leaving aside the existing permits for drilling in the gulf, but for -- weeks before british petroleum, you call for expanded drilling. do you regret this decision? . >> but we are not going to be

able to transition to these clean energy strategies right away. we are still years off from technological breakthroughs away from operating on purely a clean energy system. during that time, we will use of oil and to the extent we are using oil, it makes sense to develop our oil and natural gas resources. the united states and simply not rely on foreign oil. that is important for our economy and economic growth. the overall framework, which is to say domestic oil production, should be part of our overall program. we're a was wrong -- where i was wrong, was in the belief that the oil companies had their act together when it came to worst case scenarios. that was not just based on my

blind acceptance of their statements. oil drilling has been going on in the gulf including deep water for quite some time. the record of accidents like this we have not seen before. it just takes one. for a us to have a wake-up call and recognize that claims that fail-safe procedures are in place or blowout preventers are in place or bells would go on and check things off, whether because of human error or the technology was faulty, because when you are operating at least debts you cannot anticipate what will happen, those assumptions proved to be incorrect. i absolutely -- i am absolutely convinced that we have to do a

thorough going over of the safety procedures and records and we have to have confidence that even if it's just a one in 1 million shot that we've got enough technology and know-how that we can't shut something like this down and not in one month or six weeks, but two or three or four days. i don't have that confidence right now. >> are you sorry now -- do you regret that your team had not done the reforms that the mineral management services had called for. how did you not know about the birnbaum ,zresignation/firing? >> you assumed it was a firing.

r=:the letter came in this morg when i had a whole bunch of other stuff going on. >> she was fired. >> i don't know. i found out about this morning. i don't yet know the circumstances. ken salazar has been in testimony on capitol hill. with respect your first question, mms, ken salazar was of the process of making these reforms. obviously, they were not happening fast enough. half if they had been happening fat -- if they had been happening fast enough, this might not have been -- this might have been caught. might not have been caught. you could have had a bunch of technical folks take a look at the bp plans. and they might have said that

this need -- meets industry standards. we have not had an accident like this in 15 years and we should go ahead. that is what this commission has to discover it is was this a systemic breakdown or something that would happen once in a million times, is it something that could happen once in a thousand times or once in 5000 times. what exactly are the risks involved? let me make it broader point about energy. the fact that two companies now -- the fact that oil companies now have to go 1 mile in the water and drill 3 miles below that in order to hit oil tells us something about the direction of the oil industry. extraction is more expensive and it will be inherently more risky. that is part of the reason that you never heard me say," drill

baby, drill." we cannot drill our way out of the problem. it may be a mix of a bridge to new technologies and new energy sources but we should be pretty modest and understanding that the easily accessible oil has already been sucked up out of the ground and as we move forward, the technology gets more complicated, the oil sources are more remote, and that means there will probably be more risk. we, as a society, will have to make some serious determinations in terms of what risks are we willing to except. that is part of what the commission by think as to look at. i will tell you about -- i will tell you though that we will be consuming oil for help people live in this country.

we will have to move on this transition period when i went to the republican caucus just this week, i said to them, "let's work together." you have lieberman and carry who were working with lindsey graham even though he is not on the bill now. , coming up with a framework that has the potential to get bipartisan support and says that we will still meet oil production but we can see what is out there on the horizon. this is a problem if we do not change how we operate. >> mr. president, the white house announced two days ago that you were going to send

members of the national guard to the border. i wonder if you could describe what their target would be and what you are trying to achieve with that. could you clarify their mission? also on arizona, after having criticized the law but has been approved there, would you support the boycott that some organizations are calling for that state? >> i have indicated that i don't approve of the arizona law. i think it is the wrong approach. i understand the frustrations of the people of arizona. many folks along the border that that border has not been entirely secure in a way that we

are a tradition of law and immigrants. i do not endorse boycott. s. that is something private citizens make a decision about. what the administration is doing is examined very closely this arizona law and its implications for the civil rights and civil liberties of peop in ane. you start getting a patchwork of immigration laws and around the country which is inherently the job of the federal government. in order for us to do our job, everybody has to step up. i try to be as clear as i could this week. i will repeat to everyone here. we have to have a comprehensive approach to immigration reform.

