommissioned in the various nuclear weapons. it is designed to create a study by the national academy of science on the best way for us to do this. there are, and have been, proposals and projects developed to do this that would overtime consume nearly all, well 80 or

90% of the nuclear waste material, and reduce the longevity of those materials from 100,000 or 300,000 years to 300 years. we wanted to get this study underway so that we could see where this might take us however, as i walked in here i was told that for reasons -- while i was told that one of the relevant committees has withheld the waiver which i had hoped would be available by the time -- it is not available and therefore i am compelled to withdraw this, but i draw the attention of the committee to this issue and that there is a potential for us to deal with much of the nuclear waste issue if we were to move forward with what is known as generation -- integral fast reactors together with reprocessing. anyway that is what this is all

about. we are going to have to go at this is slightly different way because of the lack of a waiver so i withdraw the amendment mr. chairman. >> the gentleman withdraws his amendment. we are now going to proceed to the roll call vote that were requested and rolled to the appropriate time. now is the appropriate time. roll call vote was requested on amendment number 142 by mr. lamborn. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] >> the clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman on this vote the ayes were 35, the nose were 36. >> the amendment is agreed to. a roll call vote was a requested on amendment number 261 for mr. turner. the clerk will call the roll.

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

>> the clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman on this boat the ayes were 35, the no's were 26. >> the amendment is agreed to. the next roll call vote was requested on amendment number 248r, mr. fleming. the clerk will call the roll.

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call]

>> the clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman on the votes be ayes were 35, the no's were 26. >> the amendment is agreed to. a roll call vote was requested by mr. turner second-degree amendment number 267 to ms. sanchez amendment. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call]

>> the clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman on that vote, the ayes were 33, the no's were 28. >> the amendment is agreed to. the questions now on ms. sanchez amendment as amended by mr. turner second-degree amendment. so many as are in favor will say i ago. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. excuse me. the no's have it. excuse me. the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to.

i get confused after about 6:00. if there are no further amendments the chair recognizes the gentleman mr. turner for the purpose of offering a motion. >> excuse me. i missed one. we do have one more reported vote requested, and that was mr. turner's amendment, number 250. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] . [roll call] >> how is mr. wittman recorded?

>> mr. chairman, mr. wittman is reported as voting aye. >> thank you. the clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman on this vote, the ayes were 35, the no's were 26. >> the amendment is agreed to. now i am back on the right-page. i apologize to mr. turner. if there were no further amendments the chair recognized announcement from ohio, mr. turner for the purpose of offering a motion. >> mr. chairman of the unless to adopt the subcommittee report on

strategic forces as amended. >> the question is on the motion of the gentleman from ohio. so many as are in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. a quorum being present the ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. at this time the chair yields to ranking member smith for a special announcement. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to take just a moment to have the committee recognized the hard work that our staff has done both on the majority of minority side. we literally could not do our jobs without their incredible talent and ability and tireless work. they work all hours of the day and night, do a great job for us and we definitely want to thank them for that. and in particular i want to thank betty gray. this is hurt 30th -- 30th markup which i think is amazing. [applause]

[applause] >> she does an amazing job. i will tell you, she knows everything. if you want to ask a question about how this committee functions we all know right where to go so it is just been great rigging with her. i haven't been here for this old 30 years but have been for half of them. she is a traffic asset to this committee and also a great person. love working with her and i know i. >> for everybody on the committee on that so thanks to betty and thanks for a staff is always a fantastic job they do for committee and for this country. >> i would like to sync and the ranking member's comments. i have just one question. are you sure it was 30 years? >> it sure doesn't look like it if you look at her. they told me it doesn't look

like she has aged. >> i would question it. she must have started at a very very young age. [laughter] >> we think actually she graduated high school when she was 10 and just went right to work here. >> very good, very good. thank you, betty and thanks to all of the staff for as ranking member smith said, the extraordinary work that they have done under extremely hard conditions this year with the change in the system and the way we did things and the change of the majority/minority. they have really done yeoman's work. the committee will now receive the report of the military personnel subcommittee pursuant to committee rule 17 and consultation with the ranking member we will postpone all of the recorded votes on the amendment in this particular subcommittee mark until the end of the subcommittee mark. the chair recognizes chairman of the committee -- subcommittee

the gentleman from south carolina mr. wilson for his opening comments. >> thank you mr. chairman. report of the personnel subcommittee is a product of an open bipartisan process with significant input a ranking member susan davis. as we begin we are grateful for the professionalism of our seals and killing the mass murder, osama bin laden. it is a proud day for all americans especially our military, their families, intelligence services and veterans. at this time i would like to highlight some of the more significant recommendations contained in the mark. the mark provides for a 1.6% increase in military basic pay. it says policy for measuring and reporting unit operations tempo and personnel tempo, reflecting the committee's continuing concern about the stresses on the force and propose reductions to military personnel, especially at a time when we must continue our resolve for victory in the current mission requirements in the face of

growing regional instability. another initiative important to me is reform of the military recruiting system to include graduates of homeschooling, charter schools and virtual schools. icy military service as an opportunity and fulfilling and these are extraordinary patriots who should have an opportunity to serve. the mark makes reductions in the numbers of general and flag officers to complement the administrative reductions directed by the secretary of defense. furthermore, the market consolidates and clarifies the legal authority for the administration and oversight of arlington national cemetery. i believe the market is strong in the multiple provisions dealing with sexual assault, child custody, mental health, traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. while the subcommittee report includes a one-year prohibition on any increase in tricare, i

understand the full committee mark would replace that prohibition, thereby allowing the of administrations proposed tricare prime piece for retirees to increase. i will be offering an amendment later to strike the provision from the chairman's mark because i believe military has made significant down payment for their dedicated service to the nation. in view of that service i disagree for the nation to ask them to pay more for health care to which they are entitled, specially because all families today are being personally challenged financially by rising gas prices. in conclusion i want to thank ms. davis and her staff for their contributions and support of this process and of course we were joined by active, informed and dedicated subcommittee members and in particular the new freshman who are serving on the subcommittee who have just been vital to our success. their recommendations and priorities are clearly reflected in the subcommittee report.

additionally i appreciate the dedication of the subcommittee staff who are at the front table. john chapter, jeannette jeanette james, mike higgins, craig green, deborah and jim weiss. thank you mr. chairman and i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes the ranking member of the military personnel subcommittee the gentlelady from california, mrs. davis for any comments she would choose to make. >> i want to thank you mr. chairman and certainly the ranking member for maintaining the bipartisan environment of this committee. it is a testament to the historic way in which this committee has worked to ensure the national security of our nation and i want to add this well my thank you to the staff. it is amazing how well they transitioned and works together with all of us and i really appreciate that. it has been outstanding in the way you have done that. i certainly want to thank you mr. wilson as well as a said the staffer the way you have worked

together. bismark continues the committee's efforts to ensure that we support our warfighters and their families. for over a decade or servicemembers and their families have been bearing the brunt of multiple deployments required of a nation at war. year after year, we remain concerned that this high level of tempo will break the force and yet each year, our men and women in uniform and their families display such dedication and commitment to the mission before us, whether we are with them in theater or at home. they all have our gratitude and our attention. there is some light at the end of the tunnel. the future still remains uncertain and as complex and the middle east continue to arise, our trust and our faith and those who wear the uniform will continue. that is why it is so important that we maintain our moral responsibility to care for those who volunteered to serve our

nation in uniform and their families. i want to just highlight a few of the elements of this bill. i think mr. wilson did a great job of doing that. they do include the 1.6% pay raise. also something that is going to be very important for our troops come authority for the secretary of defense to establish apprenticeship or grams to help in the transition of servicemembers. over the past year, as mr. wilson noted, the subcommittee has maintained a focus on sexual assault and harassment and remains committed to significantly reducing sexual assault and harassment in our armed forces. to he continued to support military children. once again, the mark includes an authorization of $30 million in the department of defense impact aid program, an additional $10 million for local educational agencies directly impacted my force structure changes and brass. there is no doubt that our armed forces are the best trained and

the best equipped in the world, but it is really more than that. those who wear the uniform defend the very values that americans hold dear, values of equality, fairness, passion and integrity and that is why i supported efforts to repeal "don't ask don't tell" which discriminated against and. denying big population of our society the ability to serve their nation goes against the very grain and values upon which our country is founded. i know that there is a difference of opinion on that and i respected that i am asking that as this markup comes forward and we know this issue will be raised again, i urge my colleagues to support all those who seek to serve our country in uniform. thank you mr. chairman olusegun thank you to the staff. >> before entertaining amendments is there any discussion on the subcommittee's

report? the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner. >> thank you. i want to highlight one provision that is in this mark and i want to thank chairman wilson for his work and ranking member davis for her support for a provision that is going to protect the child custody rights of our servicemembers. chairman wilson has been a great advocate for this and i appreciate him including this in the smart. this is certainly one of those compelling issues that impact their servicemembers. unbelievably across our country there have been family law courts that have taken custody away from our servicemembers upon return from iraq and afghanistan due to their absence and having served our country. we have done this. we have included this in our bill 4 times prior to this. this'll be our fifth time doing this. i appreciate the chair's support, chairman mckeon

previously for placing this bill and i want to thank jeanette james who has worked on the staff side on this issue for the last five years. what is different this time is that this is preceding with correspondence directly from secretary gates, supporting this provision that is in this bill. when we go to the senate this time with this provision saying that the houses unanimously once again indicated we want to support the children of our servicemembers, that we will do so in front of the senate was supported secretary gates and i want to thank him for reversing these policies and supporting this and thank chairman wilson for the inclusion of the provisions on sexual assault that come from the strong act i worked with representatives tsongas on. those are also important or servicemembers. thank you mr. chair. >> i want to commend the gentleman for his perseverance, for his determination and for the leadership he has shown on this for a number of years, for a very important issue and thank the chairman and ranking member for putting it in the mark. the chair now recognizes the

gentlelady from maine, ms. pingree for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chair. i just want to make a brief comment, one concern that i have and first thank both the chair of the subcommittee and the ranking member who i had the privilege of working with and enjoyed being a part of the subcommittee. and i do want to thank the chair. i know he is going to be putting in an amendment about tricare costs and i appreciate that because i want to talk a little bit about tricare and what an important service that is to the retirees in my district. it is something we hear an awful lot about because they are very pleased with the service they get and their ability to get quality health care under the tricare plan. i know that the mark will be changing this. it will -- future enrollees will end up under medicare and i have to express my concerns about this previously and i continue

both to be concerned this will result in substantial changes in the program in the way it services are delivered. it seems to me it is merely a cost shift and that is why we are taking the cost savings in this budget but frankly it will end up under a medicare costs in the future and i am just worried that many of the people who are currently eligible for care won't receive the same level of care. i know that savings are going going to be put towards a survivor's benefit program and of course all of us support the opportunity to help out those who should be benefiting from that program but i still don't think this will be a permanent solution to that problem and it will create another one in the long run. so i just wanted to be able to make that comment and express my disappointment in the way this is structured, and hope that somewhere down the road we are able to make some changes that continue to provide the same level of benefits to those that received tricare currently receive and i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentlelady yields back.

