will be in the lame duck session. we remain concerned about the issue with wikileaks. general petraeus has said that this is beyond unfortunate. this is a betrayal of trust. in some cases there are actual names of individuals with him we have partnered. obviously, that is very reprehensible. . .

july.as been suince

would you encourage congress to act in that fashion? is that out of your area? strongly this is an individual who should be held accountable. >> he would support some kind of congressional legislative action in coordination with the administration to try to see that those who commit an this act are some well held accountable? i understand these are aspects of it. they are hard to pursue. >> i believe we should do all we can to make sure it does not

happen again. it does the lives at stake. it is a very complex issue. they are now exposed because of this preven. >> de have any thoughts from a legal standpoint? >> i do not view it as journalism. my opinion is that it is not media. if you look on the web page, it is an open solicitation for classified evidence and to break the law. it is a misrepresentation that there will be legal consequences i think it is on a

different level than conventional journalism. i am briefed on by a regular basis i have some private views i would be happy to share with you. it is very troubling. i worry they are not trying to solicit other sure and now for additional information. >> it is worthy of our attention. this is of the utmost seriousness. >> we have a briefing this afternoon at 3:00.

it is not only reprehensible, but the people that are accountable should be held accountable. if the laws are not strong enough, we ought to strengthen them. this is not journalism. this is the arthur to our security. we should make sure it does not happen again. we need to hold them accountable for that to the extent it is consistent. it can take place at the same time. we thank all of our witnesses and our panel. we will stand adjourned.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> it friday, if they held a second day hearing on the proposed repeal of they do not ask him not tell policy. it will air from the service chiefs beginning at 9:00 a.m. eastern. that is live on c-span3. >> the pentagon has released the report on ending the "do not ask, do not tell." labette the history online at .he c-span video library purda >> in a few moments, the house debate on a proposal to make permanent bush era tax cuts.

in it. less than an hour and a half, part of the senate armed services hearing on the do not ask do not tell policy. after that, if they vote to censure charlie rangel for misconduct. on "washington journal" we will look at friday's meeting of the president debt commission. our guests will include robert bixy and senator mike craig beapo. latest o discussed the late i unemployment numbers. "washington journal" is like every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> the houses voted to keep the

lower tax rates for those who earn less than two and a $50,000 a year. it is to enter 41 to 148. a group continues to work on a compromise that could extend all tax rate on the short term basis. this is 1.5 hours. quite the time has come. this is the moment prevent this is the moment to be counted. the republicans want to continue to keep middle income tax cuts hostage, hostage until it's combined with upper income tax cuts. it's in part because they don't want to have to vote separately on tax cuts for the very wealthy. but as i have said, the time has

come, we must not let middle income taxpayers remain hostage to a partisan agenda. indeed i was goi back over comments that have been made these last months and i refer to one from my colleague from michigan, the ranking member. he's here. he said just a few months ago in talking to a.p. that it would be difficult to block extension of middle income tax cuts, even if it doesn't stop tax rates from increasing for high earners saying, and i quote, i'll probably vote for it myself, end of quote. today is the test, whether the hostage taking ends. every single provision here,

every single one is about tax cuts. tax cuts that are so important for this country. and let me if i might refer to some of them. for famies making less than $250,000 a year, this bill permanently extends the following, the 2001, 2003 tax cuts, including the current income taxates. that means a lot more mid -- for middle income families throughout this country. the marriage penalty relief that means so much for tens of thousands, for millions of families. lower rates onapital gains

and dividends and the $1,000 child tax credit. and for two years, very importantly, this bill will protect more than 25 million taxpayers from the a.m.t., the alternative minimum tax, by extending it, as i said for two years through 2011. and very importantly, it permanently extends the small business expensing. so add it all up, these tax cuts. we're talking about tax cuts for middle american families over $1.5 trillion. and i want to be very clear because often it's raised about small businesses. 97% of american small businesses receive a tax cut

under this bill. it's only 2% of the very wealthy which will not receive a tax cut. so in a word, the time has come. the smokescreen is now being lifted by this bill. you have a chance to stand up or back down on tax cuts for the middle income families of our country. i hope that we can rise above partisan politics. i hope that we keep in mind the millions of families who are counting on action by us and no longer holding them hostage. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker.

i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: the unemployment rate in october, the latest data available, was 9.6%. that marked 15 consecutive months we were at or above 9 1/2 percent unemployment in this country, the longest period since the great deprsion. all told, 48 out of 50 states have lost jobs since the so-called $1 trillion stimulus bill and nearly 15 million americans remain unployed. what'she democrats' answer to the great recession, increase taxes. but not just any tes. democrats and the bill before us today are targeting half of all small business income in the country. democrats are targeting the very employers we need hiring more workers and buying more equipment, not paying more taxes. let's face it. this bill is as misguided as it is footal. this is the wrong policy -- futile.

this is the wrong policy at th wrong time and the majority is wrong for bringing it to the floor today. many of eir own members agree withe. i have a letter signed by over 30 democrat members of the house, and let me read what they wrote, and i quote, in rent weeks we have heard from a diverse spectrum of economists, small business owners and families o have voiced their concerns that ising any taxes right now could negatively impact economic growth. given the current frew jilt of our economy, we -- few jilt of our economy we share their concerns. i repeat that. raising any taxes right now could negatively impact economic growth. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that this letter be submitted into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. camp: set aside for a minute the economists and the litical rhetoric and let's look at what small businesses say the impact of this tax hiking legislation will be. according to the national federation of small businesses, the businesses most likely to face a tax increase by raising

the top two rates are businesses employing between 20 and 250 employees. according to u.s. census data, businesses with between 20 and 299 workers employ more than 25% of the total work force. those who are most likely to be hit by these taxes -- these tax increases employ one out of every four workers in this nation. this democrat tax hike is putting a target on the back of every worker in every small business in america. as for the futility of this exercise, it will be comical if it prpt so irresponsib. democrats can barely muster the votes in this house. i was told they had to whip the bill and hold a special caucus this morning just to move forward. their position is so precarious they won't even allow republicans to offer amendments or any alternative. why?

because democrats know the republican bill to extend the current rates for all taxpayers would pass with broad bipartisan support. so once again house democrats have closed down the amendment process in order to pass a bill that will never see the light of day ithe senate. just yesterday 42 senators sent a letter to majority leader reid and stated in no uncertain terms, and i quote, they will not vote on cloture to any legislative itemntil the senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all american taxpayers, end quote. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that this letter be entered into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. camp: clearly this bill is going nowhere. democrats are wasting time while americans are looking for work. democrats are playing games while americans struggle to make ends meet. the american people did not

nd us here to posture. they sent us here to provide solutions. i'd hope that after the election we'd get down to working together to solve some serious problems americans are facing. that's why i was encouraged the president agreed to ha democrats and republicans, house and the senate to hammer out a deal on these expiring tax rates. i thought maybe we turned a corner. instead of letting that process work itself out, instead of working with republicans to prevent job-killing tax increases, house democrats are back at it again putting politics ahead of everything else. this is a time for serious negotiations and solutions, not political stunts. far too much is at stake. far too many families are out of work and far too many families will soon seek real and sizeable amounts of money taken out of their paychecks if the mocrats continue with these gas. i urge my colleagues to reject

this democratic tax hike, this job-killing tahike, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlen from michigan. mr. levin: i reserve -- i yield 15 seconds to myself. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: this is the fact the tax policy center. only 3% of small businesses would be affected, and of that only a small get most of their income from small businesses. this isn't about politics, mr. camp. this is about people. i yield -- i yield three minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in strong support of this legislation as the best way to move our economy forward. the middle class tax relief extends significant tax relief to every american. let me say that again. every american.

under this legislation no matter how much you make, the first $250,000 will continue to benefit from today's lower rates. and given the softness in our economy and the number of households that are still struggling, that's the right thing to do. but what this legislation does not do is put a additional $700 billion on our national credit card, as our republican colleagues would like to do, by extending an extra bonus tax cut to the folks at the very, very top. instead, for the top 2%, those reporting income over $250,000, we have the clinton era tax rates on just that additional portion of that income. and with our annual deficits now topping $1 trillion and our national debt apoaching $14 trillion, it's the right thing to do to make sure our economy is on a sustainable footing for the future. we have the bipartisan commission debating that question right now, and yet our colleagues want to put $700

billion on our credit card. now, our colleagues that we just heard said that it was necessary to create jobs. really? these are the tax rates that are in effect today, and during the bush years and during the eight years of the bush administration 600,000 private sector workers lost their jobs with these rates compared to the clinton administration. $23 million -- 23 million jobs created in the clint administration with the old rates at that particular time. moreover, the nonpartisan congressional budget office recently looked at 11 different options for strengthening the economy. this one came in dead last. now, we also heard from our colleagues that they tried to use -- they tried to use small businesses as a smokescreen for their plan to protect this bonus break for the folks at the top. first of all, as my colleagues said, only 3% of small businesses are affected.

3%, 97% not but what's interesting is when you look at the 3% what you find out is in the definition of the tax code, one that apparently has been used by our colleagues, people may be surprised to find a lot of mom and pop operations like price waterhouse coopers, asset manager fidelity investments, and k.k.r. fall under the pass-through income definition. just the other day, k.k.r., that small busines purchased l monte foods for $4 billion. now, those are all good businesses, but they're not small businesses and they would benefit from the proposal that we and the president have made to provide 100% depreciation for their investments this year. that will help jobs and the economy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i urge support of the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: at this time i yield two minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means, the gentleman from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. brady: thank you, mr. speaker. why are we playinghese political games? we have 15 million people out of work. we have families, small businesses, seniors, job creators facing a near $4 trillion tax bomb that will go off on january 1. and here we are playing political games. this bill's dead on arrival in the senate. everyone knows it. we're wasting time today. worse than that, it undercuts the president's own sincere efforts to work with dave camp, the ranking member of the ways and means committee, senate republican, senate and house democrats to actually come up with a real solution to solve this problem. instead, this body is rushing forward with more political theater. my question is, wasn't september the time to play political games? right now with the clock ticking, shouldn't we be all about solutions? let's talk about two myths.

democrats say let's pass this, it will help jump-start the economy, it will do just the opposite. one, the people they hit, these consumers hold one of every $1 -- hold $1 out of every $3 in consumption. instead of spending money for christmas, send it to washington. secondly, it damages the small businesses who are the backbone of job creation. you'll hear this claim that it only hits 3% of small businesses. you know how they figured that? me counted the tax i.d. number. so people that have small businesses that have been vacant for years are still counted. buif you count the actual income from small business, that's what gets taxed, half of all small business income, half of all the income that creates the jobs in america will be hammered by the democrats' tax bill. and don't take my word for it. the joint committee on taxation, the congressional budget office, the president's

own head of the council of economic advisors said passing all tax relief for all people in america will boost the u.s. economy more than this bill. final point, these dollars won't be used for deficit reduction. democrats and the president signed seven bills. $625 billion of tax increase in the last few years. guess how much went to deficit reduction. not a dime. it all went to expand the government and double that to a bigger government. let's stop playing games. let's get real solutions. let's have an up or down vote that extends tax relief for all americans, that helps move us into the next two years and let's stop that ticking tax bomb. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levi m speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, a member of our committee.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman. mr. neal: i want to disagree sharply that my colleague, mr. brady, just made. america needs to have this conversation. we need to have a conversation as to how we got into the mess that we find ourselves in today. and part of thatonversation is the discussion and debate over whether to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. that's the difference of opinion that we're debating right now. now, our friends on the other side are going to tell us that this has a big impact on small business despite what the i.r.s. says, and i'd even offered a proposal that would address the 3% issue moving down the road. but let's listen to one small business owner. barry fox. the president of marble king. the last remaining american manufacturer of marbles. he thinks we've lo our marbles. when asked whether the way to economic recovery was tax cuts for the wealthy, mr. fox simply replied, absolutely not. america has paid the price for

its theology. the theology that tax cuts pay for themselves. they inherited a near perfect economy 10 years ago. record job growth, deficit eliminated, the debt being paid down and alan greepan warned us we were paying down the debt too quickly. this argument today is about fairness. it's the type of taxes that we wish tone vision in this matter helped to create. even the nonpartisan tax policy center analyzed the bush proposal at different income levels. they found that next year for someone earning more than $1 million he or she can look forward to an average tax cut of $128,832, if we extend these tax cuts for the wealthy. and they found that next year somebody making $7 million can look forward to a $400,000 tax cut if we leave the bush proposals in place.