the time to get moving on this is now. i am prepared to work with both parties and members of congress to get a bill that does a good job of securing our borders, holds employers accountable, makes sure that those who come here illegally have to pay a fine and pay back taxes, learn english, and get right bible. -- and get right by of the law. we have a super majority in the senate four years ago. there is no reason why we cannot recreate that bipartisan spirit to get this problem solved. with respect to the national guardsmen and women, i have authorized up to 1200 national

guard personnel in a plant that was actually shipped last year. -- shaped last year. what we find is that national guards persons can help on intelligence, dealing with both drugs and human trafficking along the borders. they can relieve border guards said the the border guards can be in charge of law enforcement in those areas. there are many functions they can carry out that helps leverage and increase the resources available in this area. by the way, we did not just sent the national guard, we also have a package of $500 million in resources. if we do a better job preventing trafficking along the border, we have to make sure we have prosecutors down there who can prosecute those cases. the key point i want to emphasize to you is that i do

not see these issues in isolation. we will not solve the problem solely as the consequence of sending national guardsmen down there. we will solve this problem because we have created an orderly, fair, humane immigration from work. -- framework in which people can immigrate to this country in a legal fashion. employers need to hire illegal workers. i think we can fix that system everyone is willing to step up. i told a republican support talk -- i told the republican caucus that i don't need them to meet me halfway. i will bring democrats to a smart and comprehensive immigration reform bill, but i will have to have some help in the senate where a simple majority is not enough.

last question, maj. >> thank you, mr. president good afternoon. some have said that the federal government's boat is on the neck of be paid. --boot is on the neck of bp. can you tell the american public what the white house offered joke sestak? -- joe sestak? >> there will be an official response shortly on the sestak issue which i hope will answer your questions. you will get it from my administration.

it will be coming out shortly. i don't mean weeks or months. with respect to the first -- i can assure the public that nothing improper took place. there will be a response shortly on that issue. with respect to the metaphor that was used, i think ken salazar would probably be the first one to admit that he has been frustrated, angry, and occasionally emotional about this issue. there are a lot of folks out there who see what is happening and are angry at the peak, are frustrated that it has not stopped, and i will let ken salazar answer for himself.

we don't need to use language like that. we need actions to make sure bp is held accountable and that is what i intend to do and that is what ken salazar intends to do. we have gone through a difficult year and a half. this is one more bit of difficulty. this is going to be hard, not just right now, it will be hard for months to come. the gulf will be affected in a bad way. my job right now is to make sure that everybody in the gulf understands that this is what i wake up to in the morning and this is what i go to bed at night thinking about. the oil spill. it is not just me. when i woke up this morning, and

i am a shaving and melia knocks on my door and peaks in her head and says," have you plug a hole yet, daddy? ?" everybody understands that when we are filing the earth like this, --fouling the earth like this, it has complications not only for this generation but future generations. when you see birds flying all around with oil all over their brothers and turtles dying, that does not just the to the economic consequences. this speaks to how are we caring have.

when i hear folks in louisiana express frustration, i may not always think there, start there. on the other hand, i probably think that these are folks that grew up fishing in these wetlands, seeing this as an integral part of who they are, and to see that messed up in this fashion would be infuriating. the thing that the american people need to understand is that not one day goes by where the federal government is not constantly thinking about how we can make sure that we minimize the damage and close this thing down. we need to review this so we make sure it does not happen again. what has been happening in terms

of the financial markets and some of these other areas where big crises happen, it forces us to do some soul-searching. i think that is important for all of us to do. in the meantime, my job is to get this fixed. in case anybody wonders who's responsible, i take responsibility. it is my job to make sure that everything is done to shut this down. that does not mean it will be easy. it does not mean it will happen right away or the way i would like to happen. it does not mean we will not make mistakes. but there should be no confusion. the government is fully engaged and i am fully engaged. thank you, everybody.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> in a few moments house debate on don't ask, don't tell policy regarding gays in the military. "washington journal" is live at 7:00 eastern and we will look at the oil spill in the gulf of mexico and speak to senator fred thompson. the coast guard and management service are conducting a joint investigation into the oil spill that began with an explosion and the destruction of the deepwater horizon offshore drilling rig. the public hearing continues this morning in new orleans. investigators will hear from survivors of the accident in relation to the oil rig's