recognize now the gentleman from virginia, mr. rigell for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and i too applaud the work of chairman wilson and ranking member davis. i do want to call to their attention i colleagues on the committee a matter that i think is a rate importance to the nation and to our men and women in uniform. i hold the view that the paychecks of our men and women in uniform are unnecessarily injected into the debates that took place as we worked through the continuing resolutions and funding our government through the remainder of fiscal year 2011. let's assume for the moment that the motives related to that were good but even having said that, i just object to how i believe our men and women across the world were just having to be

concerned with whether they were going to get a paycheck or not. i think that this is entirely avoidable. it sure seems to me that it is, with the proper actions being taken and i respectfully urge my colleagues both on the personnel committee and across this good body of the armed services committee to take every action necessary to ensure that our men and women in uniform did not have to go through that again. i yield back. >> the the gentleman yields back. is there any other discussion before addressing amendments? the chair now recognizes mr. wilson for the purpose of introducing an en bloc amendment. >> mr. chairman i have an amendment at the desk. >> will the clerk please pass up the amendment? without objection the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with.

the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. >> thank you is your chairman. i ask unanimous consent to call out an en bloc package, budgetary legislative amendments, en bloc package number one, that i have worked with and been approved by the minority, comprised of the following. first amendment i mr. andrews to increase funding for prostate cancer imaging research initiative, a very thoughtful and productive amendment by ms. bordallo of guam to provide increases for funding in the

navy oand m. accounts promote interest and skill and seamanship and aviation while instilling qualities that mold strong character among youth, ages 11 to 17. an amendment by ms. tsongas to establish an army wounded warrior program consisting of public private partnerships for novel treatment strategies with an emphasis on musculoskeletal injuries are going amendment by ms. tsongas to fund full-time sexual assault coordinators and victim advocates at the brigade level or equivalent in training programs. an amendment by mr. owens for cooperative health care agreements between local original health care systems and military installations with no inpatient medical facilities. an amendment by mr. smith for the defense centers of excellence for psychological health and traumatic rain injury

to enhance efforts to disseminate post-deployment mental health information. an amendment by mr. smith for collaborative military civilian trauma training programs. an amendment by ms. pingree to authorize the commissary agencies to conduct an enhanced commissaries tour pilot program that would authorize the sale of additional types of merchandise including alcoholic beverages and tobacco products. an amendment by mr. kissell allowing and authorizing army outreach efforts to increase the number of social workers and mental health service providers to train resilience in members of the armed forces. an amendment i mr. heinrich to increase funding for an education employment advocacy pilot program to engage wounded warriors earlier in their recovery. an amendment i mr. platts for the development of national

medical guidelines regarding the rehabilitation of individuals with traumatic rain injury. an amendment by mr. langevin to establish a wounded warrior career development program with the dod's education and employment initiative for severely wounded warriors of all military services and their spouses. an amendment by mr. rooney to support a competitive program for translation research centers, tasked with addressing alcohol and substance abuse issues. and finally an amendment by ms. sanchez to obligate an additional $3 million for a collaborative program that responds response to the escalating suicide rates in combat stress related arrests of military personnel. to recognize and respond to combat stress disorder, suicide risk, substance addiction and risk-taking.

>> is there any debate on the amendment? if not, the question is on adoption of the amendment offered by mr. wilson. so many as are in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it and the offended is agreed to. the chair now recognizes mr. wilson for the purpose of introducing a second en bloc amendment. >> thank you mr. chairman. i ask unanimous consent to call up an en bloc package of amendments, en bloc package number two that has been worked and provided in a bipartisan manner, comprised of the following. first amendment by mr. kissell. >> wilda gentleman suspend? will the clerk please pass out the amendment. without objection reading of the amendment will be dispensed with.

>> the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. >> mr. chairman the amendment 1 would provide an amendment by mr. kissell to enhance adoption for servicemembers. second an amendment by ms. sutton to ensure the national guard bureau issues guidance into a naval military tech nations dual status to continue to be employed as technicians when the loss of their military membership and the selective reserve is the result of a combat related disability. an amendment by mr. andrews to encourage the dod education agency

to include coast guard personnel and adaptive sports programs. an amendment by mr. gibson to recognize taps as the national song of remembrance. an amendment by mr. gibson to support april 9 being recognized as yellow ribbon day. an amendment by mr. loebsack to study the feasibility of maintaining the same cost share are the initial dispensing of acute care medications filled outside of a military treatment facility as though as it were dispensed to the tricare mail order pharmacy. an amendment by ms. tsongas to maintain its relating to sexual assault and ensure lifetime

access with servicemembers who are a victim of sexual assault. an amendment by ms. davis to increase the number of service academy nominations for puerto rico. an amendment by mr. wittman to improve management of the arlington national cemetery. an amendment by mr. langevin expanding this final -- spinal cord injury research. an amendment by mr. turner to create a confidentiality privilege for sexual assault response coordinators, sexual assault victims advocates, dod, safe helpline personnel. an amendment by mr. turner to address the leadership structure and the air force institute of technology. an amendment by mr. johnson that requires a report on any department of defense project on autism services. an amendment by mr. hunter regarding the display of flags by our armed forces. and an amendment i mr. kaufman

for a comprehensive study of the selective service system. >> is there any discussion on the amendment? mr. turner, the gentleman from ohio, is recognized for five minutes. >> i want to again thank the chairman wilson for his work on on the important issue of sexual assault. there a number of revisions is placing the bill that are very important and respond to the needs of victims of sexual assault so i appreciate his work there. one of the provisions here is again a part of a strong act that i've worked with representative tsongas on. this is an important one and that's it numbs of sexual assault in the military are provided a response coordinators and unfortunately there currently is not a privilege in that communication and the alleged attackers have been able to use the sexual assault response coordinator that the victim advocates against the

victims using, forcing their testimony against the victims. this will help correct that and i thank chairman wilson for his leadership on that. >> the gentleman yields back. is there further debate on the amendment? >> mr. chairman? >> ms. tsongas is recognized. >> thank mr. chairman and i would like to thank they provisions regarding the amendment to permanently retain records of sexual assault in the military and ensure that a servicemember who is a victim of sexual assault has lifetime access to these records. military sexual assault is the leading cause of post-traumatic stress disorder in women. yet survivors of sexual assault have to jump through multiple bureaucratic hurdles to prove that their symptoms are connected to an incident of sexual assault in the military in order to be prioritized for mental health counseling or be eligible for benefits. servicemembers find it difficult to obtain documentation, proving their sexual assault once they leave the services because many of these documents are destroyed

at dod after only a few years. this provision will ensure that documents are maintained. it requires dod to prepare a record of all court proceedings in which a charge of sexual assault is adjudicated and provide a copy to the victim because victims of sexual assault service as a witness rather than an active process of that in their trial or their cases litigated they also do not understand the outcome of their case. these records are prepared when convictions result but when charges are dismissed or when a perpetrator is found innocent, but victim the victim has no reliable way to understand what happened and why his or her case was dismissed. ..

>> when the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by mr. wilson so any in favor will say ayes. those opposed, but no. the ayes have in the amendment is agreed to. >> the gentleman from california is recognized for the purpose of an amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. trying to see what number is. will the gentleman suspend and the clerk will please pass of the amendment.

without objection reading of the amendment will be dispensed with the gentleman is recognized expert in this amendment. thank you mr. chairman. in short, what this amendment does is provide an opportunity solution for kids with special needs for military families and if you tour the schools and you live near a military base i was at a school about a month and a half ago where over 40 kids every month moved because if they go to a different base they get reassigned and as we all know, when we move, as civilians

we look towards a place where we are moving to and we say is this a good school area, that the school area or influences where you move to? military folks don't have that option. they're told you're going to camp pendleton, camp lejeune, you're going to be at this base or that base and what this does is give those a pilot program that gives those families the opportunity to send their children if they have special needs to any type of school that kid needs to go to whether it is a charter school, public school, private school or school special suited, especially suited for their kids particular need. it's a pilot program that lasts five years capped at $10 million provides a maximum of $7,500 per child per year. we are going to see if this works. it's going to cover about 250 kids, and we have a colleague of ms. morris rogers that has an

issue like this. her husband is an uneasy and she has a child with special needs, and we just think -- i think it's important because as you know, military families don't get to choose where they go to school. it doesn't create a new program or a new position. it's going to be handled within the dod, and its would-be handled through the secretary of education and it's not duplicative with any other process either. there is no other amendment that gives kids with families in the military the opportunity to go to a school that meets their special needs. the reason i came upon a sigh of chairman of the case through 12 subcommittee on the edmund work force, and in this committee obviously this kind of seemed like a good fit. it's still keeps kids covered by the ida, the disabilities act, so they are covered by that of the public schools don't make those children's needs they are able to go wherever they think