this is a question about how we treat the working families of america. this is a question of not cementing into the law a stem with skewed benefits and i urge support for a middle class t cut. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from the ways and means committee, from kentucky, mr. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. davis: thank you. mr. speaker, what will the job create doers? this is the number one question we must ask ourselves when bills are brought to the house floor. there's always lots of talk about fairness. well, their idea of fairness toward job creators means that a t of people will not have jobs. i'd like to remind my colleagues that under the current tax policy before the subprime mortgage meltdown that resulted largely from that dealing with fannie mae and freddie mac, we had 54 months of consecutive economic growth. what would the job create doers if they were enacted? i wonder if my colleagues shouldn't get a bracelet with the initials wwjcd on it, what

would the job creators do, before plunging off the cliff with some of these policies. it's not a question we have to ponder long. the answer is simple for anybody who has owned a business and is faced with increasing costs imposed by them by the federal government. as a former small business owner, let me walk you thrgh the tough decisions this bill would force on millions of job creators. with obamacare and all the other burdens on top of this current tax increase. they'd have to cut back or eliminate on benefits, they'd be switching employees to part time. raises and bonuses would be replaced in all likelihood by pay cuts, layoffs or moving more companies to places that have friendlier tax and regulatory burdens. these are serious and real decisions that will face our job eators on january 1 as a direct result of this bill raising taxes on millions of job creators. if there was one resounding message in the election it was that the american people were putting a restraining order on the increasing burdens this congress and this administration have placed on the american people. at a time when our economy's

trying to recover, why would we raise taxes on anyone? why would we even partially want to impede our nation's path to onomic recovery? under the current tax policy, we had growth. if we move into this direction, we will see a repeat of the failures of the roosevelt administration in 1937, causing a gross double dip in our economy and it's going to hurt every american. this past tuesday president obama hosted a summit at the white house where appointed members of congress were asked to work in a bipartisan fashion to device a solution to the pending tax hikes and what was the majority do here? simply try to once again force something down our throats without real discourse. house democrats chose to ignore this call for bipartisanship just as they've ignored the will of the american people on issue after issue after issue and are forcing a vote that will produce significant job killing results fosmall business owners faced with the uncertainty of a looming tax hike. over an ominous $3.8 trillion tax increase, it's one of the most severe plagues that we could put on economic recovery. as a result, private sector

money that would be invested will continue to sit on the sidelines. mr. brady: i yield an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. small businesses are playing defense against an overreaching federal government. it's impeding the economic recovery and not fostering predictability in order to create jobs. this vote come downs to b creation versus worsening our troubles. before you cast your vote today, ask yourself, all of my colleagues wwjcd, what would the job create doers? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. with unanimous consent, the gentleman from texas will control the time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: it's now my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, a member of our committee, mr. boccieri -- becerra. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. becerra: i thank the gentleman for yielding. working americans believe that

the tax code favors the rich and the influential and guess what? they're right. last year the average billionaire in america got about $100,000 back from the bush tax cuts while the average middle class family in this country received 1/2 of 1% of that. not half of that, 1/2 of 1% of that. it's time that this country began to tax fairly and invest wisely. republicans are holding these tax cuts for the middle class hostage, demanding an extra tax cut of $700 billion worth of bailout for millionaires and billionaires. all of which republicans would not pay for, which means that once again we'd have to go to china and a lot of other countries to borrow since right now the government is running a deficit. these are the same tax cuts that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say will create jobs and we need to rev up the economy for that reason and keep these wealthy tax cuts. well guess what? these are the same tax cuts that we've had in place for the last

10 yrs and what have these tax cuts giving wealthy folks over $100,000 a year given us? 15 million americans are unemployed. the worst recession if not a depression we've faced since the 1930's. we've seen what the results are of these tax cuts for the wealthy for the last 10 years. now they say we need to do it again to improve the ecomy. it's time that this country acted sanely. it's time that we focused our attention on the middle class, give folks who have worked very hard, those who every week, every month come home with a paycheck, they see the fica deduction, they know they've paid some taxes. we need to make sure they know we're doing everything to invest in them so that maybe one of these days when we turn over the product we buy in a store and we see where it's made, it will once again say madin america because an american got a job. these tax cuts that are geared toward the wealthy would not do th and those 3% of small businesses that might be

impacted, because 97% of small businesses in america would get the tax cut, those 3% are populated by very wealthy folks. vote for this legislation. it's good for middle americans. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: i yield myself 15 seconds. i would point out the chambers of commerce, 2,600 small businesses and business associations have signed a letter pushing and ming the case for extending all tax relief for all small businesses and all taxpayers includina number from california, the orange county business council, the north hollywood chamber of commerce. the speaker pro tempe: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. brady: i would like to yield that the point three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from texas who has fought against higher taxes and for more small business job creation, mr. hensarling. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. hensarling: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, the bipartisan negotiations are fleeting around

here. the white house photographers haven't even left, the ink wasn't even dry on appointing the negotiators and then all of a sudden house democrats spring to the floor their tax increase bill on small businesses, on american families. you know what? i've heard the rhetoric of my prend friends on the other side of the aisle -- of my iends on the other side of the aisle. i'm still looking to find, where is the tax cut they're talking about? i don't see any tax cut. all i see is tax increases. half of small business income is going to be taxed under their bill. 15 million of our fellow citizens are unemployed. how many more have to become unemployed? how much more human misery? how much more rejection at the baot box before my friends on the other side of the aisle come to their senses?

they have tried to spend their way into economic prosperity, it has failed. they have tried to borrow their way into national economic prosperity, it has failed. they've tried to bail out their way into national economic prosperity, it has failed. and here today again another opportunity to tax our way into economic prosperity. it does not work. the american people have rejected this tired old class warfare rhetoric. you cannot help the job seeker by punishing the job creator. the american people know this. and their voices were heard on election day. you know, mr. speaker, what i find interesting is how many democrats have come to the floor to quote the economist dr. mark zainy, probably the most quoted economist by the democrats and

yet he himself has rejected the idea of raising taxes in this economy. dr. peter orszag, one of the architects of obamanomics, now that he's out of the administration, he has written in an editorial th we should not be raising taxes. i mean, mr. speaker, this is a group that can't even get keynesian economics right. keynesian economics says you do not raise taxes in a time of recession. i mean, look at the period of almost perpetual near 10% unemployment that we've had. again, how many more people have to suffer? how many more jobs have to be lost? it's simple, mr. speaker. no tax increases on no nobody. it may be poor gram -- on nobody. it may be poor grahammer but it's good economics. we shod reject this bill and this employ. i yield back the balancef my

me. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself 10 seconds. i suggest that the gentleman reread the bill, reread it. $1.5 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years, 97% of small businesses receive a tax cut. those are the facts, period. i now yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. without objection, so ordered. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, benjamin franklin once said, nothing in the world is certain but death and taxes. mr. franklin had never met the modern republican party. the only thing certain about taxes these days, if the republicans are going to use them to take from the poor and give to the rich again and again and again. and now the senate republicans have brought all legislation to a halt, halt in this building,

until the super rich get their tax cuts. they are determined to take care of the rich. that political maneuvering by the republicans brings uncertainty to the middle class at a time when they really need certainty. when they know what they're gointo have in the next year. food banks are panicking all over this country because the republics in the senate say the tacuts for the rich go before any money for those unemployed people who are looking for their unemployment insurance. the food banks know what's going to happen. hungry people are going to be coming in. but it doesn't make any difference to the republicans. in fact, it's time to hang your christmas stocking. can you imagine the rich in this country hanging their christmas stocking and putting in the gold of the tax cuts and the

unemployed hanging their christmas stocking? the poor, the unemployed, those who don't have a check to pay for food or pay the mortgage, they're going to look in their christmas stocking and see what? coal. we know how this movie's going to come out. this bill will pass over to the senate, it will come back with a big tax cuts for the rh, some of us are going to vote no, we'll vote yes today, but no when it comes back because it isn't fair to the unemployed people in this country. that they get theironey for sure when we dole it out to the unemployed one fight at a time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from virginia who is a leader in cutting taxes, restoring the level of government spending, the leader dess nat of house republicans,

mr. cantor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. ntor: i thank the speaker and thank the gentleman from texas. mr. speaker, on tuesday republicans had a productive meeting at the white house that we hoped promised a fresh start after an historic election. there was recognition on both sides that it was time to put aside the political gamesmanship and the partisan rhetoric and begin working for the public to produce results. clearly, mr. speaker, that mess amming has not been sent to some in the majority today. -- message has not been sent to some in the majority today. we have a bill that would raise taxes on many small business people and working families. we know the facts. although some could say otherwise, 50% of the people that are impacted by this tax hike get at least 25% of their

income from pass-through entities. these are the small businesses that we're relying on to create jobs in this economy. but sadly it appears that the outgoing majority is more interested in staging meaningless votes that amount to political cha grinry than it is to pursuing policies that get the economy back on track and americans back to work. simply put, mr. speaker, this bill is a job killer that runs completely contrary to the discussions that we had with president obama at the white house a few days ago. a bipartisan majority in the house supports a clean bill to ensure that no american faces a tax increase in this difficult economic environment. mr. speaker, we call on speaker pelosi to stop the gimmicks and allow all members of the house,

republican and democrat, to vote on legislation that would prevent tax increases for all, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: it's now my pleasure to yield two minutes to a member of the committee, a hardworking member, mr. pascrell from new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mrpascrell: thank you, mr. speaker. i've heard in the last few moments about trickled down economics. you know, here we go again. and i heard the quote, what works and what doesn't work. let me tell you what doesn't work. if you look back just a few years ago, in 2000 we had a 4.2% unemployment rate. by the end of 2008 we doubled it. not one word about that. those eight years have disappeared off your memory lapse. and by the beginning of 2009, the concentration of wealth in

the top 1% was only matched by the period immediately before the great depression. so let's get it straight. in this piece of legislation, everyone gets a tax cut. even sammy sosa. i don't know if he's playing any more. even derek jeter. they all get a tax cut up to $200,000. and of course if they are couples, up to250,000. even bilonaires will get a tax cut up to $250,000. you have never communicated it because you have never told the total truth. this legislation is very specific about how we're going to help the middle class. i believa five-year extension would provide better. i don't believe we should extend indefinitely any tax cut , but i'm going to vote for this bill because i refuse to allow the middle class to be the victims of partisan gridlock. america's middle class is the reason i've come to the floor

multiple times over the last six months to declare the necessity of taking a vote on these taxes. and,r.peaker, i went to my own district. there are 334,000 households in the district. less than 1%, less than 1%, 1,092 are making $1 million or more. their argument is dead in the water th heavy sand that brings it deeper and deeper because they don't talk about the middle class. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: i would just say in comment to my friend's remarks, this is not about giving anybody a tax cut. this is about preventing a tax increase in a time of great unemploymenthat has gone on,

as i said in my remarks, for more than 15 months at 9 1/2 percent. and now i'd like to yield to the distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from illinois, mr. roskam, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recnized for three minutes. mr. roskam: i thank the gentleman for yielding. a couple months ago i'm walking through a manufacturing facility in the western suburbs of chicago with the entrepreneur that started it. this is a guy who about 45 years ago is living on the northwest side of chicago with his wife, and he's a tinkerer, you know, the type of person that goes in the garage and comes up with some idea, blue-collar guy, and comes up with an idea. and over a period of time he borrows a couple thousand bucks from his mother-in-law and builds up a little business. is is a very typical story. this isn't unique to chicago or detroit or new york. this happens all the time. he then builds that business up and i'm sitting down with him and his son whoa is now running

it and -- who is now running it and the guy is 75 years old. i told him about his business. he talked about 2008. it's now a lean operatn. he further says, congressman, the smart move for me is to put three quarters of a million bucks in this production line and he points to a production line on the floor. i ask him,re you going to do the smart thing? and he says, no, i'm not. of course i ask him why not and he says because washington, d.c., tells me i'm rich. see, file as an individual, and washington, d.c., tells me i'rich. so that means i got to hold on to capital because i don't know what's going on. i think my taxes might be going up at the first of the year. and then further, he mentioned health care, he mentioned cap and trade, he mentioned ambiguity in the capital market. but for the life of me i can't understand why we as a body have not figured out that we ed people like him, my constituent, the entrepreneur to go out and hire folks.

and he's not going to do it if his taxes are going to go up. and this is not a uniquely republican revelation, mr. speaker. peter orszag recently said that now is no time to raise taxes on anybody. dr. christina roam ert argued now is -- romert argued now is not the time to tax anybody. since the democrats have been able to control this process for years and now we find ourselves 30 days out from the largest tax increase in american history and we're having this junior varsity argument about whether we should nickel and dime the very people that we're trying to create an incentive for, i just think we can do better. i think the american public, mr. speaker, has an expectation that we are going to do better. i think, frankly, the white house has an expectation that we can do better. so i urge us to defeat this today and to really get about

this very serious idea of how it is that we create not just certainty and predictability but an environment where the entrepreneurs that i've scribed and i represent and we all represent say to themselves, yes, i want to invest and i want to hire more. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair will remind members to direct their comments to the chair. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself 10 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 10 seconds. mr. levin: 90% of small businesses will not pay any more taxes. they'll get a tax cut. i now yield a minute and a half to mr. crowley, a distinguished member of the ways and mea committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. crowley: i thank the gentleman for yielding me that time. the united states is united in blocking all of american businesses.

that's troub for america. the republican plan will not keep our troops at war safe. the republican plan will not extend benefits to people who have lost their jobs because the company relocated overseas. the republican plan will not pay down the federal debt, and the republican plan will not create one new job. aren't these the very same priorities that americans want us to be focusing on? yes, but that is not who the republican plan will benefit. this bill will cut taxes for every american who earns up to $250,000. this bill will eliminate the marriage penalty permanently for the first time in congress' history. this bill will cut the cost of college for young people in americ this bill will cut taxes for small businesses. instead, the republican plan will increase taxes on every american family who makes less than $250,000 a year because unless we do it their way there will be no bill.

so exactly who will the republicans try to help in this legislation? this little dog, trouble, that's who. trouble is leona helmsly dog who inherited $12 million. under the republican plan if trouble doesn't get a tax break nobody else should. and that's very troubling. under the republican plan, america will -- mr. levin: i yield the gentleman an additional half minute. mr. crowley: under the republican plan, america will go to the dogs. this dog received $12 million. how many americans who work in new york or michigan or california or florida or georgia earns $12 million in a lifetime? they'll protect this little dog but they won't protect the middle class of this country anthat, i think, is wrong. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time.

the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i yield a minute and a half to a distinguished member of the ways and means coittee, the gentleman from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. herger: thank you very much. mr. speaker, we are now in some of the worst economic times since the great depression. 9 2 percent unemployment nationally. i have areas in my district that have doubled that amount. this is certainly the wrong time to be raising taxes. we need stop this tax increase for all americans, for the hardworking families who are struggling to make ends meet and also for the small businesses that are relying upon to create jobs and to grow our economy. the bill before us today will result in a massive tax increase on small business owners, entrepreneurs and job creators at the very time our country most desperately needs

them to succeed. and to hire more employees. mr. spear, this is no time for half measures. i urge the house to reject this flawed bill and instead pass gislation to ensure that no american sees a tax increase on january 1. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. under unanimous consent, the gentleman from -- mr. levin: i yield myself 10 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: unanimous consent to continue to control the time. now i recognize the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin. mr. levin: thank you. i yield myself 10 seconds. once again, 97% of small businesses will continue to receive -- they'll get tax cuts, not tax increases. those are the facts, period.

