the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 405, the nays are zero. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, to suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 1759 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title

of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 1759, resolution expressing support for designation of january 23 as ed roberts day. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 386. the nays are 8. four recorded as present. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 390. the nays are 8. four recorded as present. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

the question of suspend the rules and agreeing to s.con.res. 72, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: senate concurrent resolution 72, concurrent resolution recognizing the 45th anniversary of the white house fellows program. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair -- >> mr. speaker.

mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative -- the gentlewoman from california. ms. roybal-allard: on that i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 401, the nays are one. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the concurrent resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and passing h.r. 6205 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: h.r. 6205, a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 1449 west avenue in bronx, new york, as the private isaac t. cortes post office. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. so many as are in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative -- >> mr. speaker. mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative -- >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. crowley: on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 399, the nays are zero. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from maine rise? ms. pingree: madam speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 1764, resolution providing for consideration of the senate amendment to the bill h.r. 2965,

to amend the small business act with respect to small business innovation research programs and the small business technology transfer program and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. all members clear the well and take your conversations off the floor.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from maine rise? ms. pingree: madam speaker, by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 1764 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 253, house resolution 1764, resolved that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to take from the speaker's table the bill h.r. 2965, to amend the small business act with respect to small business innovation research programs and the small business technology transfer program and for other purposes, with the senate amendment thereto and to consider in the house without

intervention of any point of order except those arising under clause 10 of rule 21, a motion offered by the majority leader or his designee, that the house concur in the senate amendment with the amendment printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. the senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read, the motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader or their respective designees. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without intervening motion. the speaker pro tempore: the the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from maine is recognized for one hour. ms. pingree: madam speaker, for the purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. diaz-balart. all time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert

extraneous material into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. pingree: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. pingree: thank you. madam speaker, house resolution 1764 provides for the consideration of the senate amendment to h.r. 2965. the rule makes in order a motion offered by the majority leader or his designee that the house concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 2965 with the amendment printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying the resolution. the rule provides one hour of debate on the motion equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader or their designees. the rule waives all points of order against consideration of the motion except those arising under clause 10 of rule 21. the rule provides that the senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. madam speaker, the time has come to repeal don't-ask, don't-tell.

we have all heard the arguments, the studies have been done, the hearings have been held. the men and women of the armed services have spoken and their leaders have weighed in. there are no more excuses, not to repeal this misguided and harmful policy. there is no more reason to delay this any longer. madam speaker, for gay military personnel, how much longer do we ask them to serve in silence? how many more hearings and how much more testimony are we going to ask for before we finally hear what the men and women of the armed services have just said? just because someone is gay doesn't make them any less of a soldier, an airman, or marine. how many more times can we just turn our heads and pretend we don't see the damage this policy has done to our military's

readiness? and how many more competent, talented, and patriotic men and women will be kicked out of the service before this misguided and harmful policy is forever banned? the results of the comprehensive study of the attitudes of military personnel are clear and unequivingal. it's right here. when -- unequivocal. it's right here. when they were asked about the actual experience of serving in a unit with a co-worker who they believed was gay or lesbian, 92% of the military personnel stated that the unit's ability to work together was very good, good, or neither good nor poor. when they were asked about having a service member in their immediate unit who said he or she was gay and how that would affect the unit's ability to work together to get the job done? 70% of service members predicted it would have a positive mix or absolutely no effect.

and it's not just the men and women who make up our armed forces who are urging congress to repeal don't-ask, don't-tell but our nation's military leaders also believe it needs to come to an end. admiral mike mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said, i would not recommend repeal of this policy if i did not believe in my soul that it was the right thing to do for our military, for our nation, and for our collective honor. general george casey, the chief of staff of the army, agreed. he said, repeal would not keep us from accomplishing our worldwide missions, including combat operations. and admiral gary rough ed, chief of naval operations, said it simply, repeal will not fundamentally change who we are and what we do. you know, madam speaker, it wasn't that long ago that women

were not allowed to serve in combat. and when we debated ending that ban, the critics predicted that if women were allowed in combat that discipline would dissolve and unit cohesion would crumble. the arguments against allowing women to serve in combat were exactly the same thing they are saying today about allowing openly gay men and women to serve. but after two wars where women have served ablely and bravely alongside their male counterparts, none of the grim predictions came true. discipline has not suffered and our military remains the most powerful and effective in the world. but those two wars have taken their toll. on recruitment and retention. our military is stretched thin and the last thing we should be doing is kicking out skilled men and women who have volunteered to fight for our country. the last thing we should be doing is telling troops that we have spent hundreds of thousands

of dollars to train. that we don't need your services anymore. and the last thing we should be doing is saying that no matter how brave you are, no matter how dedicated you are, no matter how patriotic you are, if you're gay we don't want you to wear the uniform of the united states. don't-ask, don't-tell threatens our national security. it wastes precious resources, and it goes against the values that our military embodies. integrity, honesty, and loyalty. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman, mr. diaz-balart, from florida, is recognized. mr. diaz-balart: thank you, madam speaker. i thank my good friend, ms. pingree, from maine. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. diaz-balart: madam speaker, we find ourselves back on the house floor with yet another closed rule.