condition. live coverage is on c-span 3 at 9:00 eastern. the house continues work today on the bill that covers defense programs including weapons systems, the troupe surge in afghanistan, and pay for service members. amendments approved last night to repeal the "don't ask,"don't, policy that prevents gays in the military. was voted to repeal this. this part of the house debate is more than half an hour. >> i think the chairman for yielding. i want to thank the chairman who is one of the giant on behalf of national security, military defense, quality of life for our troops, for decades has been one

of the outstanding spokespersons for making sure that we had the defense we needed and our troops have the equipment, the resources, the quality of life that we would expect to have our young people have. i congratulate andike and i think mr. mckeon, as well. promote our interest for troops and families. compiling a record of securing our nation in stronger and smarter ways. we strengthen america's military by putting new and better weapons into the battlefield. like more aerial drones. we've killed or captured much of the top ldership of al qaeda and the taliban, and for the first time, there is a clear plan for a way forward in

afghanistan, which, frankly, was negligentefor years under the previous administration. democrats often in face of republican opposition have increased funding for human intelligence collection, cyber security, and security for our skies, our ports, and our borders. all of this was necessary and appropriate. but looking out for our troops, our veterans, and our families. again, i say there is no member of this body and almost every member indeed of this body on both sides of the aisle has worked together to maintain the quality of life for our troops and give them the resources they need. none more so than chairman skelton, however. democrats are making sure that our troops get the body armour and mine resistant vehicles they need when they are on the field and the opportunity for a college education they deserve when they return home. that's good for them and it's good for our country. today's defense authorization bill builds on that record,

authorizing crucial national security programs for fiscal year 2011. it promotes efforts to disrupt and destroy terrorist networks and strengthens the ability of our special forces to act directly against terrorist organizations. it increases our international cooperation against terrorists, especially against the taliban in afghanistan and pakistan. at the same time, it also insists on accountability, acquiring semiannual reports from thedministration on the status of the taliban and the capacity of the afghan government and security forces. that accountability is important and necessary. because the threats we face have changed in a post cold war world, this bill also strongly supports ballistic missile defense and nuclear counterproliferation. including the president's effort to secure all of the world's known nuclear material in the

next four years. the conference the president convened here in washington was an extraordinary step forward in that effort. further, this bill invests in the well-being of our troops and the strength of our armed forces. it keeps tricare strong and ensures that the military families can keep their children on tricare policies up to the age of 26. just as all americansan do under the health reform law that we passed. it also reduces strain on our forces by providing for 7,000 more personnel for the army, and 500 for the air force, while helping all of the services rebuild the equipment and weapons systems that have been severely worn down by two wars. maybe because there's an agreement on that, we haven't talked about it very much. finally the bill strengthens our military by providing for a process, to repeal a discriminatory provision. now, i want my friends to listen

to this. and they're not going to be happy with me. i am 70 years of age. i was in college in the late 1950's and early 1960's. now, bill clinton was in college in the late 1960's. his generation of americans were motivated by the vietnam war. one way or the other. now, frankly, i was a member of the state senate and supported that effort in the state senate. but in the late 1950's and early 1960's, the motivating force for young people in this country was civil rights. it was about living out the promise of american equality. it was about a commitment of this country, which was the bedrock of this country, that all men were created equal, and endowed not by us, but by their

creator with certain unalienable rights. i want to tell my friends, i have some rhetoc here that was used in 1940, 1941, 1945, 1946, when there were some americans you didn't have to ask. they didn't have to tell. because you knew they were african-americans. there was no hiding that. and we segregated them. and i heard strom thurman stand on the floor of the senate -- he was a democrat -- speaking about discriminating against people because of the color of their skin. separate by equal. i've heard the same rhetoric. let me read some of it. the army is the wrong place for social experiments. keep african-americans in their place. i was angered in the 1950's and 1960's when i saw that kind of

rhetoric, because i thought that was not the america that i was so proud of. hear that language that was used back in 1948. and read the transcripts today. in 1965, i was -- excuse me, in 1990, the sponsor of the americans with disabilities act. there was an amendment offered that said people with aids could not be waiters and waitresses. why? because people wouldn't come into restaurants if they knew that somebody with aids was serving them. of course, all the scientists and medical personnel said there was no way to transmit aids by handling plates or food. and i pulled out some rhetoric. interesting eugh,ing from 19 -- from 1965, when the public