i now yield two minutes to -- a minute and a half to the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong support of h.r. 4853, the middle class tax relief act of 2010. during these times of economic difficulty, middle class and working families need all of the help that th can get. extension of the alternative minimum tax for two years and extending the 2001, 2003 tax cuts for marginal individual income will protect more than 25 million families from the alternative minimum tax. this legislation will make permanent the temporarily reduced taxes on capital gains and dividend income for taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 for single filers and $250,000 for married couples. the bill will maintain the

current 15% rate for middle class taxpayers. higher education has becoming increasingly difficult to pay. certain modifications to the education incentives included in the economic growth and tax relief reconciliation act. student loans are in serious need of retention. this bill will provide the opportunity for individuals to deduct. there has never been a time greater when the middle class needed a tax break. that time is now. let's do it today. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from nevada. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. heller: i strongly support tax relief for the middle class and others, but today's bill is misguided. nevada is struggling. it has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation. more than 14%. some counties in my congressional district are as high as 16%, 17% unemployment. real unemployment probably closer north of 20%. at home in nevada i constantly talk to families, small business owners and workers struggling to make ends meet. that's why i have supported extending unemployment insurance. . today's washington knows what's best class warfare and of so-called tax relief is a dangers way to go. the outgoing majority party does not understand that tax hikes do not create jobs. the skwlout going -- outgoing

majority party doesn't understand the bigger government doesn't create jobs. the outgoing majority party still doesn't understd that more regulations still doesn't create jobs and doubling down on failed stimulus spending which this bill does also is, too, the wrong way to go. it bears repeating simply because the current outgoing majority so often fails to listen, the income levels in the bills today exclude many small businesses. and it's those small business owners who are the job creators in the economy. 3/4 of all new jobs are created by small businesses which employ half of all private sector employees. these are the entrepreneurs, the patent filers, the exporters, start-ups, and the innovators. they, not washington politicians, are the ones who will lead our nation out of its economic struggles. yet today we are asked to support a tax increase on them.

i have a letter here signed by a number of national and local organizations who strongly support extending the current tax relief. in the letter i say, quote, strongly urge congress to end the tax uncertainty pguing the business community by extending the expiring 2001, 2003 tax rates. nowhere in this letter, nowhere in this letter signed by 28 pages of organizations -- thank you. nowhere in this letter signed by 28 pages of organizations and businesses nationwide do they waffle or endorse these income limitations. several chambers o commerce and local base -- businesses from around the state of nevada who understand the importance of the certainty in our tax policy have signed on to this letter. businesses li silver state bear gate. star sound audio, and air system

s incorporated. today's exercise and political theater is bad politics. i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: mr. speaker, it's now my real pleasure to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from kentucky, mr. yarmuth. the speaker pro tempor the gentleman is recognized for two minute mr. yarmuth: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. this is kind of a comical debate in a way. we hear time after time after time why would we want to pass job-killing tax hikes? well, i would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle why did they write them into the law? because these are republican tax hikes thate are dealing with. trying to decide what makes sense both from a fiscal standpoint and from a fairness standpoint. i love the fact that people talk about job-killing tax hikes as if every small business is going to make decision based on what their personal tax rate is. i come from a family ofmall

businesspeople. my father was a small businessperson -- business person who built a small company, i have a sister who is a small business person. i ran a small business. not one of us ever made a decision about what we would do in our business based on whether a few more percente points would come out of our net income, particularly when we are dealing with people who are mostly making millions of dollars a year. i have one brother who is in the barbecue restaurantusiness. i talk to him about what impact taxes ve on his decisions in business. he said, you know, if nobody can afrd barbecue it doesn't matter what my tax rate is. that's where we are as a country. we have a measured portion of our population whose standard of living is stagnated over the last 10, 20 years and we have a small percentage who have done very, very well thanks in part to the tax breaks that they were given back in 2001 and 2003.

we can afford to give evebody tax cuts if we want to raise the national debt another $700 billion. i think we have to draw a line somewhere. we have to say that people who have done extremely well over the last 10 years thanks to the bush tax cuts need to pay a little more. this won't kill jobs. it won't -- we won't be crying crocodile tears for them. it's more important that we make sure that the vast majority of americans have the income they needo drive this economy. that's where the businesspeople, small and large, will be. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from georgia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. -- >> not one american taxpayers' taxes will be reduced as a result of passage of this bill. let as be clear what's at stake today. a vote for this bill is a vote

to raise taxes on millions of american families and small business owners. the democrat leaders argue that we have to raise taxes to reduce the deficit. but this is absolutely false. the burden to reduce the deficit should be on congress and not on the backs of the hardworking americans. it is our joto make the tough spendi cuts and restore fiscal discipline not to make millions of american businesses and families a scapegoat for our debt. keep this in mind, no tax increases ever created one job. if america's private sector is going to create the jobs we desperately need, congress must stop the threat of new taxes, get out of the way, and let employers have some certainty for once. mrspeaker, i urge my colleagues to respect the message of the american ople from election day. and let's reject this tax hike sche. the speaker pro mpore: the ntleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: it's now mypleasure to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from nevada, a member of our committee, ms.

berkley. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two mites. ms. berkley: i thank you, mr. chairman, thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of this legislation. today's vote is an affirmation of this congress' commitment to middle class americans and a crucial step in getting our econy back on track. this tax cut extension does not exclude anyone. what it does is permanently extend middle income tax relief which will provide much needed certainty to our small businesses, r entrepreneurs, and create conditions for law enforcement growth. while still dealing responsibly with the federal deficit, and let us not fort it is a rgeoning deficit. this legislation ensures that on january 1 every american will be -- every american will be paying lower taxes than under current law. it will extend relief from the alternative minimum tax for two years ad provide permanent

relief from the marriage penalty. it also permanently extends tax credits like the improved child tax credit, simplified earned income tax credit, and numerous benefits for education. for our small business owners we are also permanently increasing the amount they can expend so they can quickly realize the benefits of their capital investment. these provisions are critical to nevada's economic recovery. it is good for my congressional district, the city i represent of las vegas, that is really hurting and the people of the great state of nevada. we owe it to our fellow citizens to pass this bill and ensure that we are creating conditions for reneweeconomic growth. the certainty of this legislation creates and will bolster consumer confidence, provide businesses with tax certainty, and foster long-term investment. nobody can argue or quibble with its benefits. these economic conditions are

essential to the health of consumers -- consumer laid economy like las vegas. we still have work to do both in terms of promoting jobs and removing uncertainties in the tax code. we must quickly move to legislation that prevents -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. levin: i yield 30 seconds. ms. berkley: we also have to work onur estate tax to pre--2001 levels. i look forward to that discussion with the bill i introduced with congressman brady as the basis for the debate. let's get moving. this is the easy stuff. this we should pass without any uncertainty or concern that we are not doing the right thing for the american people. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. fattah. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two

minutes. mr. fattah: let me thank the gentleman from michigan for yielding me this time. there are theory and facts. there are democratic tax rates in which we saw 22 million new jobs created and we saw the balancing of the budget and hundreds of billions of dollars in national debt paid off. then there's republican tax rates called the bush tax cuts in which we saw a net loss of 600,000 jobs and we saw trillions of dollars added to the national debt. these are facts. you compare to eight years of clinton to eight years of bush. you compare the two rates. and you look at the jobs and the effect on the debt and the deficit. and weknow what the reality is. our friends on the other side say, well, we don't want to hurt the economy. the be way not to hurt this economy is to do away with the set of policies that created the

situation we are in now with 15 million people without jobs are -- our national debt doubled. as economic theory i think we should get rid of the ince tax and move to a consumption tax, but theory is something you can debate and you can wonder about. facts are facts and we can't hide from them. the cts here that upped the bush rates -- under the bush rates th cntry is seeing unemployment spike by millions. our debt rise by trillions. so we come to say that maybe the republicans were right when they put an expiration date on this because they didn't really know what was going to be the result. we seehe calamity, we' the economic calamity that has resulted from doing these types of uneven tax breaks weighted to the top 2%. so we come today saying for 98% of the middle of our people in our country, people at 250 and

under, they should continue to have and make permanent a break on their taxes. for the wealthiest, for their first 250,000, they should get an identical break. we should return to the clinton break or the democratic breaks thereof. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will note the gentleman from michigan s five minutes remaining. and the gentleman from michigan has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: at this time i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from georgia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. kingston: i thank the gentleman for yielding. first of all i want to associate myself with the previous spear, my friend from pennsylvania. i, too, support a consumption tax, a fair tax, tax simplification, in whatever form. i hope we can come together to work on tax reform and tax simplification in the year ahead. today, though, we are doing a show and politics. we are passing- we are voting

on a bill which the speaker knows there aren't the votes to pass. she furthermore knows that if it did pass the senate is not going to pass it. today is all about political show. it's about more class warfare. it's interesting that the speaker would choose this route because november 2 i believe that brand of politics was squarely rejected by the voters all across america. we also know that the economic policies of the speaker and the president have failed. when the stimulus bill was passed, unemployment was about 7.6%. we were told this would keep it from going to 8%. but here we are now with unemployment at nearly 10%. 15illion people out of work and we are hearing again from the democrats that this is what we need to do to turn the economy around. i believe the americ people spoke on that squarely and i

think the statistics show we are at 10% unemployment rate it's not going to work. about 75% of small businesses, and i think there's something like 27 million in the country, 75% of them file their taxes as individuals. 750,000 of them actually would come under this category of getting a tax increase. and these are people who are the first to turn around and hire folks when the economy improves. these are sheet rock contractors, these are restaurant owners, these are other tradesmen who havewo, three, four, five, 15 employees. they are going to be the first ones to turn around and hire folks. so right now we do not want to hit them with a high tax increase. we need to reject this and continue with the white hou and come up with a compromise. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: it's now my privilege to yield one minute to our very

distinguished majority leader, mr. hoyer of maryland. the speaker pro tempore: the majority leader is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank the gtleman for yielng. i rise in support of this legislation. first let me say that there were two messages that came from this election in my opinion. maybe others as well, but certainly these two. one, we need to grow jobs. we need to havmore jobs for our people. we need to grow our economy. the second was, we are very concerned about the deficit. . i agree with both of those conclusions in this election. i think we need to do both of those. in the short term in order to grow the economy we have to invest in the economy and we need not take money out of the pockets of consumers. now, as a result of the tax bills that were adopted in 2001 and 2003 because we wanted not

to have the scoring for a longer period of time and the deficit displayed explodin they were made to sunset. that is to say tax cuts were put in place and then they were dunsls setted. it so happens that they dunsls set at the end of this month. that would -- that they sunset at the end of this month. and if we didn't vote for that to go into effect taxes would increase on everything. what this bill does is says, no, we want to cap. we want to make sure that no american has any tax increase for the first $250,000 of their income. no american. 100% of american taxpayers would be exempt under this bill from any increase in their taxes on january 1 of this year.

one of the other messages that the american public said to us, when you can reach common ground, when you can reach agreement, why don't you guys take it? why don't you move forward where you can agree and then spend time on that which you cannot agree upon but least do that on which you can reach common ground? now, i haven't heard all of the debate. i've been in other meetings, but my suspicion is almost everybody, if not everybody on the floor wants to make sure that the first $250,000 of income of any american is not subjected to a tax increase on january 1. th my conclusion. now, somebody will come up and say, no, you're wrong on that, but if so i stand to be corrected.

but we have reached common ground, i believe, on that proposition. that's what this bill carries forward. now, we have disagreements. as i said, the second message was, they're very concerned about the deficit. i'm very concerned about the deficit which i think, as i was quoted in the paper yesterday or the other day as saying, it's the most critical challenge that confronts this country that impacts on every other challenge we have in this country including our ability to bring taxes down and create tax reform. now, we don't have agreement on other elements of the republican tax program of 2001 and 2003 which will sunset pursuant to that policy on december 31. and the issue, therefore, before this house righnow is whether 're going to hold hostage the first $250,000 of

income of every american or we're going to say, no, we have agreement, we'll resolve that and then we will contend on the other issues. whether we argue about necessity to cut taxes on those over $ 50,000, on impacting small business, on growth of the economy, all of that's a legitimate argument. but i really do not believe we have disagreement on what this bill intends to do. it's just that some people think it doesn't do enough. i understand that. but very fnkly, my friends in the house and in the other body, we have been holding hostage american policy to agreement on 100%. or in the case of the senate on 60%. the american public are

frustratedy that. i'm frustrated by that. i think that's not the way a legislative body works. the legislative body works when you can create consensu move forward. now, somebody will get up and say, no, we should increase the first $250,000 of income and let that sunset. i doubt that anybody said that. i doubt anybody believes it. but if you don't believe it, any member of this house, then vote for this bill. not only does it save income but it takes earned income tax credit, it takes capital gains, it takes childcare tax credits and says that the first $250,000 of income will not be subjected to an increase. i can't believe we don't agree on that. i'm hopeful that every member will vote for this. now, i frankly want to say i don't think this is the final package. we know that the senate has disagreement.