is most suited for their kids. protected by military families they don't always have the most options and they just go where they are told to go and i don't think it's a bad week to try to help these kids out and help the families of the can be taken care of in the way that is most suited to their ability. so mr. chairman, i would urge -- i vote on my amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back and the chair recognizes the gentle lady from san diego for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and i join my colleague from san diego in saying that our families, military families who have children with special needs need more attention and help and support but i don't think that this amendment is going to help them. i think that it's misguided and i do believe that federal funding should be spent in more efficient ways so we can serve

our military dependents and students with disabilities. this is a problem and in 2010, we know that there were approximately 92,700 military dependent students with disabilities, so this voucher as my colleague stated were held very few students, and in fact it would leave the rest of the students, 90,000 plus without any help to this program. the best way to do this i think is to ensure that all public schools have the support they need to search every child with a disability. we all know that through the disability through the individual disabilities education act we have to provide an equal the opportunity for children with disabilities by forwarding them the right to a free appropriate public education. the problem that we have with this is that families who choose to use vouchers for private

school tuition have to forfeit their rights in determining placement for their child for access to services because private schools do not have to adhere to the ida. so even though we are trying to write it into the legislation here, the reality is there is no guarantee that would work for families. they don't -- doud terse don't provide that choice to parents of all students. think about it. even if someone has a voucher and they have some money if it is $7,500, whatever that might become that doesn't give them the health and support they need even for an entire year. so families perhaps who have resources could avail themselves of this but families that do not come in and we know that our military families do not have a lot of resources but still have to pay a large amount of money whether it is for transportation or the cost of schools themselves under a public

education they can actually be afforded the entire cost. former school board member actually i think like this. it shifts the cost of the public education program providing for special needs students to the department of defense. that might sound good, but in essence i think once you open this up it really can be problematic. every time i go whether it is in the theater, at home talking to the troops, every single time i have a family that raises questions about special-education. so in that, we are together. however, the concern that they raise is not they want to extend their child necessarily to a private school education or even to another school. they are looking for other kind of services than they need. we actually last year set up a

program, an office to try to serve our special needs children we need to fund that. we have other areas where we could help impact aid for students with disabilities or impact aid for students with severe disabilities. the staff office, staffing that office for special needs children of military families. all those things even with this amount of money the small amount of $10 million could actually be very, very helpful to a number of our military families. so, i'm i want to just ask you to think about that as an option because i think that really could go a whole lot further than this particular pilot program which would serve a select few of our military families. the national coalition of a chicken and the national association of federally inspected schools have weighed in on is that they oppose it as well as the ap. i urge the colleagues to oppose

this legislation. well-intentioned, but not going to help our military families. >> the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i want to strongly endorse this amendment and i commend mr. hunter in the strongest terms because i truly believe we are out to try to help our military families if we put ourselves in their place there's your a few things we can do that would mean more to them and empowering them to give children the very best that they can possibly give them and i would suggest to you, mr. chairman, that there are really one of two groups of people who are going to decide the philosophical, the academic and even the spiritual content of a child's education in this country. it will need to be a bureaucrat who doesn't know their name a parent that would pour their last drop of blood on the floor for them and i would suggest,

mr. chairman, parents are a safer bastion of keeping in that critically important decision. mr. chairman, the comments have been made that this wouldn't give parents enough to give them a good education. let me suggest something that's fairly obscure, and that is the average private education in this country costs half as much as the average public education. very few people understand that but that's the truth. partly because about one in 20 people that are employed by private schools are in administrators. and it's about four of ten in public setting. so mr. chairman, in terms of the cost this would definitely help the military families people to educate the children. >> there's another issue important and that is the quality of education itself. there are a lot of different factors that go into it. but let me suggest that the

overriding cingular factor that makes more difference in the successful outcome of the children's education as whether it is a public school, home-schooled, private school, a charter school, the involvement is the overriding factor that makes the difference in children's lives, and this is the sort of ultimate parental involvement because the parents buy a and when they are able to choose the schools they go to. mr. chairman, i guess everyone who's ever suggested some. and for the future has understood it again in children is more important than anything we do think aerosol said the way i studied the art of government that time the more i realize the fi devin ponder depends on the education of youth. if we really want to give our children this week will empower the parents to choose. this doesn't change the fact parents can choose a public or private or even home-schooled and i would say to you those the diminished private school and

home school choices look for a moment to the cost of each. private schools are half as much as public schools, home schools are somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 to $1,600 a year depending on the case through 12th and they blow our doors off in terms of the success of the education. home-schooled kids are the smartest kids in america and there's got to be something we can learn and if there's anything mr. hunter's amendment gives the chance to do is try something to end our parents and see whether it works. we empower all kinds of different customers in this country where consumers to choose what they think is best and it seems to always get the best product for the least cost. is that concept not important enough to apply to our children's education as well? mr. chairman, i just hope that somehow this committee will give a chance. why will tell you that i have seen this effort in arizona, and it has been very effective model

only does the education cost less, but they get a better education and children somehow feel they are connected to their parents or because they're in it together. >> mr. chairman, if this is adopted and will make it position on the record that the kids that get these vouchers will have significantly improved grades and success of their education whether they attend the private or the public schools they will do better because their parents will buy into the process. >> we still understand there's nothing more important to military families than their children, and there's nothing that dictates the successful paradigm of america's future than what we implicate in children's hearts and minds and i hope we will leave that to parents and not bureaucrats and mr. hunter is trying to get a chance to prove the significance of the concept and i hope we

give him that opportunity. with that i yield back. >> the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yelled to the rank the member of the subcommittee. >> thank you. one of the questions i would ask and perhaps this goes to my colleague from seen the lows will identifying but to under 50 children would benefit from this when we do a pilot program don't forget we are doing that because we want to bring the program to scale. we want to expand it throughout school district said throughout the country. once, if you were to move forward with that i think under the department of defense dollars to pick up the funding then you have to have an idea of where it is going to go from there. one of my colleagues was asking about where these dollars come from, where the gentleman found these dollars, but it is a problem, and we do guarantee

that the child education under idea. once they move up there are no guarantees because you cannot hold a number of other private school entities to taking care of those particular special-education children. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman for five minutes. >> thank you. i would like to yield to mr. hunter. >> thank the gentleman from of virginia and i would like to associate myself from mr. frank's whose remarks were very good and i can do better than that but let me answer a few questions. it seems strange to me when you have families will say you are a lance corporal in the marine corps making $35,000 a year you leave camp lejeune and go to the camp pendleton you don't know what the schools are like or anything about anything but the argument is unfortunately the

united states scholarship the other side is vouchers and then it is all of a sudden we don't want to help of the military families no matter what the amount is it's not enough, no matter what the program does it will show us anything simply because of that the word, and i think that that's kind of sad when you are looking at these families and the move there's no one helping them saying here's where your kid needs to go, here's the best schools for your child's needs and this is a pilot program to see if we even need anything like this. we might find out that we don't need anything like this in five years. we might find the public education is much better and it's better for families to not have any choice at all with their special needs children as week in congress choose to declare war and send people off to the war or not while saying it the same time we are not going to help those families as they move because of that the word because it is a voucher and

we are giving the family the choice to do what they think is right for their kids and i just think that it's kind of sad that that is a political divide to where we are going to say that it's not clear to help the families of all because it's that evil voucher. that is exactly what we are trying to do is give the parent's choice and especially those families that don't get to choose where to go. it's up to us. we are the ones that have the bases by come in and near a hour own districts and fund the military. we are directly responsible for those kids of those families i would say. so even though it is an evil voucher, it provides opportunity and it provides choice, and it lets the parents as mr. frank said it puts the parent directly involved in that education, and that almost guarantees success from the parents involved. with that, i would urge the yes vote again and let's give the

families choices and let's support those who were called upon by the constitution to support not just finding for the freedom but whether the families are back home waiting for the spouse and i would yield back the balance of lightning. spearman thank the gentleman from california and i yield back the balance of my time. some of the chair now recognizes the gentleman from washington, mr. larsen for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. many of us represent districts with school districts that have large populations of military families as we have bases in the district whether in my case in many cases others have other services and installations there and as a result we are doing all we can to support the military families in the district. i have a little bit of

resentment with the implication that anybody who will vote against this isn't supporting military families and anyone else in the district or their own. if i were able to find $10 million in the defense budget right now, i would prefer that we would put it in the impact program which is consistently underfunded both by the department of education and by the part of defense. a program that we all know exists today, and we know that it helps military families and we are not making that choice. so, my vote against this because it is a vulture or a scholarship or any of the wonderful name that people want to give it, my vote against this will be because we have existing come an existing program of impact aid that is underfunded that neglects our school districts,

and we are instead making it a choice of creating new programs with $10 million it could be any amount of money but in this case is $10 million instead of sticking it into the impacting aid program to help the existing school districts with existing problems with our military families. so, with that would the gentleman yield? >> i'd encourage people to vote against this, and gladly yield model the remainder of my time, but some of my time to mr. hunter. >> i place for any application. i didn't say that the no vote is because you don't support the family. the issue i have it's like you said. maybe the impact aid is better but we didn't put the $10 million in. but your argument that my amendment would work, just it doesn't impact aid. it has a positive outcome for both but it's not necessarily not going to work in your opinion it is just not impact aid the way that others might do

this, is the right? >> i will reclaim my time. i want to make an argument one way or another. there might be different reasons to vote for or against it. my point to the members of the committee is we have an existing program of impact aid and we are choosing -- we have the opportunity apparently to find $10 million we are not putting it there and when we know probably many of us are giving our school district is the contact, they are contacting us about the impact aid program, not just the fact that they are not able to access the dollars for three years after we said we are going to give them the dollars but for the program itself is underfunded. so for that reason i'm voting no and i yield back the rest of my time. >> can i get 30 seconds. >> if i can yield back to mr. smith. >> the point is the reason the impact aid program mr. larsen identifies is better because we

know it's out there and it's working and by mr. hunter's emission it is a pilot program even said its capped at $10 million because maybe we will find out that it doesn't work as well as we thought we ought to let least try and mr. larsen's point is we want to try when you take the $10 million give it to the military families right now specifically for education on a program i think every member of the committee supports. so i think that is the argument. >> i yield back the balance of my time, mr. chairman. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. scott for five minutes. >> thank you. i will be brief about this. mr. hunter, i appreciate you bringing this, and we in georgia passed the senate bill and i know that none of us like a offers from other states tell us how to run our states but it was in 2007i was the last republican to commit to it and i will tell you it's been extremely successful very much like this