considerations law was considered on this floor, and guess what they said. they said if we have african-american waiters and waitresses, people won't come into our restaurants. that's why we don't have african-americ waiters and african-american restaurants. that was not the america for which i stand. strom thurman, however, said, and other democrats -- now, he didn't stay a democrat, as all of you know, throughout his career. said no, we'll keep people separate. and because you're driving down route 1 from new york to florida and you stop and you're a little girl, ask when howard johnson comes by, can i have an ice cream cone, you say to your little child, i'm sorry, you can't go in there. you're the wrong color.

can't stay athat hotel. now in their era, they thought they were being good americans, i presume. and there were filibusters after filibusters to stop treating people as -- to start treating people as people, with their god-given inalienable rights. ladies and gentlen, look to your hearts and your conscience. look at the debates of 1948. is there one of us -- is there one of us that would say general powell as chairman of the joint chiefs of staffs undermined the morale and the effectiveness of the united states army? is there one of us? i'll yield to anybody who wants to say that he undermined the morale of our services. no one? no one?

this is not a social experiment. any more than that was a social experiment. any more than in 1990 when we wanted to deal with those with disabilities. it was a social experiment. it was the bedrock of what america is. now, i think it's unfortunate we've spent so much time on this issue. almost every speaker. i talked about the beginning of my talk about the substance of this bill, fighting terrorists, keeping americsafe, making sure that we have the strongest armed forces in the world bar none, that technically they are able to confront any enemy, anywhere, any time, because we owe that to the american public, to keep them safe. that is what we're committed to, a strong defense. .

barry goldwater said i want to make sure they shoot straight. he wanted their commitment to this country and service. he saw them as patriots. i don't want anyone barring me. i don't care who they are. hear me? and i don't want any male member of the armed forces barring any female member of the armed forces. why? because that's against the law and against morality. but i tell you, my friends, this bill is about our national security. this bill is about people ho perform their service to our country. this bill is about making sure that america is safe. this bill is about making sure

that we defeat terrorism and keep america safe. let's focus on that. let's not be distracted. let's focus on protecting america, defeating terrorists and taking care of our troops. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: might i inquire how much time i have remaining? the chair: 6 1/2 minutes. mr. mckeon: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is regnized. mr. mckeon: the majority leader always has a lot to say and he always says it very well. and that is a very eloquent speech. because we are members of congress we can come to the flo and express our opinion. i'm asking that the members of the armed services have the same opportunity before we have this vote tonight on the murphy

amendment. and the reference was made to general powell. and i wasn't on the committe at the time buthen don't ask, don't tell was instituted, he was a strong proponent. and he also mentioned that he didn't compare, didt believe the comparison held up between the blacks having civil rights and the don't ask, don't tell. so while i think that your comments were very, very well spoken and i think all of us should have that opportunity to have that great debate, i think we should follow the process that has been established where the secretary appoints this study. they make the study and then after the study is presented to us in december, after the military has a chance -- i will be happy to yield as soon as i

make my comments -- that after the study is released, that we follow the process. i don' know why we're so afraid to stick with the policy, to listen to the members of the armed services, to give them the opportuny that they have. i have letters from each of the chairmen and members of the joint chiefs saying we owe it to them. we should not break faith with them. they went out in good faith afterhe secretary set that policy. and now, we are short circuiting it. i would be happy to yield to the ajority leader. mr. hoyer: i agree with my friend and i talked to bob gates today and i talked to him two weeks ago about this issue. i was concerned about issue and shared his view that we ought to solicit the views of how and why we ought to proceed. that is why i worked to make sure that this amendment, which was the exact same amendment that was adopted in the senate

armeservices committee today did provide for the chairman of the joint chiefs, mike mullens who has made his comments pretty clear. secretary gates and the president of the united states have to certify that they -- that the processes are in place. i understand the difference in opinion here is that and is sympathetic with your view. mr. mckeon: reclaiming my time. because here's what's actually going to happen. and as i talked to the chiefs on the phone, one of them said very clearly, i know how this works around this here and i know how the amendment was written, we take the vote tonight and we follow through the process, but it becomes a sham, because the headline, as he said would be don't ask, don't tell, don't ask don't tell is repealed. and it's already on the