in fact, we haven't seen a single open rule during this entire 111th congress. i never thought that i'd see that, madam speaker. an entire congress pass without a single open rule. just three hours ago the rules committee was meeting on the underlying legislation before us today. this is the fifth rule since the election that will deny the minority the basic right even to a motion to recommit. in other words, one alternative piece of legislation which we, when we were in the majority, we wrote into the rules the minority would have that right. since election, since the election, this month, this majority has brought fivele with

this piece of legislation, five bills to the floor with a rule denying even that right to the minority, a motion to recommit. the underlying legislation repealing the so-called "don't ask, don't tell" policy is important. and should be considered carefully and thoroughly by all members of this house. when i spoke on this issue on this house floor in may of this year, i said, and i reiterate, what i said at that time, sexual preference should not even be a point of reference when judging individuals. this is an important issue. unfortunately the congressional majority has not even held a hearing in the armed services committee since the pentagon released their findings, this

recent survey. members of the house on both sides of the aisle support our men and women in uniform. ensuring the best equipment, improving quality of life for soldiers own their families, and doing everything we can to increase pay are issues of the utmost importance. for 48 consecutive years congress has provided the necessary oversight by passing the defense authorization bill, always in a bipartisan manner. this record of effective congressional review is in jeopardy as we proceed along what could be the final week of this congress. i think the majority continues to give insufficient seriousness

to even important issues such as this by closing the process. the repeal of don't-ask, don't-tell is not a policy decision to be taken lightly. the defense department at the urging of the congress spent 10 months collecting and analyzing survey responses from the men and women in our armed forces. i believe that that analysis, nearly 15,000 pages in length, including the direct comment of our troops, should be the most important factor in considering this legislation. in considering how we vote. on this legislation. the department of defense released the results of their survey on november 30, just over two weeks ago.

now the majority is asking congress to move forward in a manner that denies the committees of jurisdiction any review. that denies input from the membership of this house, that takes the product of the speaker and the author of the legislation and forces the house to vote on it without any ability to offer alternatives. not even a motion to recommit. i think we do a disservice to this body when we do not debate and deliberate with transparency . that lack of transparency has been standard procedure for the past four years. obviously we should not expect this congressional majority to change in its final weeks. but that will change. in the next congress.

i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from maine is recognized. ms. pingree: thank you, madam speaker. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from colorado, a member of the rules committee, mr. polis. the speaker pro tempore: mr. polis from colorado is recognized for three minutes. mr. polis: i thank the gentlelady from maine. i rise today in support of the repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. this resolution would ensure that the military has the ability to implement the recommendation from its recently completed study. don't-ask, don't-tell is the only law in the country that requires people to be dishonest. or be fired if they choose to be honest. it's a law that not only is hurtful to the men and women who put themselves at risk serving in our armed forces but a law that's hurtful to our national security. a recent study found that eight out of 10 americans support repealing the law, regardless of their political party. people recognize that on the battlefield it doesn't matter if a soldier is gay or straight.

what matters is they get the job done to protect our country. now, it's important to remember we already debated and voted on this issue early this summer. we passed an amendment with the same repeal language to the defense authorization bill. at that time there were members on both sides of the aisle that weren't ready to support this repeal. they wanted to see an extensive report by the military that was scheduled to come out december 1, it came out one day earlier. i personally didn't feel we needed to see that report. i also already convinced this would not be a threat to military readiness and would enhance military readiness due in part to the fact we have discharged over 13,000 people from our military after taxpayer money went for their training for reason totally unrelated to their performance. not to mention countless others that didn't re-enlist or left the military because of this policy. i understand many members of this body from both sides of the aisle, including the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction, wanted to see that report in december. well, the report has come out.

and it's very clear. with regard to the fact that no surprise to me but hopefully of consolation to those who were concerned, this change in policy does not represent a threat to the security of this country and the fact there were several practical suggestions about -- in addition the chairman of the joint chiefs, secretary of defense, have been very clear that they want to see this policy legislatively repealed. why? because repeal of this policy is inevitable. it's a question of when not if. there are already several court orders in various stages of appeal and the military feels that the plan for it, with us, in this legislative process, is better for military readiness than running the greater risk of having an instant court order, an on or off again court order, which is also a possibility, which would prevent the regular military planning process from going forward. the seener we act the better. -- sooner we act the better. despite our differences it's

clear leaving it up to the courts is the wrong way to go ba it. in 1993 the don't-ask, don't-tell was a political process not military. today we can rectify that and allow the military to do the right thing to improve military readiness and enhance the protection of our country. let us be on the right size of history -- rilt size of history and -- right side of history and move forward with don't-ask, don't-tell today. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. diaz-balart: i yield four minutes to my friend from georgia, dr. gingrey. . the speaker pro tempore: mr. gingrey from georgia is recognized for four minutes. mr. gingrey: madam speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding and i rise in strong opposition to the rule providing for the repeal of don't-ask, don't-tell. while the majority in the senate has been unsuccessful in repealing don't-ask, don't-tell through the national defense authorization act, my colleagues on the democratic side of the aisle seem adamant to move

forward on this issue by bringing to the floor again today yet as a stand-alone bill. what we should be doing, madam speaker, is prioritizing the needs of our troops over the majority's social agenda and considering the national defense authorization act free of the don't-ask, don't-tell language. i know that advocates for this repeal will point to the survey of u.s. armed forces personnel regarding the repeal of don't-ask, don't-tell. that nine-month survey that my friend from florida just mentioned. but let me point to a specific statistic from that survey as well. question number 71 posed to active service members with combat deployment experience since september 11, 2001, asks how unit effectiveness would be different if don't-ask, don't-tell was repealed. an overwhelming number of those