program is, and since that time since it is passed not a single member of either party has proposed to repeal that. i think that this is an excellent program very similar to what we put in georgia and again, not a single mode to repeal the legislation since it was put in georgia because it works. thank you. i would yield back my time. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from maryland mr. roberts burger. estimates before mr. chairman. this has been a good debate. i understand both sides of the issue but i'm going to vote this amendment and this is the reason why. first i spent a lot of time in the local government before i had this job and one of the areas i try to focus on is the special-education for children. public schools come some districts to better than others but we need to do a lot more. in fact there was a commitment years ago the federal government would fund 15% of the

special-education for public schools and we still haven't gotten to that area. but one of the reasons i'm voting for this was because of the children of our military families. not only the war we are in now with the previous war the children of the military families suffer a lot. there's a lot of sacrifice with their families at home. the children are moved around. there's not a lot of consistency and consistency is important for education, and i think that just to have the program to call attention to the needs of these children, of the military children from special-education is extremely important and that we owe that to these families and these children, and for that reason only i think it appears on my side made a lot of good arguments and normally i would go with that because i support education and i think we need to put our money but we also need to improve education. but so, for those reasons i'm going to vote for this amendment

mark yelled back. >> and all recognize the gentleman from minnesota the chairman of the education committee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i identify myself with the remarks of the gentleman from maryland who just spoke. we have a good shortcoming in special-education funding throughout the country. the percentage that mr. rupert's berger was actually talking about is 40% of the excess money required by i.d.e.a., but this is about a pilot program to see if something will work here. we ought to see if this can help address these needs military families as everybody knows has special challenges articulated by mr. hunter and mr. frank's these families get out and move the children with special needs sometimes need extra special

care to see if something else works. i commend the jon rand for his amendment and i would urge all of my colleagues to support it and i yield back. >> i recognize mr. johnson for five minutes. >> thank you. it is laudable to want to ensure the military children with special needs get an appropriate education, and i certainly support that, but my opposition to this amendment has to do with the fact that this opens the door for a voucher program that ultimately will result in the death of the public-school

system. i realize this voucher program set up a little differently it will not take money out of the public-school system but we are opening the door to allow that to happen by agreeing to this voucher program, and i think we should be doing is supporting the public schools in so far as all special education, not just military in. i think that this amendment opens up a $10 million pot that would help very few children, and is frankly of the education politics, and for those reasons i oppose the amendment and yelled back.

>> the gentlelady? >> dalia yield my time to the gentle lady from california mrs. davis. >> i appreciate my colleague yielding. i frankly don't think i said it very well if a child is identified with by a team of looking at their needs deutsch and determine that children site can go to private school. when we say that this could end up costing a family more the public school has to pick up the full cost of the child education if it is determined that that is the very, very best way that they will have access to free education. i wanted to clarify that because i think of our military families are just like all families and they can qualify for an individual's education plan and they in fact can have that education taken care of. no question this doesn't work

for everybody. but i don't think that we are going to be getting at the heart of the needs of our military families with this particular program. we do have work to do in that area, and i really hope that we can continue to do that. i yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back and the chair now recognizes the gentle lady from hawaii for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. this is an area that i know a little bit about, so let me share it with everyone. i chaired what we called the investigative committee for the state of hawaii and we were under the consent decree for a period of 70 years under the federal court for exactly this area, the i.d.e.a. and section 504. first we got to understand when you're talking about the i.d.e.a., you're talking about a provision of the free and appropriate public education. the danger of believing the voucher system is really at its

not in the best interest of the children. the military families tend to move every two or three years if they are lucky. but every two years. what the public schools must do when they assess is to come up with an independent education, individualized education program. what that does is assess the child and with the child's needs are. and the woman from california is exactly correct if it means the public school system must face a private school education they are entitled to that. if it means the need additional programming in the afternoon, they must stay for that. we have situations with people we have to be paid for because it somehow enhanced the child's self perception. that is what the i.d.e.a. and section 5 look four requires your. if we look at the voucher system, the risks we are taking is you may belcher correctly in

one area for two years but then what happens to the child's need when that military families moved? i would contend that under the i.d.e.a. in the public-school system what you are providing them with is the plan the would follow them to the next schools and they would then be able to place the child in the appropriate settings after that. i know it sounds good to give parents a choice, but in this particular case you must look at what is in the best interest of that child and the continuation of that child's education and that is why we have the i.d.e.a. and section 504 because that follows the child throughout the academic career. but also be aware of the fact that under the i.d.e.a. section 504 our obligation for the child doesn't end at the high school graduation. that law creates an obligation to the age 20, 21, whichever way you want to count it, but it is

passed the, quote, high school education. how are we going to fund that? is also going to have to be worked into the system we've so when we look at this issue is not a simple issue and it's always keep in mind that we are trying to help that child, the child has special needs and in order to do that, in order to do that, we must put paramount over everything else that is a continuum of educational services which you will only be able to guarantee if the child is in the i.d.e.a. system throughout the academic career and after that under the timeframe. thank you. i would yield back. >> the gentlelady yields backed. this is something i also know little about and the gentlelady made a couple of excellent points. one thing that separates the children in the military

families from other families of participating i.d.e.a. is somehow stationed overseas. i.d.e.a. doesn't cover those families overseas. you also made a comment about the age being able to come children being able to pass the age of high school. this is something i have always had a problem with. a voucher, let's face it, there's a difference between democrats and republicans, and voucher is a bad word if you are a democrat, and i -- we don't have these candidates to back off and on this committee, but the education committee we do it with much more rancor and i am glad that i'm not have their tonight. but, the student after the turn 18 and they want to go on to

higher education they can get a pell grant which is a voucher so all of a sudden when the 18 it's okay to get a voucher, but you can't have a voucher or a scholarship or anything that gives anything that might pose a little threat to the teachers' unions because it's getting the nose in and may be expanded, and i would ask all of you to look what's happened with the opportunity scholarships were given to the children in washington, d.c.. some tremendous things happened in the young people's lives, and i think all we are talking about is a pilot program to see if we can't give some children of military families some of these same advantages. with that, i yield back, and i would yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway. >> i yield my time.

>> i will be brief. i just wanted to respond to a couple of things. we allow people to contribute to a scholarship funds for children to go to school, their parents' choice, or they can contribute to a public school and get a dollar for dollar reduction in their state income taxes. they've been successful in accomplishing for things, first of all, the kids perform better. the education costs less. they do better in other areas than just academically. fourth, the parents are happier with the situation and there's a fifth we haven't measured and that is the public schools themselves are improved because the educational situation because of the competition. the chairman mentioned colleges and pell grants. most people will understand that

if you measure our k-12 students in this country and in we only do fair if you measure that across the world of the colleges are considered some of the best in the world. why is it that our colleges make it so highly, and our grade schools and high schools are not? the main difference mr. sherman is the fact that in colleges there is a choice, there's a private decision that's made and i would suggest inclosing mr. chairman for those who say that the speed or public school system can give a more appropriate education there is a core arrogance that baker's prescription. it simply says the parents are not capable of making the best decisions for their children. if that were true probably home schoolers wouldn't be blowing the doors off every time we turn around. parents are capable of making the best decisions for their children. no one has a greater stake in that come and if we really care

about military families of all people, of all families, military families need this most because they have to move around because it is so disjointed and we need to empower the families and watch the results and with that i would yield back. >> hank johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to distinguish between a pell grant in the the voucher. the pell grant goes for college studies and vouchers ago for public education, which is a right. there is no right to a college education but there is a right to the education in the public schools. there is a right to that by every child, and to the extent

that we would take money away from the public schools to give people who want to make a choice as to whether or not to go to a public or a private school, i would submit we are paying our tax dollars to the public school system to educate all of our children and if an individual chooses to send their child to a private school, certainly they should have that choice. >> would the gentleman yield for a point of clarification? >> that's all i want to say. >> welcome and yes, we understand, mr. chairman, and i am simply making this distinction that the pell grants are for college education and not for --

>> that's right. once you are 18 you can get a pell grant. you get a voucher. before that you cannot. >> and i would yield back the balance. >> with the gentleman yield back? >> a point of clarification i'm not sure where that right is bestowed for the public education versus higher ed. maybe the state level but i don't see that the federal constitution. i would yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the ranking member mr. smith from washington. >> i hate to bring this up but since the democratic position on felch terse isn't once or twice but three times mischaracterized i need to point that out. the college thing is important because the difference between the colleges and private schools and kafirs of public schools is both colleges and private schools are not obligated to take anybody. if they don't want a student they don't take them. that is the greatest of vintage

they have. what the public schools are is the place that has to take everybody that goes to public schools. that's the biggest thing that differentiates them from the college or private school. private schools do in some instances take lower income students and do in some instances take students with disabilities, but they always have the option of not, and one cannot overemphasize how much that frees up their ability to run their institutions in a free and open way. and i think it is incredibly important that we have a group of institutions in the case riddle setting, public schools that take all, everyone that shows up, this in a bloody or not, no matter the situation. with the vouchers to come and the reason that we oppose them it's not because we are deinze and we don't know the difference between kawlija and kate weld and it's not because of anything the teachers' unions have to say. it's because when you to give out your what you do is to pull students and money out of the

public schools and send it over to private schools and those public schools have to do what they have to do and what they have to do is take all of the commerce and do the best they can to educate them but when you reach in and they are very self selected. he's absolutely right. the single biggest indicator the quality of education is whether or not the parents are engaged. unfortunately as a matter of public policy and not as a matter of constitutional law we have an obligation to worry about the education of children even if their parents are all doing the job so what you do is use separate the parents who are the best parents to by the way they don't take education better for their own children, they make education better for every child in the school where their child goes because they are active, involved, the quality of the community, you pull them out, pulled money out its public schools go further down because they have less money and less people who are going to make them better. there is obviously an opposite argument to that but our argument is not we just don't