headline. i just saw the news alert, senate votes to repeal don't ask, don't tell. he said i understand that. but those troops in afghanistan, when they see it, when they hear it, they're going to see it's repealed. why are you asking me my opinion? it's done. it's a done deal. we may understand that by law it will follow through this process. in reality, it will be set tonight. and that's why we should have had more than 10 minutes, five minutes on our side, to discuss this. all we were given is five minutes. and that's why we have had to take time. this bill -- we cou have spent time talking about all the wonderful things in this bill and yet we had to talk because this thing is going to have more impact on our military and on our country -- you smile, mr.

leader and if you feel that, why don't we just follow the process. and i would be happy to yield. mr. hoyer: i smile only because that rhetoric was the same rhetoric that was used in 1946. mr. mckeon: i have not read that. and i'not quoting from that same rhetoric. mr. hoyer: i'm not saying that you are quoting. mr. mckeon: and collin powell said it's not the same. in fact -- i thank my friend here. this is mr. powell's quote. skin color is a benign, nonbehavioral characteric. sexual ownertation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characterics. comparing the two is a convenient but invalid argument. mr. powell's argument.d such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania.

mr. murphy: mr. speaker, when i served in baghdad, my teams did not care whether a fellow sold year was straight or gay. if they could fire their assault rifle or run a convoy down ambush alley and do their job so everyone would come home safely. with our military fighting two wars, why on earth would we tell over 13,500 abled bodied americans that their services are not needed this policy hurts our national security and has cost the american taxpayer over $1.3 billion already on this unjust policy. our troops deserve a congress that puts their safety and our collective national security over rigid and a close-minded ideology. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and support the brave men and women willing to

take a bullet for our families. i reserve the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentleman reserves. any member seek time in opposition? >> madam chair, i rise in seeking the time in opposition. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri arise? mr. mckeon: mad dack chair? the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. mckeon: thank you, madam chair. i wish to yield one minute to the distinguished chairman of the armed services committee. before doing that, i ask unanimous consent that the time for debate on amendment number 79 offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. murphy, be extended by 30 minutes, evenly divided between opponent and proponent. the chair: is there objection to the reest? >> i object.

the air: objection. mr. mckeon: in that case -- the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. mckeon: i yield one minute to the distinguished chairman of the committee, mr. skelton. the chair: the gentleman from missouri is recognized for one minute. mr. skelton: madam chairman,he bill for us is an excellent piece of legislation. it's one of the best that our committee has written. it's strong on our attempt to all terrorism. it takes care of the troops. it looks after their families. on this issue before us, inquiry was made of secretary gates and the joint chiefs of staff chairman, in a letter dated april 30 states, there have i

strongly oppose any legislation that seeks to change this policy prior to the completion of this vital assessment process. further, i hope congress will not do so as it would send a very damaging message to our men and women in uniform that, in essence, their views, concerns, and prospectives do not matter on an issue with such a direct impact and consequence for them and their families. i oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> i yield 30 seconds to the leader on this issue, mr. matheson of utah. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized for 30 seconds. >> if anyone is willing to put on this country's uniform and put his or her life on the line to protect our freedoms deserves ur respect and should not be subject to discrimination. repealing this flawed policy is the important way for us to show that respect. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back my time.

the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. purpose the gentleman will suspend? >> parliamentary inquiry. the chair: the gentleman will state his inquiry. >> could te chair tell me if it might be in order for the time to be extended on this very, very importantatte before the house, at least equal to the time that might be taken by the speaker of the house? the chair: with the unanimous request to extend the time, and it was defeated. the gentleman from california is recognized. >> ma'am, may i ask unanimous consent then that the time be extended equal so that the time that the speaker may claim to speak on her side of this issue might be allotted to the minority? >> objection. the chair: can thgentleman state a specific amount of time? >> i wish we could. we don't know.