we know that the white house has its own view, but this will be critically important if we move this issue forward. and some people on the other side say let's act and let's act now. fine. then, let's give them a vehicle in which to act. revenue issues as we know have to initiate in the house. now, this vehicle is a vehicle that i think will be used and can be used by the other body to effect consensus policy. but let us not hold hostage that on which we agree to that on which we do not agree. so i would urge my colleagues, vo for this legislation. let's move this forward. let's give the confidence to american working people that we are united in the conviction that in this tough economy at this time they ought not to see

an increase in their taxes on january 1. that's what this vote is about, and i urge my colleagues to support it and i thank the gentleman from michigan, the chairman of the committee and, yes, mr. camp, the ranking member, who will soon be chairman of this committee, for their efforts on this bill notwithstanding their disagreement on its substance. i thank the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, for yielding, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such me as i may consume. i would just s i listened very carefully to the majority leader's well-reasoned arguments and if in fact this bill were going somewhere they would have made a great deal of sense, but we know now that the senate will not take up this bill. 42 senators have signed a letter that they will not take up any legislation unless it is dealing with the potential tax

increases on all americans. i also have a letter that i -- was sent to the house of representatives dated today from the national association of manufacturers. and there's probably been no state hit harder than michigan, no sector hit harder in michigan than manufacturing. and i want to quote from this letter that says, manufacturers stngly support extending the 2001 and 2003 tax relief for all taxpayers. over 70% of american manufacturers file as s corporations or some pass-through entity and will be significantly impacted by these higher rates. according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office fully extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would add between 600,000 and 1.4 million new jobs in 2011 and between 900,000 and 2.7 million jobs in 2012. i would ask unanimous consent that this be made part of the

record. mr. hoyer: will my friend yield? mr. camp: yes, i will yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the courtesy of my friend for yielding. if he heard what i said -- and i know he was listening. i thank him for that. he and i both know revenue bills must initiate in this house. so if the senate is to effect what those 42 members suggested they wanted to see, then it st have a vehicle from this house on which to act. what i suggested and what i believe is that when you say this bill is dead, i think -- i'm not sure i agree with you because in my view it will be this bill on which they will ultimately reach whatever compromise is available in the united states senate. so in fact i think this is an important vehicle to reach perhaps the compromise that we all know is ultimately going to be necessary while at the same time expressing the views i think of -- i think the

overwhelming numbers of us that certainly the first $250,000, we may not agree on further or another level or something but certainly would the gentleman disagree that we all agree on the first $250,000? mr. camp: i thank the majority leader and reclaiming my time, i think we would have much better chance if the vehicle that was sent over to the senate was actually one that dealt with the potential tax increases or all americans. but i know my time is very short and i just wanted to say i also have a petition, a coalition letter sent to us by over 1,300 businesses, trade and local chambers of commerce urging that we extend the current tax policy for all americans in preventing a tax increase from going into effect. i would ask unanimous consent to submit the series of coalition letters. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. camp: i think what has happened today is a charade. i am glad it's coming to a

close. i urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: mr. speaker, first, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material in the congressional record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. levin: secondly, before i yield the balance of the time to the speaker, our very distinguished speaker, i want to take just a minute or less to make a couple okey points. number one, everybody would receive a tax cut under this bill, everybody. secondly, only 3% -- these are the facts -- of small business owners would not get the additional tax for income over $250,000. only 3%. and the third and last point is this, for those with income a million and over, under the

repuican plan they would get a tax increase -- a tax cut of over $100,000. while average americans would get a fraction of that. it's now my pleasure to yield the balance of our time to our distinguished speaker of the house, the gentlelady from california, nancy pelo. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker is recognized. the speaker: thank you very much, mr. speaker. thank the gentleman for yielding. i commend him for his great leadership in terms of working and being a champion for america's working families, america's middle-income families who neeso much help at this time of this down economy. mr. speaker, this has been a very interesting week. yesterday in the capitol hundreds of people looking for work came to the capitol of the united states.

they came because they knew that the day before unemployment insurance benefits had expired for people looking for work. they knew that by the end of december unless this congress acts two million americans will lose their unemployment insurance. two million americans. this is the first time in american history when unemployment benefits would have been allowed to expire at this rate of unemployment. they came looking for jobs. they came in the spirit of fairness to say until we can find jobs we need to continue unemployment insurance. and what they heard was that the republicans in the senate had said, if you want unemplment insurance it has to be paid for.

well, they have paid into unemployment insurance, but we want to give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in america to the tune of $700 billion and that doesn't have to be paid for. now, i think we should use a measure for everything that do. what does it do to create jobs, what does it do to reduce the deficit? unemployment insurance, the economists tell us, return $2 for every $1 that is put out there for unemployment insurance. people made the money, they spend is immediately for necessary its. it injects demand into the economy, it creates jobs to help reduce the deficit. giving $700 billion to the wealthiest people in america does add $700 billion to the deficit, and the record and history shows it does not

create jobs. it does not create jobs. i mention this because this is the context in which we bring up this tax cut for middle-income families in america today. and while some on the other side say this is not going to make a difference, it indeed makes a difference. let me say unequivocally there will be no tax bill for any situation unless there is a tax cut for middle-income people in our country. . that's what this vote is about today. that is our declaration. that is what we send to the table for the discussion that the president has so rightfully called for. what our republican colleagues are saying is we know they must support tax relief for the middle class, right? and this is tax relief for every income filer, everyone gets a

tax break. but what they are saying is, unless youive an additional tax break to the wealthiest people in our country adding to the deficit and not creating jobs, we are not going to vote for middle income tax cuts. as mr. hoyer said, holding the middle income families in america hostage for the tax cuts for the wealthiest. who are they? some create wealth and create jobs and we want to reward success in america and they do get a tax cut in this bill. some of them are getting bonuses on wall street. did you see the announcement? almost $90 billion in bonuses on wall street after all that they had put us through. not all of them, but some of them. $90 billion, with a b, dollars in tax cuts. and under what the republicans want to do they are not going to pay -- they want a tax break for

that. a bonus and tax break on top of it. but, no, we can't give middle income tax cuts unless you do that. and no, if we do unemployment insurance, it has to be paid for. but not a tax break for these billionaires, for these bonuses on wall street. this is so grossly unfair. it is so grossly unfair. i can't imagine that my colleagues on the republican side don't want to give a tx cut to the middle class. why don't they just vote for that? they can try to add whatever else they want and have that debate. but to say that this is not the right thing to do i think is not the right thing to say. and so we had a situation where we come out of an election, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. that's what those hundreds of people looking for work came to capitol hill looking for. they were looking for jobs.

they were looking for security for their families. one young man, 35 years old, stood up and said, i'm 35, i have -- i'm married, i have a 4-year-old child. i have been out of work for two years. i'm a college graduate. a trained professional. don't tell me to dip into my savings. my savings are all gone. don't tell me to go ask help for my family. i have already done that. they have done what they can but they are strapped as well. don't tell me to cut back on what we do as a family. that was something we did a long time ago. until we have tried to live as we look for work on unemployment insurance, insurance, and you're now telling us that congress cannot pass that unless it is paid for.

while it is giving, i'm saying, a tax cut to the wealthiest people in america, $700 billion unpaid for. $700 billion added to the deficit. something is very wrong with this picture. but we come to this floor, we democratsoday, with great clarity. the tax cut for middle income families will create jobs because people will spend that money again, injecting that into the economy and create jobs. that is something that will, that growth will help to he reduce the deficit. while the record shows and history -- recent history acknowledges that the tacuts at the high end did not create jobs. those tax cuts were in place during the bush years. and more private sector jobs have been created this year than the entire eight years of the bush administration.

they simply did not create jobs. if you want to create jobs, if you want to reduce the deficit, if you want to stabilize the economy, if you want to support the value of what theiddle class -- middle income families mean to our country, these workers who came with veterans, they were the backbone of our country, they came from the heartland of america. they came from a place where we in this congress and with this president saved the auto industry, saved the auto industry without the measures taken by the obama administration a this congress, we would have unemployment that's even higher. but that's not good enough. we want unemployment that is lower. this tax cut takess to that place. this tax cut, not what the republicans are proposing, will help create jobs, instead of what they want to do is not create jobs and increase the deficit. so the choice is clear. it's not about signatures that i'm not going to do this unless

you do that. we are very clear. there will be no tax bill unless there is a tax legislation that gives middle income families in america the fairness they deserve, the respect that they have earned, and the economic opportunity for creation of jobs, reducing the deficit, and stabilizing our economy. i think this choice is clear. i urge our colleagues and i hope we could have some bipartisan support for middle income families in america to vote aye on this important legislation. i thank mr. levin for his leadership and yield back the balance of my ti

>> good morning everybody. of the committee meets this morning to receive testimony on the department comprehensive review of the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. we will hear from secretary gates and chairman of the joint chiefs, admiral mullen, as well as theochairs of the department working group on this issue, defense department general counsel, jay johnson, and general carter hamm. tomorrow, we will hear from the vice chairman of the joint chiefs and the service chiefs on this rept. to examine this issue, the department launched an unprecedented effort to seek the views of our troops and their families. mr. johnson, general hamm, your approach in the report that you have delivered is evenhanded and respectful. you were given a very tough job.

your performance is of great value to our country. it yesterday's hearing -- excuse me, today's hearing is part of the committee's own review of this issue. which has been before us for nearly a year. secretary gates and admiral mullen testified at a friday hearing on this policy on february 2. each of the service chiefs were asked for their views on an annual hearing in the defense budget in march. and on march 18, the committee heard testimony from outside experts and testimony in support of as well as opposition. both the hse of representatives and his committee have approved legislation that would repeal the statute underlying don't ask don't tell if the president, secretary of defense, and the chairman of the joint chiefs

certify to congress that all of the following conditions have been met. a, they have considered the recommendations contained in the working group report and the report proposed plan of action. b, the department of defense has prepared the nessary policies and regulions to implement a repeal of don't ask, don't tell. and third, the implementation of these policies is consistent with the standard of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion and recruiting and retention. upon such certification, repeal would take effect after 60 days. a time during which congress could review the department's action. this provision is included in th national defense

authorization bill for fiscal year 2011, approved by this committee, and it is my hope that the senate will shortly take up this legislation. the requirement for the certification by the president, secretary of defense, and chairman of the joint chiefs is a key element of this legislation, as it ensures that a repeal of this policy would be conducted in an orderly manner with adequate oortunity to prepare for a change. this 60-day requirement were included in an attempt by this alberta.

the report before us provides important new evidence that the time for a change has come. it demonstrates that for the vast majority of our troops, this changwould be no big deal. they believe that we can open our military to service by gay and lesbian service members who would no longer have to conceal their sexual orientation, and that we can do so without reducing our military effectiveness. a large percentage of troops say they have already served with gay and lesbian co-workers who were affected coal workers of their units. -- affective co-workers of their units. i would add that if referendum

were the basis for those who could serve, president truman would not have integrated the armed forces in 18. and when as the working group points out, 8% or more of service members opposed racial integration. and in this case, while there has been a referendum, in working groups review gives us persuasive evidence tharepeal is not a problem for most troops. as the cochairs rogan this report, "if the impact of repeal is predominantly negative, that would have revealed itself in the course of our review." a change in policy, while needed, will not be without challenges. it the report provides important and useful recommendations to address those challenges. these recommeations focus on the importance of leadership, training, and education, and i

support that focus. but in my view, one of the most striking findings othis report relates to the experiences of service members themselves. an overwhelming 92% of troops who have worked with a gay or lesbian co-worker say there was no negative effect on their unit the message here is that when troops have tually worked with someone that they believe is gay or lesbian, they learn that those troops can get the job done. as the report states, "both the survey results and our own engagement of the force convinced us that when service members have the actual experience of serving with someone they believe to be gay, in general, unit performance was not affected negatively by this added dimension."

the report also states that, "much of the concern driven by misperceptions and stereotypes about what it would mean if gay service members were to be allowed to be open about their sexual orientation and we conclude that these gay and lesbian service members and are permitted to be open about their sexual orientation are exaggerated and not consistent with the reports of many service members." , in other words, real-world experience is a powerful antidote to the stereotypes that are in major source of discomfort that some feel about ending the don't ask, don't tell. repeal of this policy would bring our military in line with some of our close allies, including great britain and canada. the department's review found that resistance to openly gay and lesbian service members

among troops in those countries was much higher at the time they changed their policies then it is in our military today, but they change their policies. and as the working group found, "the actual implementation of change in those countries went much more smoothly than expected, with little or no disruption." most importantly, ending this discriminatory policy is the right thing to do. don't ask, don't tell is an injustice to thousands of patriotic americans who seek only the chance to serve the country they love without having to conceal their sexual orientation. anyone who believes that maintaining this policy is necessary to preserve our military's fighting fectiveness should read this report. time and time again and

throughout our history, our military has overcome obstacles to reflect the diversity of american society. and in doing so, our military has helped strengthen the fabric of our society while keeping us safe. we can and don't ask, don't tell, and maintain our military strength, respect our troops and their families, allow patriotic americans to serve their country without regard to sexl orientation, and uphold the principle that service and advancement in our military are basedn mer alone. again, i thank the witnesses for their impressive work and i call upon senator mccai >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me also thank our distinguished witnesses for their service to our nation.

i know that many people in our defenseepartment and our armed services devoted countless hours in the preparation of this report. especially general hannahan mr. johnson. i would like to thank them -- general hammaren and mr. johnson. i would like to thank them for their work. the proposed repeal of the common law -- of the law, and read -- commonly referred to as don't ask, don't tell is no different among the u.s. military, as the pentagon's report demonstrates. however, i think we can agree on a few facts as we begin this important hearing. we can all agree that our military today is the most effective, most professional, and arguably the most experienced force that our nation has ever had. we can all agree that we appreciate an honor the service of every american who wears the

uniform of our country, as well as their families, especially during this me of war, regardless of whether they are straight or gay. and finally, i think we canll agree, and i certainly would, that is capable professional force of ours could -- and i emphasize could -- implement a repeal of don't ask, don't tell if ordered to, just as they so ably and honorably do everything else that is a cast of them. what i want to know and what is the congress's duty to detmine is whether or not we can -- is not whether or not we can repeat this law, but whether or not we should. is the fundamental issue that has to bdetermined by congress. it has to be answered carefully, deliberately, and with proper

consideration for the complexity of the issue and the gravity of the potential consequences for our military and the wars in which we are engaged. the defense department has had 10 months to complete this report and the rand study that accompanies it. together, these reports and documentation contain over 1000 pages of data and material and analysis. the analysis committee received it 36 hours ago and my staff and i are still going through it and analyzing it carefully, including the more than 72,000 comments that our service mber provided to the wking group. what i can say now, however, is that in addition to my concerns about what questions were not asked by this surveand considered in this report, troued by the fact that this report only represent the input a a a 28% of the force who received a queionnaire,

including completing out numerous members of the military in combat areas. that is only 6% of the force at large. i find it hard to view that as a fully representative sample set. but i am nonetheless waved the contents of this report on their merits. what appears clear up this time is that the survey and anecdotal data underlined this report did not lead to one unequivocal conclusion, which is nsurprise considering the complex and difficult nature of this issue. for example, i recognize that of those surveyed who report having worked with a gay or lesbian service members, 92% said their units' ability to work together was not negatively affected. among those in army combat units, 89% of respondents felt that way. 84% of respondents in marine combat units.