surveyed for this question answered that unit effectiveness for those stationed in a field environment or out at sea would be negatively or very negatively harmed by repeal. madam speaker, this survey which does not present any benefits of repeal and is solely focuses on the mitigation of consequences has not presented a clear path forward to the -- to the question of repealing this ban. the marine corps commandant, general james amos, stated that repealing the 17-year-old ban could endanger troops and cost lives. air force chief of staff general norton schwartz echoed concerns about overturning the ban in the midst of a global war on terror. listen to this quote from general george kasey, the army's chief of staff. and here's his quote. i believe that the implementation of repeal in the

near term will, number one, add another level of stress to an already stretched force. number two, be more difficult in our combat arms unit and, three, be more difficult for the army than this report suggests. because military leaders must fulfill their constitutional mission of defending america, their views on how to achieve optimal readiness should be respected. madam speaker, none, not one of our service branch chiefs have outright endorsed repealing don't-ask, don't-tell. similar apprehensions have been noted by the american legion. over 1,500 retired flag and general officers and countless others, clearly the democrats believe they know better. madam speaker, i do not believe that now, in the midst of the war on terror, is the time to rewrite tested military policies. indeed, the armed forces is a special institution that must be

free to hold itself to stricter rules than those observed by the rest of our society. and for this reason, for these reasons, madam speaker, i urge all of my colleagues, oppose this rule and oppose the underlying bill. and with that i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from maine is recognized. ms. pingree: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from massachusetts, mrs. songa. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from massachusetts is recognized for two minutes. sonksonk thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in support of the rule to consider legislation to repeal don't ask -- don't-ask, don't-tell. don't-ask, don't-tell remains the only federal statute mandating a person be fired based on their sexual orientation. since this policy became law, thousands of dedicated, honorable americans have suffered discrimination while thousands more have been discouraged from even considering the military.

don't-ask, don't-tell removes highly skilled, trained and capable service members out of the military. at a time when we need them for multiple deployments to fight two wars. the pentagon's study of don't-ask, don't-tell confirms that lifting the ban on gay and lesbian soldiers serving openly in our armed forces would not adversely effect our military's readiness or strain unit cohesion. this report comes months after nearly a year of careful study which included thousands of conversations with enlisted personnel, officers and military commanders. the results of this study show that there is no longer any remaining justification to continue a policy that prevents some of the best and brightest from honorably serving in our armed forces. all our service men and women are first and foremost americans, protecting freedoms throughout the world. we cannot with any true moral standing discriminate against

distinguished and courageous members of our own military for the simple act of living an authentic life. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the rule and the underlying legislation and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. diaz-balart: we reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from maine is recognized. ms. pingree: thank you, madam speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california, ms. harman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. harman: madam speaker, as a rookie member of congress in 1993 i sat in the most junior chair on the armed services committee, just a few feet from the witness table. then chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, colin powell, testified in favor of the clinton administration's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. i drew a deep breath and told the general that i thought

don't-ask, don't-tell was unconstitutional. i opposed it then and i oppose it now. no good has ever come of don't-ask, don't-tell but a lot of bad has. i applaud the personal courage of current joint chiefs of staff chairman admiral mike mullen who told congress, quote, it is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do, no matter how i look at the issue i cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. he's right. and i have no doubt that america's armed forces will successfully transition to a post-d.t. world. we are hearing the alarm sounded again about morality and morale, unit cohesion and readiness. similar arguments were made when women and african-americans were allowed to serve alongside our white male counterparts. but be it race, gender or now

sexual orientation, our military services have demonstrated the commitment and ability to integrate and embrace diversity. as a female officer in the 10th mountain division blogged recently, quote, when d.t. is overturned i won't be jumping out of my office screaming, i'm gay to the world. i'll just be ake able to breathe easier knowing my job is secure. with this historic vote we will allow all service women and men who are holding their breath in fear, not of an enemy but of a law created by congress, to breathe easier. vote aye on the rule and on the hoyer-murphy bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. diaz-balart: i would ask my friend -- i'll continue to reserve. i see she has additional speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentlelady from maine is recognized. ms. pingree: thank you, madam speaker. i yield a minute and a half to the gentlewoman from nevada, ms. berkley. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from nevada is recognized. ms. berkley: i thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

madam speaker, i rise today to speak in support of the repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. don't-ask, don't-tell is outdated and it's unjust. no individual, especially those in our armed forces, should be discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. our troops fight honorably to protect our freedom. the least we can do in return is to fight to protect their rights as well. my hometown of las vegas includes an air force base, one of the premier air force bases in our country. the courageous men and women who serve there deserve to be treated with equality and dignity and respect that they have earned, regardless of their sexual orientation. this unjust and unnecessary practice is also unsound. it makes no sense for our military to discharge valuable service members, especially during a time of war. when we need every american who is willing and able to serve. my colleagues, this is the easy stuff. if a fellow citizen volunteers

to don the uniform of our nation, no matter what their sexual orientation, we shouldn't be discriminating against them, we should be thanking them for their service. don't-ask, don't-tell does nothing to contribute to our national security. it only undermines the strength and integrity of our military. i believe this practice should be repealed immediately. it's time -- its time has come not only for the benefit of our armed services but for the security of our great nation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from maine is recognized. ms. pingree: thank you, madam speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. quigley: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in support of h.r. 2965, a bill to repeal don't-ask, don't-tell. just blocks from the capitol lie congressional cemetery. resting place of secretarycal sergeant matlavic.