i ju think five minutes per side is not sufficient on a matter this important before the house, and i think -- the chair: the gentleman will restate his snams consent request. >> i ask unimous consent that the time on this amendment be extend by 15 minutes per side. the chair: is there objection to the request? >> i object. the chair: there's objection. >> madam speaker? the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts state it? >> do the record of the house contain the length of the time of the speech made by the minority leader of the health care bill under a one-minute recognition? the chair: the chair cannot serve his historian. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: parliamentary inquiry. the chair: the gentleman from california will state his parliamentary inquiry. mr. mckeon: is it proper for the

gentleman who this amendment belongs to to object to debate on his own amendment? the chair: any member may object. >> even to their own, which they should want to object? the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: madam chairwoman, may i yield five seconds to the sponsor of the amdment to say why you don't want it discussed fully? the chair: the gentleman may yield. mr. mckeon: the gentleman doesn't wish to respond. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: next monday is memorial day. americans will pause in many ways and in many places to honor and celebrate the courage,

sacrifices, and patriotism of those who have served and are serving this nation in the armed forces. the hill newspaper carried a special insert entitled "a tribute to the troops." among their contributors were mrs. michelle obama and dr. joe biden. they co-authored a piece emphasizing that, and i quote, it's our sacred obligations as americans to take care of the men, women, and families who protect and serve this country. i could not ree more with them. we do have a sacred obligation to those who care to serve. that is why the today i rise in strong opposition to the amendment being offered by representative murphy that would have congress act to repeal don't ask, don't tell, even before the comprehensive review directed by the secretary of defense is completed, and even before congress has received the comprehensive views of those who will be most directly affected by any change in the law.

they have unhesitatingly and selflessly responded in a magnificent manner, without hesitation, putting mission and nation ahead of self and family. now the proponents of repealing don't ask, don't tell want to rush a vote to the floor, disrupting the process that was put in place earlier this year to get input from those people most affected by this decision. after making the continuous sacrifice of fighting two wars over the course of eight years, the men and women of our military deserve to be heard. congress acting first is the equivalent of tni to our men and women in uniform and their families and saying, your opinions don't count. i've read into the record letters from the secretary, the chairman of each of the services, asking us to not do this. don't disrespect the military. give them the opportunity to

have their input. the secretary also sent us a letter, and his letter said, i believe in the strongest ssible terms that the department must, prior to any legislative action, be allowed the opportunity to conduct a thorough objective and systematic assessment of the impact of such a policy change. a critical element of this effort is the need systematically engage our forces, their families, and the broar military community throughout this process. our military must be afforded the opportunity to inform us of their concerns, insights, and suggestions in order to carry out this change successfully. herefore, i strongly oppose any legislation that seeks to change this plicy prior to the completion of this vital assessment process. further, i hope congress will not do so as it would send a very damaging message to our men and women in uniform, that in

essence, their views, concerns, and perspectives do not matter on an issue with such direct impact and consequence for them and their families. now, i know that this amendment and those proponents will say, well, we're going to take this vote, but we will still follow the process. we will have a survey. but you all know -- i mean, you have to know that when the surveyers go out into the field, they're already going to have heard on the news as was already reported on fox news tonight, the senate repealed dot ask, don't tell. so how are they given an opportunity to -- i mean, this is a sham. it is a total sham from here forward if this amendment passes tonight. you have the chairman of the committee, a man who's devoted years of his life to our young men and women in uniform, and it's not easy thing for him, but he stands up to say no on this amendment.

i join him in saying no on this amendment. most of the members of the committee, if we had had a chance to bring this up in commiee where it should have been, it wouldn't be here tonight. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i yield 30 seconds to the chairwoman on the house armed services committee, mrs. davis from california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for 30 seconds. mrs. davis: madam speaker, we are listening to our troops and military leaders. i held two hearings on this hearing. this process was set to understand how to implement reform, not ether it should happen. that is contained in the amendment. don't ask, don't tell weakens our national security by asking service members to lie, firing them for being gay, and telling able recruits we don't want you.