like private schools we like the public schools. our argument is public schools letter and they will always matter no matter what you do private schools aren't going to take everybody. somebody has to be left over to educative for the beagle syndicate 12 public school and if you step in and take the money and the best parents out in those public schools are going to be that much worse in society is going to be that much worse. that's why we oppose vouchers and this one as well and i would yield time to my colleague from washington mr. larsen. >> thank you, mr. smith. again, i just want to point out i am pretty sure that i heard once again i think this is a quote if we don't vote for this then we don't support military families and i just want to bring in reiterate once again no vote on this has nothing to do with whether or not democrats or

republicans support military families. the support of military families now and have been for ten years it hasn't happened in three years but every once in awhile happens that members on both sides of the all get the same if you don't do something you don't support the military or military families and i've never thought anybody on this committee didn't support the military or military families regardless of the vote and they took. i can't let this go by again without sending this again that a no vote means you don't support military families come to have a difference with this particular amendment and that's all it means. with that i yield back. >> the gentleman from virginia is recognized five minutes. >> i know i am stepping on dangerous territory here but

i've heard this debate that's gone on for some time now but private versus public education and about teachers' unions and a voucher programs and the needs they have for this program and i just have admiration and respect for the gentleman from california and my good friend from arizona but the question i just legitimately asked isn't a predisposed answer to is looking at $400 billion of cuts coming down from the department of defense we are going to be facing we have got $567 billion of shortfalls in the ship repair and maintenance. $100 billion of unfunded means we have in the military. we are talking about only doing 80% of our facility maintenance. everyday we are asking now find cuts we can bring to the floor for the department of defense.

my good friend from georgia raises a great question when he said nobody is going to bring to appeal this you bet they won't nobody is going to want to repeal it, and all of the motivation for this is wonderful. everybody i agree with what ever they said. my question is we don't have enough money to do what we are doing now. i legitimately ask how can we afford to be embarking on new programs when we can't do the ones we've got and so why disrespectfully put this committee -- >> will the gentleman yield? >> i think it is a fundamental point is a little deeper than a philosophical argument about vouchers verges on vouchers. the present state to play is i

understand this a child in the military family enrolls in a public school district near the base public school district pays what it costs under i.d.e.a. to educate that child. this program if we understand correctly has a $7,500 voucher which will support of more than $75 comes from but. >> we are not paying for the education. a little bit of impact aid we are not sticking to the education -- >> all of those arguments are in great and i really believe in what he's trying to do. the thing i'm legitimately asking is next week somebody is going to come in and say we have to go to the floor and make some

more cuts and they are going to say where we are going to get the money to do all these programs, and if we can't repair ships and build enough ships i think this is a debate this committee we shouldn't be having to lie that we ought to be focusing on these other things but i want to yield to my friend from california because i'm not trying to kill your amendment i am legitimately asking how we embark on these programs and look ourselves in the mirror and say we are cutting on the one hand and expanding so i would yield to the gentleman from california. >> thank the gentleman for yielding. one, if you ask any military commander what is the most important thing the congress has done, the most important thing you have the answer is your sons and daughters, america's sons and daughters. that is the most important asset in the military are the people. there's nothing more important than we do here in this committee can take care of the people and there's nothing more important that we do for the

people that certain of the jury can take care of their kids. of all the different things the other side mentions the $10 million a few times this comes out of the same account as always on what amendments that have gotten past. there's $4,500,000 we can go through all these piles of paper that are at each of our feet here and look at all the money we have spent all these different things that are going to help out in the military, or going to help fight the war and go after terrorists and make the military more efficient, effective and everything else, and then we say if we take care of the people, that's $10 million that is wasted. that's $10 million we should put in a different program. so i would say the people, members who doesn't read in a program and we are careful it doesn't create post in the dod and its capped. so we are not putting them in. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

>> there is no further debate on the amendment. if not the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by mr. hunter. so many in favor would say aye. those opposed, no >> in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. >> i would ask for a vote, mr. chairman. >> the request for a roll call vote will be held later in the evening >> the chair recognizes mr. west, the gentleman from florida for an amendment. >> mr. chairman, thank you. i have an amendment at the table. the clerk will please pass the amendment and the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with

>> the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. >> thank you mr. chairman. i think one of the things we have to look at and understand is the 24th century battlefield we find ourselves engaged is a little bit different than anything we have ever contended with and i can speak from experience from someone commissioned into the army in 1982. in fact the we are dealing with on state mom uniform that are not respected with mortars and boundaries and they are not willing to contain their operations and other actions within the defined combat operations that we define ourselves. so, when we look at some of the recent jihad attacks that have occurred in the united states being at fort hood texas, being a the will of arkansas

recruiting center and frankfurt airport airmen that were killed there and wounded but then also we saw a couple of tax that could have gone against fort dix new jersey and also clinical virginia so this amendment we call the global combat zone for technician ensures members of the armed forces are civilians of the dod or killed or wounded in any attack in which they are targeted because their member for serve the armed forces or civilian employees of the dod treated the same as those who are killed and wounded in a combat zone. however, at the time of this mark, this amendment was not score by the committee on taxation or the cbo, going to withdraw this amendment and we will see to bring it up the legislation on the floor of a leader time once we get a scorn. i would yield back mr. chairman. >> the chair thinks the gentleman for his leadership in this area and for withdrawing

this amendment at this time i would be happy to work with him as time goes forward. the gentleman from arkansas mr. griffin is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i just want to say to my friend, representative west i commend what he's doing here. the murder that he referred to in little rock is in my district, and that case is a criminal matter still pending. but needless to say, much has been reported in the press about the circumstances surrounding that and i would look forward to working with representative west on this matter. thank you. >> the gentleman yields back. >> the gentleman from california mr. hunter is recognized the purpose of an amendment. >> i asked the court to distribute the amendment to

hundred one. >> clerk please pass of the amendment. without objection the reading will be dispensed with. [inaudible conversations] >> i figured you of all people couldn't be. >> the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. >> thank you >> it's a long controversy lament but i'm sure. >> we will have it done by 2200 tonight. mr. chairman as we all know how and when the repeal of lescol kuhl was passed last year with the lame-duck congress all this simply does is make the service chiefs the ones the men and women who are actually in charge

it's all men that were actually in charge of the service branches the repeal of the mask "don't ask, don't tell" will not have any negative implications for their branch. so the speed,, dhaka, the chief of staff for the air force, i want them to sign this amendment to sign off on the repeal of thomas "don't ask, don't tell" for its implementation because right now as it stands, the only folks that have to sign off on this or the president who has never been to the war and ground combat, the admiral mullen call to respect has never been in combat in iraq and afghanistan and secateurs rebates, a political appointee who is a fine gentleman that has never been in the ground combat in iraq or afghanistan. frankly i and others in this room have more, experience than the people who would sign off on the rick perlstein mask "don't ask, don't tell."

all in asking for is to give the service chiefs the ones actually responsible for the men and women under their care and in the branches the opportunity to sign off on this to say this is not going to harm the marine corps. the marine corps is ready for this and the army is ready for this now. the navy is moving full speed ahead. i think i know where they stand and i won't try to play games i'm obviously against the repeal of a mask "don't ask, don't tell." this doesn't stop and ask "don't ask, don't tell" from being repealed. unfortunately in my opinion, but what it does to say the service chiefs are the ones responsible to sign off on some of the marine corps commandant believes it's going to put his men's lives in jeopardy he won't sign off on it and in that case the marines will have some more work to do before it can be implemented, but i want to make sure the war fighters have a say in this that the war fighters, the men who know their men and women best know what they are doing and who they are fighting,

with their emotional state is that they have the opportunity to sign off on this and required by aas in congress by law due to this amendment to sign off on the repeal of the last "don't ask, don't tell" when and if they think it's appropriate for their service to repeal the mask "don't ask, don't tell" and implement open homosexuality in the united states military. with that i yield back the balance of my time. >> mr. smith? >> thank you mr. transferree guy willoughby brief. we've debated this at great length and i want to make two points in opposition to this amendment. first of all, we have secretary defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs as well as all the service chiefs say in the current system as it is setup with the secretary defended the chairman of the joint chiefs and the president signing off on this is acceptable. they don't need a separate authority. they are happy with the two people doing it and the second

point i want to make is it is a very dangerous thing to say the president in the united states, a commander in chief, secretary defense and the chairman of joint chiefs of staff are somehow not quite qualified to make important military decisions and these are the same people that decide whether or not we go to war and made the decision whether or not to take out osama bin laden we do have civilian control in the military. there is a reason for that but i think it doesn't make a lot of sense to say that the reason we have to support mr. hunter's amendment is because we cannot trust the president, the psychiatry defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs to make decisions about the military. if that's the case we have a lot bigger problems than "don't ask, don't tell." we should trust the decisions they are making and trust them this one and therefore i would oppose the amendment. >> with the gentleman yield back? >> i'm happy to deal.

>> this body is responsible for going to the war, not the president. after 45 days or whenever the law says. this determines whether we should go to war. >> who makes the initial decision? >> the president does but this isn't a 45 decision. thank the gentleman for yielding. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from colorado for five minutes. >> and i speak in favor of this amendment for a couple of reasons. one is i always felt it was a little stacked, the deck was stacked with the three people supposed to sign off on it originally had all been on record ahead of time saying what they would do, with the preference was, so same three people already on record must certify they want to do this have to certify they want to do this isn't fair and stacking the deck to service, so this broadens it and i think that's more of an activity to the whole matter and i think that it is a

really good thing. so for that reason i think that is really should be adopted and so for that reason we should broaden the number of people all of whom have a serious responsibility for the men and the women under their command who they would be certifying that this does not affect their combat readiness and this doesn't say whether or not the policy will be rejected or accepted it just says they have a say in the matter. for those reasons we should adopt this amendment. on the heels >> the gentle lady from san diego, ms. davis. 64 mr. chairman. one would think mr. hunter and i have all these discussions on the airplane flying around back-and-forth to san diego, but

we certainly respect one another but we differ certainly on this issue and all i am concerned that while this may not be an attempt to change the decision that's been made it is an attempt to slow it down and i guess i look at this and quite honestly i'm trying to think what part of comments that were made by the commandant of the marine corps, i think at that time the deputy just of staff at the army and secretary gates, buy authors, by admiral roughead did we not understand because they did sit here and say they were very comfortable that their ability to provide military and vice to secateurs dates and have it heard and respected. ..