bronze star for his dwist distinguished service in vietnam. as a race relations instructor he was instrumental in helping the military overcome its past legacy of racial discrimination. but he fell victim to the air force's discriminatory ban on gays and was discharged in 1975. his headstone inside of the capitol dome reads, when i was in the military, they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one. as a great man said, when it comes to matters of equality, it is always the right time to do the right thing. our national security and our country's long-standing history of fairness depend upon it. today i urge my colleagues to do the right thing and support the rule. for our country. thank you and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. diaz-balart: we continue to reserve our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from maine is recognized. ms. pingree: thank you, madam speaker. i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. frank. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. mr. frank: i thank the gentlewoman. i will address when we get to this bill the substance of the argument that the presence of someone like me will so destabilize our brave young men and women that they will be unable to do their duty. i regard that as bigoted nonsense but i will address that more fully then. now i want to talk about this bizarre procedural argument, that we are somehow not following regular order. this amendment came up in regular order after the committee considered the bill and on the floor of the house and it was adopted in a full vote on the floor of the house after a lot of debate. the senate in committee adopted this amendment. the notion that the committees of jurisdiction have been

deprived here is delusional. what's the procedural situation? the house in a full debate on the floor adopted this amendment in effect. it went to the senate. twice it has been -- in the senate, the senate committee by a majority voted for this. this amendment. and then voted the bill out. and it has been stopped twice narrowly by filibusters. it has gotten 57 andal votes. it has -- and 58 votes. it has been openly debated. the notion that somehow we are the ones who are ignoring procedure when this bill get as majority in the house after open debate on the floor, a majority in the senate committee and is then filibustered makes no sense. beyond that we are told, well, don't hold up the big bill. well, that's the point of this. don't-ask, don't-tell was originally adopted as part of the military authorization of 1993. that's the regular order we followed. some have now said, well, the senate would like to be able to vote on this differently than the main bill. i will say that many of us do

not think that we should adopt anything until we see the whole package but if they want to do it as two bills, that's fine. sending this over will facilitate the senate's procedures. now, there are at least five republican senators who have previously, most of them voted against cloture, one voted for it, who said they couldn't vote for it for various procedural reasons, dealing with the tax agreement and the funding of the government. those are on the way to being resolved. what we do when we pass this bill today is to say to the senate, ok, you can do it one way or the other, as long as you do both. and we give them a chance to have resolved as they already have the tax issue, to have resolved the c.r. and we will get a vote on the merits and what this does is to strip away any excuse that any member? the -- in senate will have for not voting on the merits. we will strip away any justification for a filibuster. so, nothing -- the gentleman says, well, we didn't go through

regular order. we've gone through triple regular order. a vote in the house floor as part of the consideration of the bill, a vote in the senate committee, two efforts to break the filibuster. so the question is, do you allow a filibuster and some procedural excuses from senators who say they're for this repeal but couldn't get to vote for it, we are giving them a chance to do that. this is something many house members have long wanted to do in addition to repealing don't-ask, don't-tell. getting the senate to stand up and take a straight up or down vote. that's what we are enabling. so i hope the rule passes and the bill subsequently passes as well. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. diaz-balart: thank you, madam speaker. and with regard to this point of process, which i think is important, i think it's appropriate to point out the facts. .

this majority is bringing this legislation to the floor by using another bill as a shell. the other bill is the small business innovation research re-authorization bill. which has extraordinary bipartisan support. so the rule before us now strikes that legislation which is job growth legislation. again, supported overwhelmingly in a bipartisan fashion in this house. and it strikes that and it in-- it strikes that and it inserts into that shell this legislation. the repeal of don't-ask, don't-tell. the don't-ask, don't-tell legislation is not germane to the underlying legislation. so it's anything but regular order. the house armed services

committee has absolutely no jurisdiction over that small business bill. which the majority is using as a shell to move this legislation out of regular order in order to prohibit transparency. even a motion to recommit. now, the majority has demonstrated time and time again its willingness to eliminate transparency, to void regular order, to take steps totally out of regular order as it is doing again today. so i think that's important to put on the record. because this legislation, which by the way is important, as i said before, i think deserves to

be treated with respect, consideration, and the membership of this house i think deserves to be listened to, to be heard. on legislation, especially legislation which evidently is important. like the one that we are discussing today. i want to put that on the record. i would ask my friend if she has any additional speakers so we will reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from maine is recognized. ms. pingree: thank you, madam speaker. i yield one minute to the gentleman from michigan, mr. peters. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. mr. peters: madam speaker, i rise today in strong support of representative murphy and leader hoyer's don't-ask, don't-tell repeal act of 2010. as a former lieutenant commander in the united states navy reserve, i served with many brave, patriotic, and dedicated men and women who were always ready to serve their country. i was never concerned about their sexual orientation, just their ability to serve the

united states honorably. this discriminatory policy has forfeited over 13,000 abled bodied men and women from our military while our nation is engaged in two wars. it has wasted over $1 billion taxpayer dollars through investigations, legal proceedings, and wasted training of fighter pilots, mechanics, and arabic translators. military leaders have testified before congress in support of repeal and defense secretary gates has said this can be done and should be done. we must allow our military to recruit and retain any qualified, patriotic, and courageous american who wants to serve our country. and this is why i urge passage of the rule and the don't-ask, don't-tell repeal act of 2010. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. diaz-balart: we continue to reserve our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from maine is recognized. ms. pingree: thank you, madam speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for two minutes.