however, we also learned that of those surveyed, 30% of the total, 43% of the marines, 40% of army combat units, and 50% of marine combat units believe that a repeal of the law would have a negative impact o their units' ability to "work together to get the job done." furthermore, 67% of marine and nearly 58% of army combat units believe the repeal of the law would have negative consequences onnit cohesion and a field environment out at sea. this is supplemented by comments like these, "i believe this is not the time for us to make huge changes in the military. we are at war and our men and women overseas do not need any more destruction -- distraction. this issue should be addressed

at the appropriate time and that is not now." i believe that it is demonstrated in the study that the closer we get to service members in combat, the more questions there are about what impact the repeal of don't ask, don't tell would have on the ability of these units to perform their missions. these issues trip not be considered lightly, especially considering how much, that our forces are facing. additionally, i am concerned about the impact oa rush to repeal one even this survey has found such a significant number of our service members feel it wouldmpact the military effectiveness. as we move forward with our discussion on this matter, i hope that everyone will put aside political motives and agendas. i also hope that everyone on both sides will refrain from integrity. hipeople's

finally, i hope there will recognize this is focus -- focus on our military and its effectiveness, not on broader social/issues at large. this is a complex issue that could have repercussions on our force as it is in gage in its 10th straight year of sustained combat, but a force that is performing exceptionally well. at this time we should be inherently cautious about making any changes that would affect our military, and what changes we do make should be the product of careful and deliberate consideration. i'm t saying this law should never change. i'm simply saying that it may be premature to make such a change at this time and in is manner without further consideration of this report and further study of the issue by congress. it for of all the people we serve -- for of all the people serve, one of our highest responsibility is to the men and

women in our armed services cannot -- armed services, especially those risking their lives in combat. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator mccain, members of the committee, this past tuesday, the department released e high level working group report dealing with the issues of the repeal of the don't ask, don't tell law, and based on those findings to develop implementations for recommendation. the report's findings reflect nearly 10 months of research and analysis, along several lines of study, and represents the most thorough and objective review ever of this issue and its impact on the american military. first, the group reach out to be forced to better understand their views and attitudes about the potential repeal of the don't ask, don't tell law. this out reach was not a matter of taking a poll of the military to determine whether

the law should be changed. the president of the united states made his position on this matter clear, a position i support. our job at the department of defense has been to determine how to best prepare for this change should the congress change the law. nonetheless, i thought it critically important to engage military members and their families on this issue. ultimately, it will be they who will determine whether or not such a transition will be successful. this out rich included a survey of questionnaires answered by tens of thousands of troops and their famies, which mr. canson and general hammare address in more detail. as a result of a survey, more than two-thirds do n object to gays and lesbians serving

openly in uniform. with the exception of some combat specialties, the repeal of don't ask, don't tell, though disruptive in the short term, would not be the wrenching, traumatic change that may have feared and predicted. second, the working group also examined the early all of the potential changes to the department's regulations and policies. as the cochairs will explain, the majority of concerns often raised in association with the repeal of dealing with sexual conduct, fraternization, marital or survival benefs could be governed by existing laws and regulations. existing policies can and should be applied equally to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals. the key to success, as with most things milli terry -- military is training, and above all leadership up and down the chain of cmand.

third, the working group looked at the impact on the change of the law on military readiness, unit cohesion and other issues critical to the force. in my view, getting this category ready is the most important thing we must do. the united states armed forces are in the middle of two overseas campaigns, a complex and critical drawdown in iraq, and a war in afghanistan. thworking group concluded that overall, and with thorough preparation, there ilittle risk from repealing don't ask, don't tell. however, as i mentioned earlier, the rvey data shows a higher proportion of between 40% and 60% of those troops serving in predominantly all male combat specialties, mostlyrmy and marines, but including special operations and formations of the navy and the air force, predicted a negative impact on

repealing the current law. the chiefs will have the opportunity to provide their expert military advice to the congress tomorrow, as they have to me and to the president. their perspective deserve serious concernattention and consideration as it reflects decades of sentiment of many senior officers. in my vie the concerns of combatroops as expressed in the survey do not present any insurmntable barrier to a successful repeal of don't ask, don't tell, which can be done and to be done without imposing a serious risk to military readiness. however, these findings to lead me to conclude- i do leave me to conclude that an abundance of care and preparation is required to avoid disruptive and potentially dangerous impact on

those who are serng at the tip of the spirit in america's wars. -- the t of the spear in americans wars. a series of steps must take place. the last step by the secretary of dense and chairman of jemaah -- joint chiefs. the new laws and regulations must be consistent with standards of readiness, unit cohesion and recruiting and retention. now that we hav completed this review, i strongly urge the senate to pass this legislation and send it to the president for signature before the end of the year. i believe this has become a matter of some urgency because as we have seen in the past few months, the judicial branch is becoming involved in this issue, and is only a matter of time before the federal courts are drawn once more into the fray. should this happen, there is the real possibility that this change would be imposed

immediately by judicial fiat, by far the most disruptive and in imaging scenario i can imagine, and the one mt hazardous to military male, readiness, and battlefield performance. therefore, i believe it is important, as senator mccain put it in his opening remarks that the question of whether the law should be repeale is a matter for the congress to decide. i believe the change should come through legislative means, that is, legislative reform from the review does completed. by means of a process that is well prepared and well considered intimidation. above all, a process that is representative toof the people of the united states. given the circumstances, those who choose not to act legislatively are rolling the

dice in the courts. i believe we should push ahead for repeal before the force can -- before the force can be prepared for change. we can work on training and leader development and that provides a solid road map for a successful implementation for repeal. thdepartment has already made a number of changes to regulations that when existing in law, provide more exacting procedures for separating troops for suspected homosexual conduct, changes that added more common sense to a dangerously legal -- dangerous and legally fraud process. this is the second time i have dealt with this issue as a leader in public life. a prior case being at cia in 1992 when as director, i ordered that openly gay applicants be treated as all other applicants. that is, whether as individuals

they met our competitive andards. that was and is a significant different situation in circumstance and consequence than that confronting the armed forces today. the use of gays and lesbians has changed considerably during this time and has grown more accepting since the don't ask, don't tell was first enacted. feelings on this matter can still run deep and divide starkly not only in society as a whole, but among uniformed ranks as well. for this reason, i would ask that as congress takes on this debate, for all iolved to resist the urge to lower our military and their families into the politics of the issue. what is called for is a careful and considered approach, an approach that to the extent possible welcomes all for qualified and capable to serve their country in uniform, but

one that does not undermine at a pace or dogmatism those attribut that make the u.s. -- out of haste or dogmatism those attributeshat make the u.s. military the strongest in the world. thank you. >> thank you. admiral allen. >> my personal views on this issue remain unchanged. i'm convinced that repeal of the law governing don't ask, don't tell i the right thing to do. back in february when i testified to the sentiment my also said that the men and women of thenit -- of the armed forces could accommodate such a change, but i did not know it for a fact. now i do. what was my personal opinion is now my professional opinion. repeal of the law will not an unacceptable risk to

our military units. families will not encourage our loved ones to leave this service in droves. i do not discount for a moment the findings of the johnson/hamm .urvey i do not find the concern's trivial or inconsequential. nor do i believe we can afford to ignore them. we would do well to pay heed and move forward in a deliberate and measured manner. whatever risks there may be in the repeal of this law, is greatly mitigated by the fear of implementation plan included in this study. the time to carry antonette effective, plan and inspirational leadership. these are the things that i know for a fact. inow let me tell you what i

believe. i believe our troops and their families are ready for this. most of them already believe they serve for have served alongside gays and lesbians, and knowing means a lot. those who said they knew are more consistently positive in the assessment of the impact of repeal across all dimensions -- cohesion, effectiveness, retention, even privacy concerns. our families feel the same. most of our spouses no levies one gay lesbian and very few of them believe -- know at least one day or lesbian and very few of them believe repeal the law would detract from the service. i have serd in the military my whole career. i went to war with them off the coast of vietnam. i knew they were there. they knew i knew it. and what's more, everyone in the crew knew it. we never missed a mission and never failed to deliver an

ordinance on target. readiness was not an issue. what made us a crew was team work and focus on a combat mission. back then, of course, it was a different time. society on the ca was not accepting and as tolerant as they are now. we had not speak much of how lile it matter th the sale next year was gay. but america has moved on. and if you look closely i think he will find the american militarys by and large ready to move on as well. should repeal occur, some soldiers and marinesay want a separate shower facilities. me may ask for different berthing. some may en quit the service. we will deal with that. but i believe, and history tells us, that most of them will put aside personal declivities for something larger than themselves and for each other -- personal proclivities for something larger than themselves and for

ea other. there is a bond brought by a common threat of the in a jeep -- enemy, and by the threatf peril. numerous soldiers have died willingly, writes jay glenn gray in his book, not for country or daughter or religious faith or any abstract good, but because they realize that by fleeing their posts and rescuing themselves they will expose their companions to greater danger. it is those greater dangers that still motivate the heroism and combatship our troops provide today. that is why i believe that it will have less impact than some critics. in fact, it may be the combat arms community that proved most

effective in managing this change, disclined as they are. it is not only because our young ones are more tolerant. it is because they have far more important things to worry about. nonmilitary spirits would seem to bear that out. in no instance was their widespread panic o mass resignations or wholesale disregard for discipline and restraint. some will argue we are different, of course. none of these foreign armies face the need global demands we do and none are charged with the leadership roles we bear. true enough. but many of them fight i do not recall a single

instance where the fact that one of them might be gay ever lead to poor performance on the field. my sense is that good order and discipline was actually reinforced and reemphasized. it is clear to me that our troops expect the same. they expect that would ever change we make to the current policy will be accompanied by rigorous training and high standards conduct. in fact, the report indicates that one of the factors distressing to those who oppose repeal are fears the new policies will not be implemented fairly, evenly, and dispassionately. let me be clear. nothing will change about o standards of conduct. nothing will change about the dignity, fairness, and equality with which we treat our people. and nothing will change about the manner in which we deal with those who cannot abide by the standards. the military is a meritocracy,

where success is based on what you do, not who you are. there are no speciallasses, no favored groups. we may wear different uniforms, but we are one. there are some for whom this debate is all about gray areas. there is no gray area here. we treat each other with respect or we find another place to work, period. that is what leadership will prove vital. leadership matters most. troops that believe they have served in the unit with gays and lesbians rate that in a performance high across virtually all dimensions, but highest in those units that are well lead. indeed, the practical differences between units in which there were troops believed to be gay and lbian and those in which no one was believed to be so completely disappear in effectively lead commands.

my belief is if and when the law changes, our pple will make that change in a matter persistent with the oath they took. as one marine officer took it, if that is what the president orders, i can tell you by god we are going to excel above and beyond the other services to make it happen. brinkley, that is why i believe that in the long run repeal of this law makes us a stronger military and improves our ranks. it will make us more representative o the country research. it will restore to the institution the energy it must now spend in pursuing those who violate the policy. and it will better align the organizational the use we claim with those we practice. as i said in february, this is about integrity. our people sacrificed a lot for their country, including their lives. none of them should have to sacrifice their integrity as well. it is true there is no

constitutional rig to serve in the armed forces, but the military service all the people of this country, no matter who they are or what to believ and everyone of those people, should they be fit and able, ought to be given the opportunity to defend it. finally, i believe now is a time to act. i worry that unpredictable actions in a court could strike down the law at any time, prluding the orderly implementation plan we believe is necessary to mitigate risk. i also have no expectation that challenges to ourational security are going to diminish in the near future, such that a more conveent time will appear. we find the argument that war is not the time to change to be into spectacle with our own experience since 2001. war does not stifle change. it demands it. it does not make change harder. it facilitates it. there is greater uncertainty today in our forces, which are

indeed under stress. and now the iefs are concerned about this. so am i.. but i do not believe the stressors currently manifesting themselves in the lives of our troops and their families -- link the deployments, suicide, and health care -- are rendered insurmountabler any graver by th single policy change. nor do i believe in simply acknowledging what most of our troops already know to be true about some of their colleague threatens our ability to fight and win this nation's wars. quite to the contrary. today's young readers are more attuned to combat effectiveness than any of the last three decades -- tempered by war, bonded through hardship. the men and women of the united states armed forces are the brightest and most capable they have ever been. if there is a tter opportunity for a bette generation to affect this sort of change, -- t effect this sort of change, i do not know of

it. with all due respect to chairman and senator mccain, it is true that i am not in charge of troops. i have commanded three ships. i commanded a carrier battle group into fleets. i was most recently the service chiefs. more than 40 years, i have risked the lives of young men and women. you do not have to agree with me on this issue. but do not think for one moment that i have not carefully considered the impact of the advice i give on those who will have to live with the decisions that device in forms. i would not recommend repeal of this law if i did not believe in my soul that it was the right thing to do for our military, for our nation, and for collective honor. thank you. >> thank you very much, and maryland. general hamm.