>> they wanted to be sure the joint chiefs would represent the views of the services. the chairman of the joint chiefs is part of the certification process. i'm really kind of concerns that we would even bring up the measure, quite frankly. i yield back the balance of my time. >> gentlelady-year-olds -- yields back. mr. franks for five minutes.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i know there's a lot of emotional aspects of this debate. when this was being debated last year, one the things i felt was left out quite often was the central issue here. does the policy of "don't ask, don't tell" does it increase or decrease the capability of our military? does it tend in favor of our national security? that should have been the central question. from my perspective, those best able to speak to that issue were those commanders that actually have to fight and win our wars. they only ask us for one thing. they ask us for the time to study this and give us the report. unfortunately, those who control the congress last year were not willing to give them that time. mr. hunter's amendment would at least try to give them some even retroactive capability to speak to the issue. and in the final analysis, it seems to me that their voices

should be heard. and if, indeed, the majority is correct here that their voices are all going to be in favor of this, then there's nothing to fear with the amendment. again, i know that there are a lot of emotions that are connected to this. and i know that sometimes people's motivations are questioned. but in reality, the real issue here is the national security of the country. and those who fight and win our wars should be given a voice in the discussion. with that, i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. chair now recognized the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews were for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i believe were strongly and i think a majority of americans believe strongly if you love your country and you are willing to serve and sacrifice your life, then who you love in your private life is irrelevant and should have no bearing on whether you can serve your country. i know that there's an objection or a concern raised that the

implementation will somehow affect the military readiness of the country. it will somehow jeopardize the military readiness for the country. so the law that was signed into law by the president last december said that the change won't take place until the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff sign off on it. the objection we raised tonight somehow is that the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs will somehow be oblivious to or not persuaded by the views of the service chief if, in fact, they are different. but listen to what general cartwright said on the 28th of january of this year when asked about this question. as to whether the service chiefs are really going to have input into this. and i'm quoting. each of the service chief will have access to the joint chief

of staff and to the secretary to say we just discovered something we didn't anticipate. it's going to necessitate a pause or something like that. that will all be considered in the so-called calculus of what we go to the secretary and the chairman to certify. and if there's an outstanding issue that we just didn't anticipate, we certainly would reserve the right for that service chief, one to have a voice in it, two, to potentially be deterrentive of delaying activity. now this comes down to a question of trust. if you trust the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs to take into reasonable account the views of the service chiefs, then your vote on this amendment should be no. if you think there is reason to doubt their ability to handle something like this, i assume you'll reach a different conclusion. but i think the time for delays is over.

i think the time for roadblocks is over. and i think the time for someone who loves their country and who wants to serve it should begin. i would urge people to vote no on this amendment. >> gentleman yields back. chair recognizes now the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think i speak for many of my colleagues and the american people whether i express my frustration that we continue to relitigate this issue of "don't ask, don't tell" when we have other pressing business that occupies our attention. my mind is taken back to the photograph inside the white house on the evening of the most spectacular joint operations

mission that has ever happened in the american history. and that was the apprehension of osama bin laden. that picture -- i guess it's probably eight or nine people in there. the overwhelming majority of whom have never been in combat. never been on the ground in combat. but yet they were able to plan, rehearse, and then effectuate this spectacular situation that has made us all proud. i want to speak to the issue of commanders and civilians having

the authority, the civilian authority to make this decision. of course, having taken into consideration voices of those servicemen and women who are currently serving. now the military has said it can implement repeal of the provision without compromising readiness. the american people support repeal and let's get it done, let's move on, having openly gay americans serving in the military is not as fine of apocalypse. it's a sign of progress. so to my friends who continue to raise this issue, i respectfully ask that we just move forward. we move on. we give this thing a chance. give our military leadership the opportunity to implement something that i believe all

dutiful, lower ranking personnel in the military will follow. and i'll yield back. >> gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from mississippi, mr. palazzo, five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to speak on behalf of the amendment. i fully support it. i think it's a good amendment. i wish it would go on to say that unanimous concept of all of the chiefs are required before this is implemented. there's a lot of talk saying the american people want this. i've yet to find one american, i've yet to find one member of the army national guard, air national guard, marine corps, numerous airmen and sailors who support repealing "don't ask, don't tell." you know, the same as debate there's a culture in the military that they are -- i

thought this was a foregoing conclusion. it was hyped up. it's all political. the president said he was going to make it happen. then the secretary of defense and the chairman of joint chiefs, they just lined up and knew it was going to a foregoing conclusion. so they just followed in lock step. but that's also when you have your commanders and senior enlisted personnel see the right in on the wall, they are going to do the same thing. and, you know, there's been a perfect example, article this week, where a lieutenant general who retired after 35 years of service basically i don't know if he was run out or if he saw the writing on the wall himself. he opposed implementation of dadt, he was publicly rebutte by the secretary of defense and the chairman of the chief of staff suggested that he resign. he was just wanting to have an

honest conversation in trying to get the enlisted personnel in the armed services and offense -- office speak out. they saw the writing on the wall. like most military, they are going to do as they are told. they probably have their discipline, respectful, leadership, and many of them depend on their service as a way to support the families. i could go on for a while. i don't know if you would like to -- >> balance my time. >> thank you. >> answer your question. this does -- it requires the service chiefs to sign off on this for the repeal to be implemented. it does, in fact, set a condition of approval by the four service chiefs forecast repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" to go into effect. thank you for yielding. >> would the gentleman yield? >> not at this time. i had -- today we had about 85 veterans from world war two up here, the greatest generation.

i hate that, you know, hopefully they are not really following what's going on with our nation's military right now. but i do not think that they could look upon this as progress. i don't think they'd look at this as the sacrifices that they made for our families, for our country, and for our allies and future generations of americans to see their military go down in flames but implementing dadt policy. our men and women in uniform deserve better. we have to not only, you know, keep the memory of our armed services, you know, the people who served our country, protect that memory of their sacrifice and their selfless service, we have to take care of our men and women that are currently serving. it is just not making sure they have the equipment and training, but it's also to foster a healthy atmosphere, as well as protecting the military for future generations who have yet to serve. i have a feeling this is just going to be a deterrent to future americans who would like

to serve and need to serve. >> would the gentleman yield? would the gentleman yield? >> yes, i yield. >> thank you. just want to take us back to 1948. president harry truman made a decision to desegregate the military to allow blacks and whites to serve side by side. and i would imagine that back then there were quite a few personnel, military personnel, from general on down who found it necessary to separate themselves from the military because they just could not follow that policy. but we've seen that the policy change was the right thing to do. i think it's similar situation here with "don't ask, don't

tell." i believe that those who choose to remain in voluntary service in the military from generals on down will get over any queys writeness they may have. >> i agree with him, who you love in your private life is the better policy. that was the one. we didn't care, as long as you kept it private. i thought it was much better policy than the current one, which drives that private issue into the public arena, either on purpose or whatever. this is the case. i do think though there's a big difference, first off, we want

to be careful about how we characterize other people's votes and what the motivation might or might not be. i think there is a big process difference between having the secretary of defense, excuse me, who serves at the pleasure of the president listen to the chiefs, take into consideration what their positions are, and make his own decision which would be telegraphed as my colleague from colorado said before the decision and information was in. that's different than having the chiefs go on record and certify to this committee that, in fact, it is their best professional military judgment that the policy either will or won't affect unit cohesionness, and all of the things that we talk about in terms of mission effectiveness within the services. so why we would be afraid to ask them to go on the record in this way, this amendment proports to

do it is -- i get lost in that logic. so it is about you know, having them on it on the record. and in reference to our colleague from georgia, general colin powell, when asked about the analogy because blacks and military and "don't ask, don't tell" he gave an important answer on why he thought it was wrong. >> would the gentleman yield? >> no, sir, i won't. i'll yield back my time. >> would the gentleman yield one last time? >> i asked first. >> gentleman yield back his time. gentleman from washington, mr. larsen, is recommended or -- is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'll wait until i'm officially

recognized. just a few points just so we understand the process and the time frame of the vote last year. certainly didn't happen over night. took about 17 years, i think, from the time "don't ask, don't tell" was implemented to the time it was repealed. it was a debate that went on some time in the country. and so obviously take a while. the second point was there was some implication. this was political. and i would just hope that folks might also consider some people that thought it was the right thing to do. not the political thing to do. i think sometimes, you know, i think one definition of progress is to let people who love their country also to let them serve their country. and that's what the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" does. with regards to something that

ms. davis said, i'll just repeat it to go to a handout, well, there's been a handout given at least to me and perhaps to others, sort of outlining what the service chiefs have said about whether or not an amendment like this is needed. and what the service chiefs have said is that, no. we don't need an amendment like this. i know we debate whether or not service chiefs are being told what to say, whether they are speaking their mind, i can't really cast an asperges on the motivation. all i know is what the service chief has said on an amendment like this, not this amendment, but an amendment like this. they said they don't need it. i'll be voting against the amendment. and i look forward to continued debate on this issue. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. gentleman now -- the chair now

recognized gentleman from florida, mr. west. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i think on one of very few individuals on this committee that has ever commanded an army or marine or any type of unit in combat in recent time. one the reasons why i do support this amendment is because it is a commanders responsibility to certify his unit to make sure they are trained and prepared to go into combat and the responsibility that goes up that chain of command does go to the service chiefs to provide a certification that they are providing trained and ready units to a combating commander, or to the secretary of defense with the chairman joint chiefs. i don't see any problem with this amendment. because it is their responsibility. you don't see the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff apted secretary of defense going out to the national training center out to 29 palms or any other certification aspect where we are making sure our forces are