ms. jackson lee: it is so moving to hear so many members of the united states military who have served to come to the floor and honor the flag and the constitution. i am not that fortunate to have served in the military but i have been fortunate enough to travel amongst them from kosovo to bosnia to albania to iraq and afghanistan and places within those nations. if i observed anything, i have observed men and women who understand the constitution and take great pride to be on the frontlines, to be able to say i live in a country of the land of the free and the brave. so i ask today for my colleagues to be brave and to be free. to unshackle themselves from stereotypes, and repeal the don't-ask, don't-tell, and vote for the rule and the underlying bill. do it in the name of my constituent, a young man by the name of ensign provo, who had the unfortunate circumstances, i

believe, to be considered someone who should not be in the united states navy. so i would call upon those who believe in the constitution, who understand the values of the human rights campaign of which i had the privilege of receiving notice from, that we all are created equal. it is time now to bust this unholy aligns that suggests men and -- alliance that suggests men and women whose lifestyles may be different do not have a heart of gold and love the red, white, and blue. it is time now for america to be america. let us vote for this rule and the underlying bill. let us vote for freedom, stand for those who are brave, and stand behind the men and women who fight for us every single day of their lives. god bless all of them. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. diaz-balart: i ask my friend if she has any additional speakers. zero. i thank her for her courtesy and all who have come to the floor to debate this rule.

i reiterate i think it's an important piece of legislation. i'm sorry it was brought forth in an unnecessarily closed manner. i think the legislation deserves more respect. i think especially the membership of this house deserves more respect. i have again gratitude for all my colleagues and i thank them for having participated in this debate and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from maine is recognized. ms. pingree: thank you, madam speaker. thank you to my colleague from the other side of the aisle for his thoughts on this.

i think that he is getting ready to retire from congress and i just want to say i have enjoyed the opportunity to serve with you on the rules committee and appreciate the thoughts that you bring to the issues that we have to deal with. with all due respect i want to disagree with you on one particular point, as i did earlier today in the rules committee, and without questioning anything that you had to say today, i will just say that my experience on the issue of don't-ask, don't-tell, whether it is in my position as sitting on the armed services committee or with some of my colleagues on the rules committee who have questioned this particular bill as the vehicle, is that sometimes i feel like people run out of substantive arguments and they go back to the process. and they say, well, there's something flawed about this process. over the two years i have been here, as we have been discussing a piece of law that no longer works that shouldn't be in law that tells people who are gay or lesbian they can no longer serve

in the military, for the past two years i have heard over and over again, this is a flawed process. as a member of the armed services committee, even though my good colleague, representative davis, held subcommittee hearings on this issue and there have been much discussion of it, people said we need to have a study. so we got a study. it's a big thick study. it's a wonderfully well done study. when i had the opportunity recently to sit in the armed services committee and listen to the briefing by the military on the work they had done in the study, i have to say i was very impressed. something like 150,000 people participated in this study. now, as my colleagues know when you are a member of congress or a challenger running, you are lucky to have a poll of 400 people to get their opinion. maybe sometimes the poll has 1,200 people. we take that as public opinion. but to ask 150,000 people associated with the military, what do you think? is quite a piece of work. i think it was extremely well

done, and what we were told that day in that briefing was overwhelmingly our military said this is just fine. i already know, i serve alongside someone who is a gay or lesbian member of the armed services and it doesn't bother us at all. it isn't interfering with unit cohesion or ability to fight. people said overwhelmingly what is taking so long to change this particular provision in law? so i look at this and i say, whether it's the vehicle that we have before us today, today in some of the final days of this particular congress, today when i think we have to act with urgency here in this house, after this house has already passed this provision in the armed services and the general authorization bill, we have already passed this once, we have already shown that we are in favor of this here, now it's back again as a stand alone to make it easier for people to deal with this as an individual issue, to go back to say it's

about the process. we haven't had enough process. i think shows great disrespect to those members of our armed forces and their leaders who have said to us, change this. move on. get it done. to those 13,000-plus soldiers who have already been told they can no longer serve in the military, and we have lost the ability to use their expertise and their training and their patriotism in this country, to say that there isn't urgency today and that we should somehow allow a process argument to slow us down doesn't make any sense. i come from the state of maine. very proudly come from the state of maine. something like 17% of our 1.3 million residents in maine are either active duty personnel or veterans who have served this country. and i go home and hear the people in my district whether i'm talking to a veterans group or someone who is just on their way to serve in afghanistan or coming back or sadly sometimes at a military funeral, and people do not say to me, prohibit gay and lesbian people from serving in the military.