please, america can do better. vote yes. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi arise? mr. skelton: -- >> i request unanimous consent -- in opposition to this amendment. the chair: without objection. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from michigan, a freshman congressman and former lieutenant commander, mr. peters. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. peters: i strongly support representative murphy's amendment. we must allow our military to recruit and retain any qualified

patriotic and courageous american who wants to serve our country. during my service in the united states navy reserve, i served witmany dedicated men and women who were always ready to serve their country any time and anywhere. i was never concerned about their sexual orientation, just their ability to serve the united states honorably. i urge passage of the murphy amendment. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> i yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from minnesota, the highest ranking enlisted soldier , tim walls. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. >> the greatest privilege of my life is serving this nation for almost 35 years in uniform. i know how important it is to fill our service with motivated volunteers. we are blessed in this nation. that's exactly what we have. it's time for us to honor their

professionalism and know that they're ready to end this discriminatory practice. it allows for the study of implementation. we do this all the time in the military. took us six months, you change from hats to ber rays. the process will be orderly. it will be right down the line the way it needs to be, and at the end of the deparke -- day, don't question their ability to do it. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois arise? the gentlemamust state his unanimous request. >> as a 20-year army veteran, i don't wear it on my sleeve. i support ranking member mckeon and chairman skelton. this is devastating to the war fighters and the combat infantryman. i yield back my time. the chair: the chair would

remind people that members may seek unanimous request, but it is not for debate. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> it's my privilege to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from georgia, my mentor on civil rights, the freedom writer and great civil rights leader, mr. john lewis. the chai the gentleman from georgia is recognized for 30 seconds. . mr. lewis: just like the military helped end segregation based on race, we should have put an end to don't ask, don't tell long ago. it is an afront to human dignity and to the dignity to ery men and women servg in our military. we cannot wait. we cannot be patient. we must end discrimination in the military and we must end it

now. discrimination is wrong and we must end it. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. murphy: i reserve. the chair: theentleman reserves. the gentleman has the only time remaining. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. murphy: i reserve the balance of my time. do we have any time? how much time. the chair: gentleman has 1 1/2 minutes. i mr. murphy: i yield myself the balance of my time -- i yield the speaker one minute -- 30 seconds. the chair: the speaker of the house is recognized for one minute. the speaker: i thank the gentleman r yielding and for his leadership and service to our country. mr. speaker, this weekend on memorial day, america will come together to honor all who have served our nation in uniform and

those brave americans have no better friend than our chairman of the armed services committee, mr. skelton. today by repealing the don't ask, don'tell policy, we honor the service and sacrifice all who dedicated their lives of protecting the amecan people. we honor the values of our nation and we close the door on fundamental unfairness. under don't ask, don't tell, more than 13,000 men and women have been discharged from the military. thousands more have decided not to re-enlist. fighter pilots, infantry officers, arabic translators and other specialists have been discharged at a time when our nation is engage nd two wars. that is why i support repealing don't ask, don tell and that support has come from all over the country. nearly eight out of 10 americans

want to end this era of discrimination. the current chairman of the joint chiefs said it is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do. we have in place a policy that forces young men and women who lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. for me personally, it comes down to integrity. theirs as individuals and thei as institutions. chairman powell has said now thinks this real stricttive policy should be repealed. and in a letter to congress, 51 generals called for repeal of this policy saying they had dedicated our lives to the rights of our citizens to believe whatever they wish. passing this amendment today

respects the time line of the pentagon's implementation study group. the repeal would take pce only after the study group completes its work in december, 2010 and after the president, the joint chiefs of staff and the secretary of defense all certify that repeal will n hurt military readiness or unite cohesion. no one in this body would jeopardize our national security. america has always been the land of the free and the home of the brave and the men and women in uniform make it so. they have been willing to fight for our country. let us honor their service by committing to the values they fight for on the battlefield. i urge my colleagues to vote for the repeal of this discriminatory policy of don't ask, don't tell and make america more american. thank you.

the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania has 30 seconds remaining. mr. murphy: i yield myself the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. murphy: former air force sergeant david hall was walking in this gallery and he mentioned to me, he said, sergeant hall wasn't asked and he didn't tell. he was kicked out of the air force. he already served in the middle east. he said to me, and i quote, i assure you, i'm still fit for mitary duty. stop discharging patriotic americanwho just want to serve the country that they love. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. ll time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.

the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: on that, i demand the yeas and nays. recorded vote. the chair: does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on th >> the house voted 234-1 added 94 to repeal the don't ask don't tell policy. -- the house voted 234-194 to repeal the don't ask don't tell policy. the house is back in session at 9:00 eastern for more debate on the defense program bill. we will hear about the latest on the gulf of mexico oil spill from new orleans talk show radio host. we'll also talk about a memoir. "washington