trained and ready. i think that we have an important responsibility to make sure that as we do implement this program which let's just go ahead and be very honest, the military will salute the flag and implement the program. we need to make sure that as we send these units into combat that they are the most trained and most prepared and most cohesive units going into combat. having been combat in 2003, the last thing i needed was a punch of disruption and the 700 men that i had to send out daily. i will support this amendment because i think it is in keeping with the training certifications systems and processes that we do have established in the united states military. i and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. chair recognized mrs. the

congresswoman from maine. >> thank you. i will be opposing this amendment. and i do appreciate and respect my colleague mr. hunter. i had the opportunity to travel with him in iraq and afghanistan. i appreciate his service and his insights tremendously. but i do want to just say i oppose this. i feel we've done an enormous amount of work in the subcommittee and this committee and congress has a whole in coming to a decision to fully repeal "don't ask, don't tell." we did so thanks to listening to the testimony by leaders of the military, and others have talked about them coming before the personnel subcommittee and talking about how well the training is going, how confident they feel about the ability of our armed services to work well together and how well they are already moving forward. and i want to remind us all that prior to the beginning of this

change, they also surveyed the military, one the largest surveys ever done, which came out with very conclusive results that show the military was ready to make the change. in fact, statistics showed that the more likely -- if you served along someone who you believe was gay or lesbian soldier, you were more likely to believe you could go ahead and make this change and it could happen flawlessly. i also want to reiterate yes we are. over 13,000 members have been relieved of duty. they served the country, brought tremendous skills, and in whom we invested money to train them. not only did we break to promise to them when they agreed to serve this country, but we've spent a lot of money in ways that we didn't need to by relieving them of their duty. i think that's immoral and wrong and i'm pleased that we are move

ing forward with this. i would hate to see anything bring us back. we were told a unit could act more cohesively if every soldier could be more honest. that's what we're allowing them to do. operate under a honest frame of reference. that's important. mr. palazzo mentioned that the greatest generation was visiting us. we're proud of the soldiers from world war ii. some of them were gay as well. many of them took a long time to admit or come out. they have all been courageous in going so. i think they can't be characterized as the generation that doesn't want to see the change. many of them are applauding it, leading it, and led us in the past. i hope that we do not test this amendment tonight and i hope we allow the military to move

forward in the very thoughtful and courageous manner. i yield back the balance of my time. >> gentlelady yields back. dr. fleming for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in full disclosure, i opposed the feel of "don't ask, don't tell" before, however, i do support mr. hunter's amendment. i think this is all about unit cohesiveness and readiness. reflecting back to the survey that was done was quite flawed in many ways. the ones that is very remmable is the fact that the survey surrounded the question of how to implement the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" not whether to. you know the study was done. with that, i yield to my friend, mr. harper. >> thank you.

mr. chairman, i did not mean for the debate to repeat the debate that is we've had in the last congress. in fact, as i get better as being a congressman, i guess i'll learn how to put everything in the first five minutes as we got sucked into the debate of "don't ask, don't tell" i didn't mention this amendment makes them sign off only for their combat units, moss their own men, men only because there's no women, of men only in combat in theater, going over to theater, or getting ready or prepareing for deployment to a combat theater. so it's only those that -- in fact, i'll reiterate it here. the air force will each submit the office's written certification that repeal of section 694 of 10 united states code will not degrade the readiness, cohesion, and personnel of the armed forces

under the jurisdiction. one of three things, engaged in combat, deployed, or prepareing for deployment to a combat theater. we have seen what the navy is doing. they are moving with light speed. it almost seems like they have repealed "don't ask, don't tell" in the navy. look at that question there, that survey. you ask navy seals, bun the only combat arms group in the navy, and the ones that we applauded for killing osama bin laden, they are dramatically, dramatically against the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" in the numbers of 60 to 70%. not to repeat the argument and the debate that is we had last year. all it says is for our combat units, the one that is are shooters on the ground in theater right now or the ones that are going over there, the service chief has to sign off that this will not harm their effectiveness. with that, i yield back to the gentleman from louisiana.

>> i yield back, mr. chairman. >> gentleman yields back. chair now recognizes gentleman from ohio, mr. ryan for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to submit for the record a story of a world war ii veteran that sent me this story because it was brought up about the greatest generation and read just a paragraph or two from the letter. i've never forget the sounds of bullet bullets whizzing by my head. giving more significant and meaning. for more than five minutes, i didn't talk about my experience. i wasn't active, i didn't show my -- i didn't get a star, and i have shared my story not to get recognition, but to make a point.

in military, service matters, not sexual orientation. this is a gentleman that retired that lives in columbus, ohio. during the first firefight, my friend was evacuated because he nearly lost his mind. it didn't matter. he was straight. he couldn't stand the heat of battle. i'm proud to say i could. there are tens of thousands of americans who could stand up under fire who are gay. i yield my time. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from nevada. >> there have been lots of points made, i have concerned about the way this proceeding and i will be supporting this amendment, this asks for the service chiefs, those that are responsiblable for manning, training, and equipping our arms

forces to certify it will not degrade readiness. there's been a lot of talk about the survey. the survey started after the decision was made to repeal "don't ask, don't tell." i know because we've kept getting e-mails to complete the survey. nobody was completing it. so the survey was flawed. as much as i want to see the service chiefs sign off on this, i believe it's unconscionable that we would take somebody who has dedicated their lives, gave 15 or 17 years, and drummed them out, because it was learned that they were homosexual. i resented the fact as a commander, i had to initiate the proceedings when it was brought to my attention. even though the person had served honorably when their sexual orientation was unbeknownst to anybody else in the service. i'm conflicted. but i do feel it's important that the service chiefs, the

ones that are responsible for making sure our forces are manned, trained, and equipped to perform have an ability to sign off and say that to the best of their ability, the training has worked. i can tell you right now we're in the midst of the training. i just completed the tier one training. we are now rolling it out who are then going to roll it out to everybody in the unit and our deadline is august 1 of this year to have everybody trained. we're not sure. we haven't been able to assess the impact of the training. i think it's important that those folks that are responsible for something in the training have the ability to weigh in on the most important issue. with that, i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. gibson. >> well, thanks, mr. chairman. and like my previous colleague and also my colleague allen west, i've commanded units. i took my battalion twice to

iraq and brigade combat team, over 3700 men and women strong went to haiti as part of the relief. last year i opposed lifting the ban. i was concerned about quite frankly the friction that would be involved for unites moving forward. life in a combat zone is hard. and i believe our leadership can over come anything. includes this. but i wanted our leadership focused on winning. on winning the war and protecting our servicemen and women. now this vote has been taken. and it was the vote of the american people as expressed by the representatives dually elected. and i will tell you that this amendment here tonight, i don't think that it's going to substantially change things. because the chain of command throughout the arms services are actively engaged on the issue.

you just heard dr. heck moments ago. certainly the chiefs of staff are engaged on the issue. i saw it in a hearing not long ago, all of the chiefs were being asked within two months of the new congress about where they stood on this. and so i believe that they are already on the line for this on what their recommendation is going to be. so i don't see any substantialive gain in passing this amendment. and so i will be opposing it. i yield back. >> i have questions on the opposite amendment by mr. hunter. so many in favor say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed, no. >> no. >> opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.

>> mr. chairman, i ask for the roll call. >> the vote has been recorded. that will be held later on this evening. the chair now recognized an amendment. >> thank you, i have an amendment. i believe it's being distributed. >> will the clerk please pass out the amendment? without objection, reading the amendment will be dispensed with. harts >> gentlelady is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is fairly short.

it reaffirms the congress regarding federal policy and practice to the definition of marriages between one man and one woman. this was passed originally in 1996, 15 years ago, overwhelm ingly in the house, 342-67. in the house, 85-14, and the bill was signed by president clinton. since then, the policy has come understood question. it's now being challenged in the federal courts. it's been upheld. as many of you know, our president unilaterally decided he would not defend this law, the will of the people, and instructed the justice department to not defend it in the court, which has forced the house to take action on our own to make sure it is defended. recently, we had a branch of the military decide that they were not going to honor this law and that federal employees would be

conducting marriages other than the official definition that congress had established. so i think this is time for us in this congress and 112th congress to give our sense that we believe this is a wise policy and that marriage should be between man and a woman as it relates to federal employee action. so with that, i yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. chair now recognized the lady from california, mrs. davis for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as my colleague stated, this has been in law. there's really no sunset on this law. it continues. current law state and i'll quote it again, in determining the meaning of any act or congress of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrator bureaus or agent -- agency in the united states, the marriage is between own man

and one woman, and spouse referred to the opposite sex of the husband or wife. it's depula cootive to put the change in the bill. they have made clear they are bound, as is every other federal agency. so i would certainly ask my colleagues to take a look at this. as my colleague actually makes the point that doma deals only with the definition of marriage. it does not speak toal -- speak to federal employees or the use. all it does is define marriage. that's all doma does. >> would the gentlelady yield? >> yes, i yield. >> thank you. it does go further than just the definition though. it says any ruling, regulation,

interpretation of this as it relates to marriage. so that does bring up the situation that we've had in the navy recently which instructed their chaplains to product marriages other than between a man and a woman and to use federal facilities for that. and so that's why when we have these questions about it and when we have it not being defended by our administration in the federal court system, i think there is a point here at this time and 112th congress for us to come forward affirmatively and to send a message to the department of defense and to all of the federal government that we believe as far as in policy and practice, marriage should be between a man and woman, that is our definition. >> thank you. i'm going to take back my time before i run out of time. because one thing we also know and the reason that we have states that have been ruling on same sex marriage is because

licenses are obtained by individuals and states. in fact, if you get married, you know that someone speaks in the name of that state in which you are residing. so that's what's important. and where those states have decided with their votes of the people that they are going to adhere to marriage between two individuals of the same sex than those are the locations on which we've spoken. now obviously the navy has taken a look at that. i think they want to take another look at that. that's fine. this particular piece of legislation really doesn't add any value to what we are doing here and i think it only restates what has already been decided and issues on how we deal with our facilities and all of the other issues come under the state law in terms of specific issues relating to who marries and where they marry. i yield back.