people say to me, in my home district, in a state that is very dedicated to serving the military, they say, when are you going to end this process of discrimination? and that is why we are here today. we are here to move forward on the rule, to make sure that for once and for all this house of representatives again says let's repeal don't-ask, don't-tell. let's remember that this is a threat to our national security, that it's disrespectful of all our soldiers. that there will be no serious ramifications of this. and in fact our military is very well prepared and has good plans to move forward on this transition. let's remember that this is the patriotic vote to cast. this is the vote for national security. this is the vote for respecting the investment we have made in these soldiers. this is the vote for increasing recruitment in our military. and even more members who currently are unsure to say to more people who are unsure about whether or not they should join the military because they worry

they will possibly be outed. it's a measure to say we well corm you. our armed services will only be stronger when we repeal don't-ask, don't-tell. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on the previous question and on the rule and i yield back the balance of my time. and move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: madam speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate concur in house amendment to the senate amendment with an amendment to h.r. 4853, cited as the middle class tax relief act of 2010, in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on adoption of the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is agreed to, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. mr. diaz-balart: we request the

yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. seeing a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on adopting house resolution 1764 will be followed by five-minute votes on suspend the rules and adopting house resolution 1761 and house resolution 1743. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 232 and the nays are 180. the resolution is adopted. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. altmire, to suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 1761 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 1761, resolution congratulating auburn university quarterback and college park, georgia, native cameron newton on

winning the 2010 heisman trophy for being the most outstanding college football in the united states. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 378. the nays are 15. 18 recorded as present.

2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is on the question on suspending the rules and agreeing to house resolution 1743, as amended, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: house resolution 1743, resolution congratulating gerda weissmann klein on being selected to receive the presidential medal of freedom. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended. so many as in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman calls for a recorded vote. a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote

will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 407, the nays are zero. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the are resolution is agreed to and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from california -- the gentlewoman from california seek

recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 1764, i call up h.r. 2965 with the senate amendment thereto and i have a motion at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will are report the title of the bill and designate the senate amendment and the motion. the clerk: h.r. 2965, an act to amend the small business act with regard to the small business transportation program and for other purposes. senate amendment, mrs. davis of california moves that the house concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 2965 with an amendment. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1764, the motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and quoled by the majority leader and minority leader or their respective designees. the gentlewoman from california, mrs. davis and the gentleman,

mr. mckeen each will control 30 minutes. the gentlewoman from california. mrs. davis: the house is not in order osm the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is correct, the house is not in order. the gentlewoman from california. mrs. davis: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. davis: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and in which to insert extraneous material in the record on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. davis: mr. speaker, i rise in support of repealing don't ask, don't tell. conditions for repeal have been met. due diligence has been done. and the time to act is here. regardless of what critics say,

the issue before us has been debated in congress and reviewed by the department of defense. in fact, mr. speaker, members of the house have debated are repeal for some time. my subcommittee held hearings on the issue. the first of those hearings was on july 23, 2008, actually 15 years after the decision had originally been made. and the second hearing, on march 3, 2010. every member of this body was welcome to attend. though few republicans actually made the effort to be there at that time. for those of you who weren't there, mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is correct. the house is not ined or -- the house will be in order. the gentlewoman may proceed. mrs. davis: for those of you who

weren't there, the takeaway from these hearings was that the current policy does not work for our armed forces and is inconsistent with american values. next, this house approved language identical to what is before us today as part of the national defense authorization act. and finally, mr. speaker, the d.o.d. completed its study on oimplementing repeal, confirming our troops are ready for repeal. 70% of the force said that repealing don't ask, don't tell will have a positive, mixed or no effect on our military. 92% -- i'm sorry, 74% of spouses said that open service would not change their support for their spouse staying in the military.

and 92% of uniformed personnel who believe they serve with a gay service member in the past said their unit's ability to work together was, quote, very good. 89% of our warriors on the front lines said the same. in short, service members and their spouses have are essentially the same view as the american public, men and women in uniform who are gay should be allowed to serve openly. and i want to add, mr. speaker, that our top civilian and military officials agree with the american people.

secretary of defense gates stated that repeal poses low risk to the readiness and effectiveness of our forces. admiral mullen shares that few. in fact, sec are retear gates' biggest concern is if congress doesn't act to repeal, then he points out the courts will impose this change on the department of defense leaving little or no time to prepare and implement the transition plan properly. now it's true that the military service chiefs have reservations about the timing of repeal. but they all believe the language has adequate safeguards and when implemented correctly repeal can be done and effectively managed. they acknowledge that leadership

at all levels will be key. i have great confidence, i have great confidence, mr. speaker, in the leaders who are serving in our military and their professionalism. after all, we trust them with decisions about our nation's safety. we can trust them to put this transition into practice in a way that addresses the needs of our force. but we cannot begin this new challenge until we repeal don't ask, don't tell. mr. speaker, change is never easy. but it is rarely as necessary as it is today. in addition to clear statistics in favor of repeal, the survey responses got to what is at the heart of this issue. fairness. gay and lesbian personnel have the same value the same values toward their service as service members at large.

what is that? it's love of their country. it's honor. it's respect. it's integrity and service over self. in the words of one gay service member, repeal would simply, and i quote, take the knife out of my back. you have no idea what it is like to have to serve in silence. if we miss this opportunity to repeal this law, history will judge us poorly for the damage we have done to our nation and our military. i urge members of this house to be on the right side of history and help end don't ask, don't tell. i are reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from california.