>> won a was appointed as" share of this revw, i was not thrilled. when i found out about it, and was honored to participate in a subject that has great importance to our men and women in uniform. i anticipated the task would be complex, tough, sometimes unpleasant, and uncomfortable. i now realize i underestimated those factors. after nine months of study, i am convinced that if the law changes, the united states military can do this, even in a time of war. io not underestimate the challeng in implementing a change in the law, but neier do i underestimate the ability of our extraordinarily dedicated service men and women to adapt to such changes and continue to provide our nation with the military capability to accomplish any mission. i came to this conclusion not only as a code-share of the department of defense review, but perhaps more importantly as

the commander of u.s. army forces in europe. i was cognizant every day of this review that i might have to actually lead the changes included in our rort as a servg commander. i am confident that if this law changes i and the leaders with whom i served can do just that. thank you. >> thank you very much. mr. johnson? >> mr. chaman, senator mccain, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify here today. by now, you have had the opportunity to read the report have co-pe and i authored. we hope it speaks for itself. our basic assessment is that our military can make this change, provided we do so in an orderly and reasonable manner, in accord with the rommendations for implementation we offer in our report. this morning, i would like to take a moment to talk to you not in my capacity as co-author of

this report, but as the lawyer of the defense department. i want to repeat and elaborate upon what secretary gates and and mullen have said, and ask that the congress not leave our military state on this issue in the hands of the courts. i offer no view about the constitutionality of "don't ask, don't tell," or a prediction about the outcome of the litigation that is under way. but regardless of how you feel about "don't ask, don't tell," or gays serving openly in the military, the fact that there is increased litigation in the courts on matters of gay-rights is undeniable. since 2003, when the supreme court decided lawrence versus texas, the courts have become increasingly receptive to gay- rights clams. within the last year alone, federal district courts have

declared california's gay marriage ban, the federal defense of marriage act, and "don't ask, don't tell" all unconstitutional. we have repealed the lower court decisions on "don't ask, don't tell," but after years during which "don't ask, don't tell" was upheld in the courts, the constitutionality is in litigation once again. we in the department of defense face the possibility that we must repeal "don't ask, don't tell" not on the terms and timetable of the president, congress, and department of defense, but on the terms and timetable of a court and a plaintiff. we got a taste of the ssible future in october and november, in the log cabin republicans case. on monday, october 11, we had a lot and a policy in place that required separation of members of the military who were found to have engaged in homosexual conduct. on tuesday, october 12, a

federal district judge in california issued an order to the secretary of defense to suspend enforcement of that law on a worldwide basis. eight days ler, on october 20, the appellate court issued a temporary stay of the injunction while considered whether to grant a more permanent state. on monday, november 1, the ninth circuit agreed to keep the state in place during the appeal in that court. on friday, november 5, the log cabin republicans asked the supreme court to reverse the state. on friday, november 12, the preme court denied the request. thus, in the space of eight days, we had to shift course on a world wide enforcement of the law twice, and in the space of a month face the possibility of shifting course for different times. -- four different times. this legal uncertainty is not going on soon. the log cabin republicans case

is on an expedited schedule. more lawsuits are being filed. our plea to the congress is to not leave the fate of this law to the courts. as secretary gates has stated, if repeal of this loss occurs, it should be done by the elected representatives and the political branches of government, not by the courts. indeed, inhe course of our review, we learned of other nations that acted to change their policies on gays in the military to head off adverse outcomes in court. from where i sit at the lawyer for the department of defense, the virtue of the legislation pending before the senate is that if passed, repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" will be done on our terms and our timetable, upon the advice of our military leadership. as the working group report makes clear, there are many issues that must be addressed in connection with any repeal of "don't ask, don't tell."

the core messages to be delivered as part of education and training, same-sex partner benefits, birthing and billeting, -- berthing and billeting, and others. the secretary will not sign the certification of the current legislation until we have written new post-repeal policies and regulations and have begun our education and training of the force. in other words, that repeal is brought about in a responsible and orderly manner. in all likelihood, this will not be possible if repeal is imposed upon us by judicial fiat. for these reasons, we urge the senate act now on the pending legislation. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. johnson. we have got a very large numr of sators here, and secretary

gates has got to leave at 11:30. the others are able to stay later than that. in order that we would all have a chance where he is here, i think our first round will need to be limited to 5 minutes, and then we will have a -- >> chairman, i object to that. >> i agree it is a very small time. >> i suggest we have another hearing or reconvene in the afternoon. five minutes is not sufficient time for anything, frankly, but statements by the members. >> we have had runs of 5, 6, and seven minutes f many hearings. in fact, that is our tradition. in any event, i am trying to give every member here an opportunity will secretary gates is here. there will be a second round, a third round, and a fourth round with admiral mullen, general ha and mr. johnson. if we need secretary gates back for an additional hearing, we will ask him back. but i haveo accommodate his

schedule as well as give an opportunity to every member of this committee while he is here to asking questions. >> my only response is this is obviously a transcendently important issue, and to allow our members five minutes with the secretary of defense is simply not adequate to have us have the much-needed information the secretary of defense can provide. so all i can do is say you are not giving the members sufficient time to ask questions, which is maybe not the intent, but certainly the effect. maybe in the lame-duck session we are in we could have another hearing as soon as possible so that all membe can have ample opportunity to get the information they need to make a very important decision.

>> mr. chairman, if it will help, i can do some arranging wednesday until noon. >> we hopehat helps and we hope another hearing with you will not be necessary. we have the other witnesses as long as necessary. if we have need of another meeting with secrery gates, we will consider that. for the first, a 5 minute run to give all our members the opportunity while he is here. it is important for all of our members to have that opportunity. let me proceed here. i think we just want to get going, unless there is something. >> doing the math, if you extended it to 30 minutes, you could change that to a six minute round. >> will accept that recommendation. i will now have a six-minute first round. thank you for that recommendation. we accept a six minute first- round, given that secretary gates is able to say an extra -- able to stay an extra half hour.

let me start with you, admiral mullen. you have told us that the nation should not changour policy, and we should allow gay and lesbian service members to serve in the military without having to conceal their sexual orientation. you have stated deposition both personally and professionally now in a very eloquent way. you have also urged us, as have the others, to carefully consider the views of the service chiefs, even where they might differ. have you carefully and seriously considered the views oall of the service chiefs, even where they might differ in reaching your own professional conclusion? >> i have spent a great deal of time with the service chiefs on

this issue. since the beginning of the year, i could not tell you the number of sessions. but one of my goals certainly was, throughout this process, not one of influence. but it was one of debate and discussion, and making sure that everybody understood where everybody else was on this and we could take, in particular, when we got the report -- take the report, look at it, assess, probably more than anything else, the risk that is associated with it, obviously understand what is in the report but obsess you risk. -- but assess the risk. each of us reached our own conclusions, not just from a service perspective, but this is also the joint chiefs. i asked them for their cues from the joint perspective as well.

we received that. all of that was taken into consideration are arriving where i am with respect to the risk level tied to potential implementation of this. >> do i understand from your answer that you have carefully considered the views of the service chiefs before you reached your own professional opinion? >> very carefully. >> secretary gates, you also urged us to consider the views carefully of the service chiefs, and i fully agree with you. have you done that in reaching your own conclusion? >> yes sir, i have. >> general ham, have you carefully coider the views of all the service chiefs before reaching your conclusion in this report? >> i have, but it is important to note that the report from mr. johnson and myself is not fs' use.ve of the cheeki

>> we uerstand there will be differences and we will hear from them tomorrow. but with your views, you touched base with palo stakeholders and people who have their own point of view inside the military. have you touched be with the service chiefs and consider their views? >> yes, mr. chairman. >> mr. johnson? >> absolutely, senator. during the comment period leading up to the report, we ok account of what we heard and in places revised our own assessment in response to viewpoints expressed to us by the chiefs. >> there has been revision of this assessment basedpon the views of the chiefs? >> yes, sir. >>eneral ham, can you, assuming we change and repeal the policy of "don't ask, don't

tell," can you as commander of the u.s. army europe effectively implement a new policy allowing gay and lesbian service members to serven the military without concealing their sexual orientation consistent with th standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesiveness, and recruiting and retention in the armed forces? >> mr. chairman, i am confident that i can. >> in terms of passing legislation now, the matter has been before this committee almost a full year. starting in february, we have had hearings on this matter. we havraised questions with the service chiefs. they have testified on this before, and will again tomorrow. you indicated, secretary gates, that it is important that we act now, this month, i believe.

and you have given us the reason it is primarily because the courts are involved now in this matter. you have also said we should not act -- i belie your words were -- in haste. would you consider our acting this month, given the amount of time and we have already put into it, but given the fact that we have had this report now for just a couple of days -- would you consider our acting this month to be hasty? -- itl, it's certainly certainly would be expeditious. as senator mccain has said, this is a very important matter, and frankly, my sense of urgency would not be as great were it not for what we went through in

october and november that mr. johnson described in his opening statement, which frankly was a very difficult time for us, where in essence overnight we were told that the law had changed and that we could not enforce it. we had done no training, no preparation, nothing whatsoever. and it is my worry about the unpredictability of the situation wi the court's, particularly this coming spring, the gives me a sense of urgency about this. the timetable obviously has to be based on the will of the senate. >> would you considethat we have deliberated on this issue this year? >> i would like to see -- i am sorry? >> you have urged us to be delivered, and i agree we need to be delivered. we are a deliberative body.

we have had testimony during the year including a separate hearing on "don't ask, don't tell," where we have asked the opinion of service cheeks, where you have testified as well. onhe other hand, you have urged us to be delivered to. you have also urged us to act this month -- you have urged us to be deliberative. you have also urged us to ask this month. >> i am very concerned about the courts. frankly, i do think it needs to be diberate. the reality is i had expressed the hope in february that there would be no legislation until after the review was done, so that the review and what we learned could inform the legislative process. now, i think the report is

pretty stark. it is pretty clear in its conclusions, agree or not with them. i think it is pretty straightforward. therefore, i think that absorbing the lessons learned and the recommendations and analysis of the report is doable within the timeframe that you have before the congress adjourns. so i believe that at least based on thenformation in the report that the congress is in a position to act, because it now has this information in hand. frankly, i do not think it is that complicated to absorb. i think the key issues have been descrid quite clearly in your opening statement, in senator

mccain pep opening statement, and in the opening statements of the four of us. the think those a the critical issues. >> senator mccain, thank you. >> general ham, i think you for your hard work on the issue. is it your personal opinion that this law should be repealed? >> senator mccain, i have given this a lot of thought. we certainly can. it is my personal view that i am very concerned about the timing of the courts. personally, i think it is time to move from debate and discussion to decision and implementation. yes, sir. i think it is time to change. >> secretary gates, this survey says nearly 60% of respondents from marine corps and army combat arms said they believe there would be a negative impact on their unit's effectiveness in

this context. among marine combat arms, the number was 67%. nearly 60% of the army combat armed soldiers and6.5% -- a two-thirds of the marine cor armed force expressed concerns about repeal. you have said you conclude that those concerns of members -- of service members about deterioration of military unit cohesion are "exaggerated." how are they exaggerated? >> i do not remember using the word exaggerated, because i take those concerns very seriously, and frankly share the view of the chiefs -- the reports evaluation of risk, particularly in the combat arms, is perhaps too sanguine.

i believe that with proper time for preparation, for training, whether it is before deployments or after deployments, however it works out -- if we are allowed to do this on our terms, i believe those concerns can be mitigated. i think to repeat one of the things admiral mullen said in his opening statement, the experience of those who have rved with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian was very different, even in combat arms, than those who had never done so. i would point out that in the example with the marine corps, you also have -- most of the marines in combat are 18 to 25 years old. most of them have never served with women, either. so they have had a very focused, very limited experience in the military, and it has been a tough one. but i think that with time and

adequate preparation, we can mitigate their concerns. >> i could not disagree more. we send these in people into combat. we think they are mature enough to fight and die. i think they are mature enough to make a judgment on who they want to serve wh and the impact on their battle effectiveness. mr. secretary, i speak from personal experience. within the combat units of the army marine corps, the numbers are alarming. 12.6% of the overall military force responded to a survey saying it would leave the military sooner than they had planned. 21.4% of ar combat troops indicate they would leave the course earlier. marine corps, that number jumps to 32%, nearly a third of all marine corps combat arms force, which is probably why the service chiefs, particularly the tip of the marine corps, are less sanguine than you are about

this issue. also, if they left this 12.6% of the military -- they left earlier, that translates into 200,000 or more women who would leave -- men and women who would leave the military earlier than they had planned. do think it is a good idea to replace 265,000 troops across the force in time of war, that we should be undertaking a challenge at this time? >> first of all, the experience of the british, the canadians, and some of the others has been that in their surveys prior to enacting a change in their laws and rules, there were substantial numbers that said that they would leave. in the event, those numbers were far smaller than the surveys have indicated.

i think once again i go back to the point that people who have had experience serving with gays and lesbians have had a different view of these things, and i think there wi be true in a lot of our force. again, i think the training and so on will help mitigat these consequences. frankly, i think that while there are some concerns tt you will probably hear tomorrow about some of our special operations forces, where there are limited numbers of people, and where any loss is potentiay of concern for the force as a whole, i do not think any of us expect that the numbers would be anything like what the service suggests, just based on experience. also, you have the reality. they cannot just up and leave.

they have enlistment contract. officers have contracts in terms of the amount of time they have to serve. it is not likthey can just say, "i am out of here." they are going to have to complete their obligation. i believe that during that time their concerns can be mitigated. i think one of the encouraging aspect of this has been the relatively positive responses of spouses. as the saying goes, you enlist the soldier -- you realize the family. the positive response of the spouses has been important. >> we are very deeply concerned about wikileaks, the impact it has had on identifying people who were cooperating with us in afghanistan and iraq. so leaders have said they have blood on their hands. so far, all we know is that one private first class was

responble for this. you have began an investigation since july. have you held anywhere -- and the individual responsible for the wikileaks? the taken any disciplinary action whatsoever with this incredible breach of national security? >> i would answer in two ways, senator. first, to a certain extent, our ability to go down that path is limited by the fact that we hav criminal proceedings under way that limit our ability to conduct an independent investigation well that a criminal investigation is going on. by the same token, beginning in august, we directed a number of steps to tak -- >> my time has expired. have you held anyone responsible is my question. >> not yet. >> senator lieberman?