>> gentlelady yields back. the chair now recognized mr. forbes for five minutes. >> thank you, i would agree normally with the gentlelady from california that we need a provision. the administration should be enforcing the law. it was clearly in the law. the unfortunately thing, just within the last few weeks, he had hearing in the judiciary and attorney general mr. holder in, we asked him specifically not once, twice, three, four, five, not six times, but countless times why the administration was not enforcing the law. when each of those times, he could not answer the question. but what he continued to say was, well, there have been developments. we would ask them what the developments were. you know, like the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." we would say how does that impact? he could say, well, you know, there's been developments. the bottom line with all of

this, every once in a while, you have a law that's been on the books, and the administration, especially somebody as prominent as the attorney general, who would take a different opinion. none of can understand why. it's important that we send the message the law is the law. the rule of law means something. what the gentlelady from missouri is doing is we're sending the message that is what the law is. we don't think there have been any new developments. i hope we pass the amendment. i think it's very relevant and needed. i yield back to balance my time. >> gentleman yields back. the chair yields back to recognize the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and the attorney general in his legal opinion which he shared with the judiciary committee

determined that doma is legally indefensible. so he made a judgment call to allocate precious resources of the justice department since they are being cut ravenously that he chose to allocate those resources to more productive and quite frankly constitutional areas. and so i also would like to associate myself with the comments of miss davis, congresswoman davis of california and i will say also that seems like there's some voters out there who are just -- this is like red meat. gays in the military, gay marriage, next we will have gay

abortion. they are going to find some way of getting to and pressing the right put bonnes which i think we need to move past. so i will -- with that, i will yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognized gentleman from new york, mr. gibson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm going to support this amendment. some of the wording that we probably could play with a little bit. i'm going to support it. here's why. i'm concerned about the fact that the administration choosing words in defensible appears to me to be over stepping. the founders were very clear on this.

the legislative authority was to reside here. was to reside here with the house and the senate and the executive branch, the president would carry out the laws. and so this latest action i have major concern with. so i think that an expression from the congress, i think, is appropriate. furthermore, the reaction by the department of the navy was confusing. the fact that they withdrew it last night, i think, was the right development. but i think it is time for the congress to really put this back into balance as to who creates the laws, and who carries them out. certainly there's another dimension of this. that is constitutionally. that, of course, is the third branch. so, mr. chairman, i am going to support this amendment. thank you. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes ranking

member from washington, mr. smith. >> thank you, mr. chairman. three quick points. first of all, the position of the administration is they don't believe the law is constitutional. there has been constitutional to ban on gay marriage. in the number of courts, both state and federal have found such laws unconstitutional. that's their conclusion. so they are not going to defend it. beyond that, there are two other points worth making. states determine what the laws of marriage should be. i've lost track how many states allow. but it's not federal government's business to tell maine or massachusetts or wherever what their laws of marriage should be. that's one the arguments that the states should be allowed. it is worth pointing out this is the armed services committee. what we have to do with the

defining marriage is beyond me. i don't think we need to inserting a congresswide view. however up may about it. that's an issue that's going to shorted out in other places. i think rightfully so. i'll say for the record, in my opinion, i don't think the federal government should be restricting the states ability. again, i don't think that debate belongs in the bill. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i actually come from one of those states which enacted the same sex marriage law. actually the republican governor signed it into law in 2009. and despite a lot of the emotional debate that surrounded that, i'm still happily married in my 23rd year despite the fact that people thought it would threaten us all. i would say this, i have a lot of respect for the proponent of

this amendment. doma is the law. there's no question it's still a federal statute. i'm struggling with the language, in terms of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of dod. because doma doesn't affect every single aspect of the law of the marriage in terms of people's ability to use facilities or whatever. i think it needs a lot more scrutiny in where the lines of doma begin and end as the ranking member said the state providence of the law of marriage begins. again, coming from the state has moved forward on the issue, i feel that this is too close for comfort in terms of restricting the rites of people who live in the state. we have a navy base with 8,000 sailors that they are taxpayers and voters in the state of

connecticut. they are represented by the state legislature, which enacted the change. to say that we're going to just pass a broad brush amendment that could infringe on their rights. >> would the gentleman yield? >> i'd be happy to. >> one practical issue that his marks raised, which i wonder what the affect of this amendment is on it. if a service member from connecticut marries a same-sex marriage under connecticut law and under their federal life insurance policy, dod life insurance, chooses to designate their spouse, what does this amendment mean? does mean that spouse can't collect the life insurance proceeds if the person dies? if they choose to designate their spouse for benefits under

the insurance, can they not do so because the spouse is recognized? i would ask the author of the amount what the intention is on the two issues. >> this isn't changing policy at all. it's my understanding that the current policy has the federal employees difference in states. so right now they would not get -- be entitled to federal benefits because under regular in addition of our current law, marriage is between a man and a woman. so the federal would not recognize that that state marriage. >> so -- >> would the gentleman yield? >> i want to clear. mr. courtney, if i could reclaim the time. it's my understanding that a gentlelady's attention would be that a service member who chooses to designation their spouse under connecticut law would not be permitted to do that; is that correct? >> gentleman yield? >> yes. >> as an old life insurance, you don't put spouse, you put a

name. >> what if -- there are some instances where that's a spousal benefit under the personnel policy. i used a bad example. >> okay. life insurance is off of the table. >> i agree with you. i stand corrected. would the gentlelady say that under dod benefits the person could not have their spouse under connecticut law recognized or receive the benefits? >> i believe that's what the court cases are about right now. >> is that your intention? >> my intention is to keep marriage between a man and a woman, the federal definition. >> so your intention would be a person in a connecticut in a heterosexual would direct benefits, but a person in the same-sex marriage could not? >> yes. if you believe the marriage should be under the man and woman. >> if you believe under the 10th amendment, the states have the

power to decide marriage, you might reconsider your position. >> gentleman yields back. if there's no further discussion on the amendment, the question on adoption of the amendment offered by mr. hartzler, all of those in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> those opposes no. >> no. >> the ayes have it. and the amendment. >> ask for a recorded vote, mr. chairman. >> recorded vote is requested. it will take place later this evening. the chair now recognized mr. akin for the purpose of an amendment. >> mr. chairman as the benefit distributed, it should read

l.o.g.205. >> the amendment will be dispensed with. >> mr. chairman, may i proceed? did you want me to wait until it's passed out? >> please. >> gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. mr. chairman, this amendment is pretty similar to the one we just discussed or debated. i think there are a few point that is were not mentioned. i will try to cover some of those. and what we have here in my amendment is quite simply clarifying the section in doma. and in doma, there are two basically sections in doma. the first is defining marriage

and spouse for the purposes of the federal government. the second is determining the states should be forced to recognize the same sex marriage. the second opponent doesn't apply the discussion. the first does. i suppose people could turn this into a discussion or debate about whether or not you think marriage should be one thing or another. it seems to me the more serious -- that's a serious principal indeed. something else is serious to everybody in the committee to pay attention to. that's the fact that there's a federal law on the books and that the military is decided that they are going to eggnog that law. that's a very serious question. does that mean that the law code on our books is an a la carte menu? does that mean that military can

decide whether or not they are going to change the rules of engagement militarily, or how they are going to interrogate prisoners or whatever because they don't think the law suits their fancy? are we a nation of laws? how are we going to sit here as a committee and allow the pentagon to essentially just ignore federal law. in this case, this law was signed into law by president clinton passed the house in the senate. does that mean we're just not going to deal with it? so that's the point of us talking about putting something into authorization bill. it's a way of saying to the pentagon, hey, don't you recognize we've got a law about this subject? aren't we going to follow the law? now the point has been made -- well, you know, the navy sent us a letter and the navy said, you know, we're going to re$thing. i have a copy of the letter here. it was sent to me.

it says the men -- the men -- they are talking about the fact that there is a better that was issued on may 6, 2011, regarding the memorandum. this is april 13th. i'm responding by secretary of the navy. the memory -- memorandum has been suspended. well, that's nice that they are going to suspend it. but the problem of the matter is why do they need to suspend it? there's a federal law. this is what the federal law says. we can't do this. instead they want to sit around and talk about it some more. i suppose we need to make it clear. that's why you have an amount. -- amendment. the amendment restates what's clear, one, military will not be used for the purpose of

instituting same exec marriages and military personnel will not be involved in that. that's what doma says. i don't understand why the military wants to push the issue. they don't like it. they need to change the law. anybody else doesn't like it, we'll change the law. doesn't say that we're going to a la carte the law. that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. so the amendment that i'm offering puts specifically in. you have a copy of it. military installation is the first part. the second thing is the member of the armed forces. unfortunately because of the letter that i just got today from the navy or the other day, it's necessary to put this into law. and so i think the point of the matter is we just can't be a nation of anarchy, we have to be a nation of law and that's the point of the amendment.

>> gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the lady from california, mr. -- mrs. davis. >> thank you. i want to remind everybody how we got here, as a result of good faith effort to move to certification based on the education that was being received, training and their readiness in repealing "don't ask, don't tell." in order to do that, they had to look at a whole host of questions. very responsible for them to do that. one of those questions was what do we do about doma, and what do we do in those states in which marriage has between same sex marriages has been declared legal? those people are living there. marriage is dictated by the state or upheld by the state. and so they had to look at this and make a determination. i might say interestingly enough that all of the services, it's

my understanding, i don't have a memo to this. it's my understanding that all of the services came to the same conclusion on this. why? because they had determined that if something was okay for heterosexual couples, then it should be okay for homosexual couples. flex, displays, you know, -- big displays of affection are not okay on base. they are not okay for anybody. in this case, facilities are used by couples all the time, on base, people who are serving in the military. we have many, many people who are serving in the military who live on those bases who happen to be in those states and in which marriage has been considered legal. so this issue arose. maybe, you know, the memo that the navy put out, maybe that was their mistake. but realistically, all of the

services had to deal with this. so when a facility is made available for such events, individuals that meet all of the requirements for use of those facilities should not be denied access to the facility because of their sexual orientation. this amendment does something else in addition though, it restricts the right of chaplains to freely exercise their religious beliefs and perform same-sex marriages. if they choose to. :