mr. mckeon: i claim the time in opposition and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is are recognized. mr. mckeon: the speaker as once again decided to subvert regular order and brick to the floor without consideration by the house armed services committee a repeal of don't ask, don't tell. anyone who was listening earlier to the clerk read the bill we're discussing, it's titled the small business act, amending the small business act with respect to the small business innovation research program and the small business technology transfer program. if you're confused, what they have done is taken this bill that has passed, stripped out what is in it and put in don't ask, don't tell. so today, we will debate this stand-alone measure as a priority when we don't even have a national defense authorization act for 2011. the other body could not get its work done on that bill because the leadership there placed a

higher priority on repeal of don't ask, don't tell to satisfy a democratic liberal agenda than on passing a bill designed to meet the broad needs and requirements of our national defense as well as those men and women serving in harm's way. where are the democrat priorities? certainly not with the overall national security. so now we're here to consider a bill by representative murphy. it comes to the floor without the committee of jurisdiction being able to formally examine the issues raised by the recent d.o.d. report and without the ability to question witnesses who would have to implement the repeal. essentially the high-handed actions of the speaker forcing this bill to the floor deny the house the ability to assess the conflicting testimony and conclusions that have been rendered by the report, so i rise in strong opposition to mr. murphy's bill. he and the house leadership

behind him bring to the floor to -- in complete disregard for the testimony of the three service chiefs and their warning that implementing repeal now will have a negative impact on combat readiness. let me repeat that. thee of the four of the joint chiefs, service chiefs warn that implementing repeal now will have a negative impact on combat readiness. this is something we all ought to pay serious attention to when we're fighting two wars. beyond that, mr. murphy brings this bill to the floor in complete disregard for the concerns of those actually in the combat arms. as we now know, the percentage of the overall u.s. military that predicts negative or very negative effects on their unit's ability to work together to get the job done is 30%, the percentage for the marine corps is 43%, 48% within the army combat unit and 58% within the

marine combat units. if there's any doubt about where the service chiefs stand, here's what they told the other body. general casey, the army chief of staff, said, i think it's important that we're clear about the military risks. implementation of the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" policy would be a major cultural change. it would be implemented by a force and leaders that are already stretched by the cumulative effect of almost a decade of war. and by a force in which substantial numbers of soldiers per receive that repeal will have a negative impact on unit effectiveness, cohesion and morale. and that implementation will be difficult. i believe that the implementation of repeal in the near term will, one, add another level of stress to an already stressed force. two, be more difficult in our combat arms unit. and three, be more difficult

for the army than the report suggests. my recommendation would be that implementation begins when our singular focus is no longer on combat operations or preparing units for combat. i would not recommend going forward at this time given everything that the army has on its plate. the commandant of the marine corps, general james amos, said, if the law is changed, it has strong potential for disruption at the small unit level as it will no doubt divert leadership attention from a singular focus on preparing units for combat. based on what i know about the very tough fight in afghanistan, the most singular focus of our combat forces as they train up and deploy to the theater, the necessarily tightly woven culture of those combat forces that we're asking so much of at this time. and finally the direct feedback from the survey, my recommendation is that we should not implementation

repeal at this time. what i would want to have with regards to implementation would be a period of time when our marines are no longer focused primarily on combat. all i'm asking is the opportunity to implement repeal at a time and choosing when my marines are not singularly tightly focused on what they're doing in a deadly environment. just yesterday, general amos made clear just how strongly he feels about the threat that repeal poses to marines in combat. warning, that a change in current policy could pose a dead loedis traction on the afghanistan battlefield -- deadly distraction on the afghanistan battlefield. i don't want to lose distraction, he said in a roundtable at the pentagon. air force chief of staff, general normal schwartz, said, i do not agree that the

short-term risks to military effectiveness is low. our officer and n.c.o. leaders in afghanistan, in particular, are carrying a heavy load. i remain concern with a steady assessment that the risk of repeal of military effectiveness in afghanistan is low. that assessment is too optimistic. i suggested that perhaps full implementation could occur in 2012, but i do not think it prudent to seek full implementation in the near term. i think that's risky. three generals, three of the four of our chiefs of staff. i strongly believe that we ought to listen closely to the concerns of the service chiefs. if for no other reason they are closer to their services than the secretary of defense or the chairman of the joint chiefs. moreover, i also believe we should do nothing at this time to threaten the readiness of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who are at the tip

of the spear fighting america's two wars. so i urge all members to vote no on the murphy bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california. mrs. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to remind my colleagues that it's not until the secretary, the general, the chairman of the joint chiefs and the president actually certify that the military is prepared to move forward. there is no defined timeline that this in fact would go forward. and i yield one minute to my friend and colleague, the distinguished speaker of the house of representatives, the gentlelady from california, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker of the house is recognized. the speaker: i thank the gentlelady from california, the distinguished chair of the subcommittee on this important issue, for her leadership on ending discrimination and how we defend our country. i want to salute steny hoyer, our distinguished democratic leader, for bringing this bill

to the floor expeditiously. it's been a long time coming but now is the time for us to act. i want to thank barney frank, derrick polis, tammy baldwin for their leadership. i particularly want to acknowledge patrick murphy. before congressman murphy came to the house, he was a captain in the 82nd airborne division and served as a paratrooper in the iraq war. he understands the issues of military readiness and has demonstrated tremendous leadership on the battlefield and on repealing of policy that does not contribute to our national security. mr. speaker, today we have an opportunity to vote once again to close the door on a fundamental unfairness in our nation. repealing the discriminatory "don't ask, don't tell" policy will honor the service and sacrifice of all who dedicated their lives to protecting american people. we know that our first

responsibility as elected officials, we take an oath of office to protect and defend. our first responsibility is to protect the american people. to keep them safe. and we should honor the service of all who want to contribute to that security. as admiral mullen said on this issue of don't-ask, don't-tell, admiral mullen, the current chairman of the joint chiefs, he said, it's my personal believe that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be to do -- would be the right thing to do. we have a place and policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. for me personally, he said, it comes down to integrity. theirs as individuals, ours as institution. 17 years ago, in 1993, many of us were on the floor of the