>> thanks to all of you. in his opening comments, senator mccain said that the survey report that you put out yesterday, general ham, mr. johnson, did not answer the question of whether the law should be repealed. it did answer whether if the law is repealed that it will not compromise mitary effectiveness, unit cohesion, or morale. that is critically important. the question of whether the law should be repealed is for congress. i want to briefly say that to me, in reaching a judgment on that question,e are on the front lines of a turning point in american history. we have these in every generation. this country from the beginning was defined not by its borders, but by our values. the declaration of independence says we are all in doubt by god with those equal right to life,

libert and the pursuit of happiness. and every generation has realized those rights better, because there were not realized at the beginning in 1776 for women, poor people of color, etc.. in our time, one of the great transitions occurring is the owing readiness and understanding among the american people that you sply -- it is just wrong and un-american to discriminate again people based on their sexual orientation. one of the great examples, and i think a heroic example of this changef public opinion, is the great man whose chair i am occupying today, who served on this committee until his death, senator robert c. byrd, who strongly supported don't ask don't tell in 1993, and in our deliberations this year played a critic role, offered

legislation to guarantee real due process and deliver to process in removing this law. he basically said, in voting for the change, that it was wrong. it was not consistent with our values, and it was not good for the military. the military, the u.s. military, has a proud tradition of leading in reflecting the best values of america. in this case, i think the u.s. military is behind the american people and behind the private sector. and it is because the law constrains you from reflecting our best values, the 1993 law whichays the commander in chief of the military does not have the latitude to and this is given their tory policy. i think that is why it is so important we do this as quickly as possible. and if we do it in this lame duck session, the deliver to a

process that the amendment and hour law provides is full of due process. in fact, there is no time limit on the certification required from the president, secretof defense, and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. that is up to those three honored individuals. i think that admiral mullen said it well. success in america in the military is not based on who you are, but what you do. that is true of american life generally, and this is our opportunity to change that. i want to ask just a couple of questions. the first is this. why do i say this policy has been bad forhe military? the record shows that almost 14,000 service members have been tossed out of the military over the last 17 years not because there were dead soldiers, not because they violated the code of conduct -- not because there were bad soldiers, not because they violated the ce of conduct, but becse they were

gay. in that sense, admiral muln, do you feel we lost some critical military personnel, or th some who are gay or lesbian may have not enlisted in the military because of fear for what that would mean for them personally? >> i do not think there is any question about that. it with the issue of recruiting and rettion, the report itself look specifically at the risk level with respect to that. it also flex areas that -- flags areas where we need to focus as leaders. one of the things i struggle with is that we have lost upwards of 13,000 individuals. by implication alone, there are those that would choose not to come into have to go through that. in addition to that -- this is a very fundamental to me -- is this issue of integrity. we are in institutions and values integrity and ask other people to join us, work with us, fight with us, die with us, and

lie about who they are the whole time they are in the military. that does not make sense to me. while they are here and le to do that, even in the policy we have, they are individuals who go to extraordinary spain -- go through . .

. . that adds another dimension that did not exist last february, when we started talking about how we do this. do we do it legislatively? do we do a survey? obviously, is that another factor we have to consider? >> absolutely, senator. all three branches of government are very actively involved in this issue right now. >> secretary, in your opening remarks, you mentioned you had the experience in 1992 in the central ielligence agency. my perception would be you face some of the same issues, which were initially opposition within the ranks and within the public.

but you ensured that policy was carried out. within the agency, there are analysts who were removed om small unit activities in the field and field operation. did you notice, as we he had this policy in place now for over a decade, any significant difficulties in getting field operators to accept it? they are the counterpart if you will to the forces in our military. >> no. in fact, the policy direction i made in 1992 has now been in place a year longer than "don't ask, don't tell," and in talking to my successors, it has not presented a problem. but i would say just to be clear, as i said in my opening statement, that the circumstances and the intimacy, particularly of those in combat

compared with those working for cia, is very different. >> thank you very much, mr. secretary. >> thank you, senator reed. senator brown? >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary, we spoke privately. i appreciate that time. to speed the process, i have a couple of follow-ups to you and potentially the other members of the panel. given what senator inhofe said about the participation, i can tell you from first him conversations when i visited afghanistan and spoke to members of the guard and reserve, half with through the process when the committee took certain actions, they felt it was a done deal. as a result, they did not partipate in the survey. 28% does not seem like a high number of participation, regardless of the total number. it reflects the nature and total amount of service that have gone

forth. is there anything additionally you can shed in terms of your understanding as to why the participation still was only at 28% and not hire? -- higher? >> let me ask general ham or mr. johnson to address the statistical significance of the numbers. >> senator, 28% overall response rate is well within the normal historical range of department of defense service of military personnel. when we worked with the company which administer the survey, we wanted to make sure that the proportional number of surveys were distributed based on historical response rates by each service. in fact, each community within each service has historical

response rates. we tried to account for that in the distribution of the service. having said that, there was some concern about the slowness, if you will, of the response rate from the senior enlisted leaders of the serce, the secretary of defense -- many would send out e-mails encouraging service members and families to respond. i am comfortable that the response rate overall was within norms, and probably more importantly, that each category that we analyzed had a statistically significant number of responses. >> mr. secretary, just for the benefit of the peoplthat are listening and also for the committee, let us assume for argument's sake that we move forward and we say we are going to accept the report and are ready to move on and take that next step and repeal "don't ask, don't tell." could you explain what the

process would be in your mind? a lot of the concerns i personally have a somebody stillerving in the military confided in me privately -- the one to make sure the battle readiness and military effectiveness of our men and women serving is not affected. do you envision starting with the non-combat units, the guard and reserve, moving up that way and implementing down the road? how would the certification process work? what is your thought process in actually moving forward with that while not jeopardize and retention, battle readiness, and effectiveness? >> first of all, i think the key, as the port makes clear, is training. both leadership training and training of the entire force. that is better than 2 million people. whether we would begin with one segment or not, i think we have

not addressed that ise yet. but i would tell you that my personal approach to this would be that until all the training has been completed, until the service chiefs are comfortable that the risk to unit cohesion and to combat effectiveness of a change had been addressed to their satisfaction and to my satisfaction, i would not sign the certification. in other words, my view is that before the certification is signed, everything has to be done to get ready. it is not something that i would start, that i would certify, while it was still in process, as it were. >> that could be four months or four years. i think this will take it to

implement. i think people wil watching to make sure we are not slow rolling the process. in needs to be completed. >> is it your testimony that you will not certify and so you feel the process can move forward without any damage to the safety and security of our men and women? >> absolutely. >>, any further questions? >> it seems to be whether to low the gays to serve openly.

permitting them to serve a cannot openly undermines the basic values of the military, honesty, integrity, and trust. when that is undermined, it is unrmined everywhere. they are expected to say that we did not want a by prevent you will not let me tell the true. how do we square this? i think those that are legitimate concern that this will affect readiness and national security. yet we have the report that scene seek the somewhat overwhelming in certain areas, saying it is time to change the law. can you help me understand how we move to something where it is

possible to tell the truth? i hear everyone sayinghat you have served the people who are ok. if he knew they were gay and the tenants and the men, were you lying or was honesty and low commodity? >> you had hit it. you have hit at the core issue. i cannot square it. certainly, i think it does

undermine who we are. we are an institution that is those significantly founded and based on integrity. >> i think you have already sent about the core values of honesty integrity and honor. they need to curtail. uermine those values? >> yes. thank you prepare who is next burd? >> senator collins is next. thank you burda i apologize for my brief absence in trying to do

a homeland security hearing. this is such a critical issue. i want to begin by thanking th by doing an excellent job spils. i want to thank you secretary gates for your thoughtful statement. i want to go through some of the objectives that we have been hearing. could this day event? our troops were not asked whether they do not believe do not pass to not tell should be repealed. our troops are not asked whether

they should be deployed to afghanistan. the fact is is given the extensive feedback that they did, and that they received,. it does convey a sense of what seice members think about repealing the law. even if a juror? not included. -- even if it does not included

purd. does it fairly represent the views of our forces? skyp>> i believe it does. the you are not close to ask the question. we did put out a 103 questions survey. they can predict the consequences of appeals for

them invariably, the inp we got was whether to repeal the current law or not. that was always a topic of discussion. a lot of that is reported. believe that we did hear whether we cld do this predicament. >> presumably, and there has been widespread enlarge percentage of subsurface members experiencing negative views, and you would have reported that, correct? >> as he stated, if the answer

we got back was no we cannot do that, i would have had an obligation to do that to report it. says theal mollullen objection be here is that we can not implement this kind of change in the midst of a war. at by e-mail an excellent -- i i made an excellent point that wartime facilitates change in some way. in fact, wasn't president truman's 1948 order to integrate our forces actually fully implemented during the korean war? >> it was.

in fact, it says that when in necessitated integrated unit, army field officers placed white and black soldiers side- by-side. >> i find it somewhat ironic in the years that this list past that there is a great deal of discussion in a lot about combat effectiveness at a time when we learn not at war. we are on our 10th year right now. we understand what it takes in combat and what combat effectiveness is better than we did back then by virtue of that experience. we have changed dramatically since 2001 burda it is in a

position to facilitate e.ditional change for th i believe this makes us better and not wars. >> thank you. >> i like to begin by clarifying an exchange that you had about the importance of the steady in terms of moving forward. i call an exchange the you and i had on february 2 of this year.

and made it very clear that this survey was going to be vital in terms of evaluating whether we should move forward. i have held firm on that position. this was not a full committee. bieve it is strong to listen to the people that are serving to consider their views. this is really an incredible piece of work. i was privileged to be able to sit down on a couple of issues

to give my views about how important it is to listen to all different services purdah i believe you have really done the job. it is a three under 43 page report. this was done without the sizing and men and women in uniform. that is vitally important. i would like to say that this report is probably the most crucial piece of information in terms of objectively moving forward. do we have any idea what

percentage of thenited states military today is [unintelligible] >> we do. it is imprecise. we cannot ask that question under e current law. they did some work in this regard. the estimate is that the population of about the same as the general population, somewhere in the 2%/3%. lesbians are probably a higher percentage in the military then in the population. >> i like to follow on to a question that was asked earlier about the decision that he made

in 1992 at the cia in order to eliminate this issue. there are elements in the cia to perform functions that are pretty similar to military futions, are there not? >> yes, some of them. >> have you heard of any foreseen circumstances based on your decision and those units? >> not one. when we look at the disparity, with respect to combat units, i take a point in the steady at about the percentage of people who have served alongside gay members and having a hier percentage of a higher comfort

level. do you have a different leadership approach? what are you contemplating >> the report did a terrific job in flagging those areas. it goes back to what the secretary of defense says. until we have mitigated that, we will do better than anyone else. i would not certify and so we have mitigated that it was -- we

did not have the exposure from a training standpoint. >> i like to conclude by expressing my respect and appreciation for the work that general him and mr. johnson did on this survey

>> the new york house of representativ representatives censureked the represent rangle.

>> each year, we conduct our

video documentary competition called student cam. this year's theme is washington, d.c. through my lense. we'd like to you explain how the federal government has issued something that affects you. once you have your topic, you can begin your research. provide different points of view and provide information to support your theme. email us at educate.c-span.org. get started. we can't wait to see what you can do. >> the house of representatives has voted 333-39 to censure the

house representative. the house house censure was in 1983. this debate is a little more than one hour. my time to the the gentleman from new york for purposes of debate only and for his control of those 30 minutes. of my remaining 30 minutes, i ask unanimous consent to yield 15 minutes of my time to the the gentleman from alabama, the ranking member on the committee of standards of official conduct, mr. bonner, for purposes of debate only and for his control of those 15 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, i yield such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman may proceed. ms. lofgren: as chair of the standards of official conduct

and the subcommittee in the matter of mr. rangel, i rise in support which calls for censure, article 1, section 5 of the constitution provides each house may punish its members for disorderly behavior and with the concurrence of the members. the committee on standards is realming ethical standards that ensure that members and staff act in a matter befitting the public trust. this role of the committee to review allegations that a member has violated those standards, in this case after a lengthy and thorough investigation that spanned more than two years and 5,000-page report, the committee concluded that this member violated those standards. we were charged with recommending an appropriate sanction to the house. the entire report has been available to members of the house and the public on the committee's web site and many portions have been publicly released since july. here is a brief summary of the

findings of that report. in this matter, we found that representative rangel engaged in misconduct in four areas. mr. rangel improperly sole is ted individuals with business and interests before the house to fund the charles b rangel center at city college of new york. he misused official resources to make those solicitations for millions of dollars and improperly sole is ted funds from lobbyists and failed to file disclosure statements for 10 years and accepted the benefits related to his use of a rent stabilized apartment as a campaign office under circumstances that created an appearance of impropriety. and failed to report and pay taxes on income he received on property he owned indom republic. his conduct in each of those four areas violated laws and regulations and rules of the house namely that he violated the gift and solicitation ban, a

statute enacted by congress in 1989, violated clauses 2 and 5 of the code of ethics for government service, violated postal service laws and regulations issued by the franking commission, violated the rules of this house, violated the purpose law arbitration statute derives directly from the constitution, violated the ethics in government act and violated the internal revenue code. a bipartisan majority of your colleagues concluded that 11 of the 13 counts in the statement of alleged violation regarding these areas of misconduct were proved by clear and convincing evidence. we found his actions and aaccumulation of actions reflected poorly on the institution of the house and brought discredit to the house. nothing we say or do here today will in any way diminish his service to our country or our gratitude for his service both in this house and as a hero of the korean war. but that service does not excuse the fact that representative

rangel violated laws. he violated regulations, he violated the rules of this house and he violated the standards of conduct. because of that misconduct a nonpartisan committee staff recommended he be censured and the majority of the committee recommended censure and the committee voted that he be pay restitution to the taxing authorities. censure is a serious sanction and one rarely imposed by the house the decision to recommend that was not reached lightly. the committee considered the aggregation of representative rangel's misconduct. the committee concluded that his violations occurred on a continuous and prolonged basis and were more serious in character meriting a strong congressional response rebuking his behavior. for the violation, the committee considered not only the amount of taxes he failed to pay over many years but the fact that he served at various times in

influential position as chairman and ranking member of the ways and means committee. it brought discredit of the house with this member with great responsibility for tax policy did not pay his taxes for many years. some have questioned whether a recommendation of censure is consistent. it is true that the committee's roughly 40 years of experience, the house has censured four members. it is true that for precedent to be followed, a precedent must be set. we follow precedent, but we also set it. for example, nearly 30 years ago, the committee recommended that two members be reprimanded for engaging in sexual relations with pages. the house rejected the recommendation and instead censured those two members. it is possible that if that situation were to occur again today, this house might not feel censure a severe enough action. many of this body pledged four years ago to create the most honest, most open and most ethical congress in history. censure for this misbehavior is consistent with that pledge.

at the hearing, the nonpartisan committee counsel said clearly that representative rangel's pattern of misconduct was sloppiness and said that did not excuse miss misconduct. in light of those considerations, a bipartisan majority of the committee concluded that it was appropriate to recommend to the house that representative rangel be censured. key decisions were made with bipartisan votes, not all votes were unanimous but each on the basis of a bipartisan majority vote. the purpose is not punishment but accountability and credibility. accountability for the respond ent and credibility for the house itself. where a member has been found by his colleagues to have violated, that member must be held accountable for his conduct. representative rangel has violated the public trust. while it is difficult, actually painful to sit in judgment of our colleagues, it is our duty

under the constitution to do so and accordingly i bring this resolution to the floor today. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: mr. bonner is recognized for 15 minutes. mr. bonner: i yield such time as i may consume. this is a solemn moment for this house at a time in little under an hour all of our members will have an opportunity to make a statement with their vote. as such and because the rules allow the rules mr. rangel to defend himself against the recommendation of the committee and the committee's time is being evenly divided between the chair and the ranking member, i want to inform the body that there will only be three members on this side of the aisle who will speak. i say this because there have been a number of members who have approached me even on this committee asking for time.

but out of respect for all and especially in light of the rare nature of this debate, i intend to recognize our time only to myself, mr. hastings, the former chair of the ethics committee and our colleague who served almost two years on the investigative subcommittee as well as our colleague, mr. mccaul, who serves as the ranking member of the ajude ca tower subcommittee during that phase of that matter. if other matters care to have their views inserted into the record, we would have no objection. with that, i yield three minutes to the the gentleman from texas, mr. mccaul. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. mccaul: first, let me thank the gentleman from alabama for his leadership on this solemn occasion. this is this is an important day for mr. rangel, the congress and the american people.

as ranking member in the rangel adjudicatory proceedings and as a former worker in the department of justice, i take this seriously. no member asked for this assignment. but we accept our responsibility here today for no other reason than to protect the honor, integrity, and credibility of this great institution. the american people's confidence in us is at historic lows. they want their elected representatives accountable for their actions, just as they are held accountable as private citizens. today, we have an opportunity to begin a new era restoring the trust of the american people. the committee agreed on 12 of the 13 counts, finding he violated multiple rules of the house and federal statutes. including the most fundamental code of conduct, which states a

member of the house shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect credibility on the house. credibility is exactly what is at stake here. the very credibility of the house of representatives itself before the american people. most egregiously, the committee found that mr. rangel failed to pay his income taxes for 17 years. and this, while serving as chairman of the committee that writes the tax laws of the nation. what kind of message does this send to the average working man or woman who plays by the rules and struggles every day to pay their own taxes? mr. rangel also solicited contributions from corporations, foundations, and lobbyists who had business before his committee to build a school bearing his name.

i've consistently opposed members of congress naming monuments after themselves. the committee recommends the most severe punishment available both on the facts and the precedent this sanction is both rare and historic. founding father john adams said that moral authority and character increases as the importance of the position increases. in his letter to the speaker, mr. rangel stated that as chairman of ways and means, he is to be held to a higher standard of propriety. i agree. mr. rangel failed to hold himself to this higher standard. the american people deserve better. while i sincerely feel for mr. rangel as a human being, i feel more strongly that a public office -- may i have 15 more seconds? >> i yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i feel strongly that a public office is a public trust and mr. rangel violated that trust. the speaker challenged us to enter into a new era of transparency and accountability. mr. mccaul: let us begin today, let justice be served, let us begin to enter into a new era of ethics to restore the credibility and integrity of this house, the people's house, and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama. mr. bonner: i yield 3 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from washington state, mr. hastings. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is are recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my friend from alabama for yielding time. for over two years, i served on the investigative committee that reviewed allegations and evidence involving mr. rangel and we found a substantial reason to believe, which is

what our threshold was, that violations occurred. because the facts of this matter are not disputed, i will not comment on the evidence. i will, however, comment on the length of the investigation and particularly a statement made by mr. rangel regarding the confidential work on the investigative committee. first on the length of the investigation, chairman green and i, when i was ranking member of the subcommittee, had every intention of completing the investigation before the conclusion of the 110th congress. but events intervened. in september of 2008, mr. rangel publicly pledged he would release in a timely manner a forensic analysis of 20 years of his tax returns and financial disclosures. however, we did not receive the report until may of 2009, eight months later. then in december of 2008, serious new allegations involving neighbors industries resulted in the committee's unanimous decision to expand its jurisdiction.

in august of 2009, amendments filed by mr. rangel to his financial disclosures raised serious new questions, resulting in the committee unanimously expanding the investigation once again. finally, after receiving the information long requested from him, the subcommittee completed its work and sent the statement of alleged violations to him on may 27, 2010. remember that date. now, on mr. rangel's statement, and here i'm going to be very crittle, mr. speaker. let me read a statement he made in an article dated june 6, 2010 in "politico." i'm quoting mr. rangel now. i would normally believe being a former federal prosecutor that if the allegations involve my conduct as a member of the house and there's a committee with republicans and democrats there that you refer to the committee. and if they are so confused

after 18 months they can't find anything, then that is a story. end quote. mr. rangel, in my view, had misrepresented the work of the subcommittee. why do i say that? because the comments he made were comments over a week after -- after -- the subcommittee had transmitted a detailed, confidential statement of allegations, acompanied with thousands of pages of documents to him. he knew the contents of the report. confused? there is no confusion. everything was in his possession he knew what the subcommittee produced and he deliberately misrepresented its contents. in fact, he was aware of the subcommittee's work as early as december 15, 2009, when he testified before the committee. in addition, after he received this s.a.v., he subsequently met in executive session at his request two more times with his council.

mr. speaker, i mention this because there was discussion of process in this matter. it is completely disingenuous to suggest that the subcommittee had treated him unfairly. mr. speaker, the investigating subcommittee completed its are responsibilities to the house and the american people in a timely, professional, and responsible manner. the facts supporting the 11 violations are not disputed. i will vote for the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama. mr. bonner: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california. >> i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for 30 minutes. mr. rangel: first, let me apologize to this august body for putting you in this very

awkward position today. and to the ethics committee, i do recognize that it is not a job that many of us would want to have. last week, as we were reading about the north koreans attacking the south koreans, i was haunted by the fact that on november 30, 60 years ago, i was in korea as a young 20-year-old volunteer in the second infantry division. and on that occasion in subzero weather, 20 degrees below zero,

the chinese surrounded us and attacked and there were hundreds of casualties, wounded and killed and captured. screams were heard, i was wounded, and had no thoughts that i would be able to survive. but god gave me the strength not only to survive though wounded, but to find my way out of the entrapment and for three days i had the strength to lead 40 of my comrades out of that situation and we all were haunted by the fact that so many of my comrades did not survive it. i tell you that story, not for sympathy, but to let you know that at that time in every

sense, i made up my mind that i could never complain to god for any events that occurred in my life. and that i would dedicate my life in trying in some meaningful way to improve the quality of life for all americans as well as as much as i could do for humankind. it is for that reason that i stand to say that i have made serious mistakes, i do believe rules are made to be enforced, i do believe we in the congress have a higher responsibility than most people, i do believe that senior members should act in a way as a model for new and ress experienced members. i do believe that there should be enforcement of these laws, there should be sanctions. but if you're breaking new

ground, i ask for fairness. none of the presidents of the history of this great country has -- never in the history of this great country has anyone suffered a censor when the record is abundantly clear that in those investigations which i called for, the committee found no evidence at all of corruption. found no evidence of self-enrichment, found no evidence that there was intention on my part to evade my responsibility, whether in taxes or whether in financial disclosures. and there's absolutely no excuse for my responsibility to

obey those rules, i take full credit for the responsibility of that. i brought it on myself. but i still believe that this body has to be guided by fairness. and so that's all i'm saying. i'm not here to complain. i have too much to be thankful for. being from where i am and being where i am today and once again it's been awkward, especially for my friends and supporters, but i want to respect the dignity of the community that elected me to serve them, i want to continue to serve this congress and this country and do what i can to make life better for other people and i think we all agree that in 40

years, i tried my darnedest to do that. so at this point, by unanimous, i would like to turn the remainder of the time that the chair has given to me to my fellow colleague, bobobby scott. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from virginia may control the time. mr. scott: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i served on the special subcommittee appointed to investigate this matter and descended from the subcommittee report and i rise to oppose the pending motion to adopt the resolution. i believe that under precedence of the house, imposingsen sure on one of our members for

violating procedural rules of the house would be singularly harsh and unfair and without precedence. mr. rangel acknowledged his mistakes and he's asked to be punished fairly, punished just like everybody else similarly situated. accordingly, i believe punishment is appropriate but i believe censure is in appropriate. congressman charles b. rangel is a dedicated public servant and dedicated soldier who made outstanding contributions to the people of the united states and to this institution. yet he has has made mistakes which resulted in violations of the rule of official conduct for members of the house and he will be punished for those violations. the question is, what is the appropriate punishment? we need not answer this question in a vacuum. congressman rangel is not the first member to violate rule ares of official conduct. we have ample precedence from which to glean the appropriate punishment. it's clear from the precedence of the house thatsen sure is

not a fair and just -- that censure is not a fair and just punishment. the committee counsel during the hearing acknowledged those elements are not found in this case. furthermore, the committee report in this matter acknowledges that the recommendations for censure in this case is a violation of prior precedence. the point is made in the report on page 7, and i quote, although prior committee precedence for recommendation ofsen sure -- censure involves direct financial gain this committee's recommendation for censure is based on the cumulative nature of the violation not direct personal gain. cumulative nature violations to support the committee's recommendation censure is without precedent. in the case of congressman george hansen, the committee stated that and i quote, it has been the character of the

offenses which establish the level of punishment imposed new york city -- not the nature. neither the character nor the cumulative nature of the violations warrant a censure. now eight of the 11 counts that the committee found that congressman rangel has violated are for raising money for the center at the public university in his congressional district. the program is to train young people to go into public service using his life experience as an inspiration. assisting a constituent institution with such a project is not a violation in and of itself, but there are proper procedures to be followed if you are going to raise money for a local college. he openly assisted the institution clearly with nothing to do anything improper but he did violate the rules by not following proper procedures. once a determination was made that he used official resources

to help the local college, that one mistake has been converted into almost eight different counts. one, he used the letterhead, two, he used the staff, three, used office equipment, frank mail, all from the fact that he cannot use official resources. that was a violation and what should the punishment be for raising money improperly? we have the case of former speaker newt gingrich and funded a college course aimed at recruiting new members to the republican party after he had been warned not to and found to have filed false reports in 13 instances causing substantial delays and expense to the committee and did not lose his job as speaker. congressman rangel did not lie about his activities and he

believed he was doing right, although he made mistakes and he received no prior warning as did speaker gingrich. yet congressman rangel lost his chair man shp on ways and means and faces the possibility of a censure, not a reprimand. another example of raising money involved former house majority leader tom delay. he was admonished for participating in energy company fundraiser which the committee found created the appearance of special treatment or access. mr. delay was cited for his partisan conflict in the textous house of representatives using resources of a federal agency, the f.a.a. and in an ethics investigation that involved accusations of solicitation and receipt of campaign contributions in return for legislative assistance, used corporate contributions in violation of state law and improper use of official resources for political purposes

as i think everybody is aware, recent news reports that mr. delay has been convicted of charges of money laundering in connection with circumventing a state law against corporate contributions and political campaigns and been found guilty, the media reports that he faces possible prison sentences between five and 99 years in prison and yet the house did not censure mr. delay, nor did they impose a reprimand but issued a committee letter. mr. rangel has made mistakes and should be punished like everyone else in the past consistent with precedent. now on the issue of mr. rangel's rent stabilized apartment as a campaign office, mr. rangel's landlord knew of his use of the apartment for a campaign office and did not see it as illegal. the committee records reflect, an attorney for the new york housing authority has testified that the use decision was up to the landlord. if somebody rented the apartment

that was not technically protected by the rent stabilization law, the tenant is not protected, however the lease is permed. that's what the attorney said for the housing authority said. i don't know if that's right or wrong, but that's what he pleeved and landlord pleeved and the housing authority lawyer believed. let's talk about this apartment. it had been vacant for months. charlie paid sticker price for the rent, he passed nobody on the waiting list. this is not a corrupt scheme. to the extent there is a violation, let's punish him consistent with others who have had problems. earlier, it was found by the committee to have been paying more than market rent for his campaign headquarters. the rent paid to family members who owned the building. he wasn't censured or reprimanded but received a committee letter. other cases of campaign violations have not resulted in

censure. one example is the case of bud shuster for violation of house rules relating to campaign and other violations. he was found to have allowed a former employee turned lobbyist to communicate with him to influence his schedule and give him advice pertaining to his office and found to have violated the house rules and congressional staff for campaign purposes, to have made certain expenditures for campaign accounts for expenses that were not campaign or political purposes and yet he received a letter nofment a censure, not even a reprimand. both of those cases involved personal financial gain and intentional violation of the rules. the sanction for both was a letter of reprimand. there's the issue now of his failure to pay -- report income on rental property on property

he owned in the come dominican republic and report those on his disclosure statement. some rental payments were reported on his disclosure so nothing to cover up. while he did not file all his reports properly, these do not warrant censure. mistakes are usually corrected with nothing more said. the only cases where there is a violation, sanction, for failure to disclose are cases where there is some corrupt coverup. for example, failing to file campaign contributions during contrarygate or filing to have loans or assets with those who would reveal a conflict of interest. the committee found no evidence that failure to report was for financial gain or coverup. the tax issue, comment was made that he hadn't paid taxes for 17 years.

if they are worried about those taxes, tax matters involved a deal where he and many others had pooled their rent and paid expenses and anything left over was profit. it wasn't as profitable. he got a couple small checks and that was it. however, one of the bills paid was the mortgage and principal is income on which you have to pay taxes. whatever sanction there should be for that transgression should be consistent with precedent. the only example of anybody sanctioned for tax matters in this house in the history of the united states have been those who did not pay taxes on bribes they received. that's it. all we ask is he be sanctioned like everyone else. since there is no indication that representative rangel tried that representative rangel tried to conceal, censure is