house. i had the privilege of speaking, calling on the president to act definitively to lift the ban that keeps patriotic americans from serving in the u.s. armed forces because of their sexual orientation. instead, we enacted the unfortunate "don't ask, don't tell" policy that has resulted in more than 13,000, 13,000 men and women in uniform being discharged from the military. thousands more have decided not to re-enlist. fighter pilots, infantry officers, arabic translators and other specialists have been discharged at a time when our nation is fighting two wars. don't-ask, don't-tell doesn't contribute to our national security and it contraconvenients our american value, and that is -- contravenes our american value. just today abc news and "the

washington post" just released a poll that says eight in 10 americans say that gays and lesbians who disclose their sexual orientation should serve in the military. the department of defense released a report. congresswoman davis said the action that we took earlier on the d.o.d. bill was an action predicated on what that report would say. and that report reached the same conclusions that the majority of men and women in uniform and the majority of americans have reached, repealing don't-ask, don't-tell makes for good public policy and a stronger america, i add. but to do so, to repeal don't-ask, don't-tell congress must act quickly. since courts are reviewing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy both secretary gates, the

secretary of defense, and chairman mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs, have called for congress to act on the repeal with urgency so that they can begin to carry out the repeal in a consistent manner. in may with an over 40-vote majority, this house of representatives passed legislation to end this discriminatory policy. it was a proud day for so many of us in the house. and today by acting begin, it's my hope that we will encourage the senate to take long overdue action. america has always been the land of the free and the home of the brave. we are so because our brave men and women in uniform protect us. we honor -- let us honor their sacrifice, their service, their patriotism by recommitting to the values that they fight for on the battlefield. i urge my colleagues to end discrimination wherever it

exists in our country. i urge them to end discrimination in the military to make america safer. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson, the ranking member on the military personnel subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson, is recognized for two minutes. mr. wilson: thank you, mr. speaker. first of all, in the final days of the lame duck congress, i am grateful to join with ranking member buck mckeon of california to be concerned that this outgoing majority has placed a higher priority on repealing don't-ask, don't-tell than actually passing the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2011. the defense authorization bill is crucial for our national security concerns and the welfare of our troops and their families and our veterans and has passed for 48 consecutive

years in some form. secondly, as a son of a world war ii veteran and as a 31-year veteran of the army myself and as the proud father of four sons currently serving in the military, i oppose the attempts to repeal don't-ask, don't-tell in the waning days of this lame duck congress. the service chiefs have urged caution because of the strenuous demands placed on our forces in the wars in afghanistan and iraq. in fact, army chief of staff, general george casey, who i trained with in pennsylvania, said the following -- i would not recommend going forward at this time given everything that the army has on its plate. i believe that it would increase the risk to our soldiers, particularly on our soldiers that are deployed in combat. commandant of the marine corps, general james amos, had this to say, if the law has changed it has a long potential of destruction at the small level. we should not implement repeal

at this time. air force chief of staff, general norman schwartz, i don't think it's prudent to seek full implementation in the near term. i think it's too risky. mr. speaker, the committees of jurisdiction must have time to examine 370-page pentagon report on the impact of a repeal of don't-ask, don't-tell on military readiness. recruitment and morale. this attempt to hastily repeal in the final days of the defeated 111th congress -- i ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation in favor of hearings next year on this important issue. i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california. mrs. davis: thank you. i yield one minute to the gentleman from arkansas, dr. snyder. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. snyder: mr. speaker, like all babies came into a changing world and a changing america

and yet in many ways when it comes to issues of gays and lesbians, america has already changed. their first home church would not have thrived without the labor and dedication of numerous gay and lesbian members. my childcare benefited from several lesbian couples who have given their time to help my wife and i raise them. and america benefits from pilots, doctors, diplomats, teachers, police, firemen, e.m.t.'s, construction workers, many other professions, somehow without disstracting each other. implementation by repeal, not by court case, allows the military to catch up with the rest of america and my boys and all-american children will be the better for it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i yield two minutes at this time to the gentleman from maryland, mr. bartlett, the ranking member on the air land subcommittee on the armed

services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. bartlett: one might wonder at our priorities, for the first time in many, many years we don't have time to pass the defense authorization bill but we do have time to pull out a very controversial part of that, whose passage no one would argue would be particularly helpful, it just won't be too hurtful. maybe that's why our favorable ratings are somewhere between used car salesmen and embezzlers. there's an old adage that says he who frames the question gets the answer. 15% to 20% of marines said it would be a good idea, you can't take the 50% of people that said it wouldn't have an impact and

say that means it's a good idea. no matter what my sexual orientation was, i couldn't be supportive of this. three of the joint chiefs said this would be disruptive. there are a lot of prejudices out there. i might regret the prejudices but i didn't change the fact that they're out there. this is not conducive to good order and discipline. there may come a time when we can do this in the military but this is not that time. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california. mrs. davis: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from washington, mr. smith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: i rise in strong support of this legislation to repeal the don't ask, don't tell policy, i want to make four quick arguments on that. first of all, to process. this policy was implemented 17 years ago. we have studied and argued about it since. particularly over the last four years, under mrs. davis'

leadership, we have had reports, to say we have had no reports is wrong. we have studied this to death, it is time to act. that's number one. number two, gays and lesbians serve in the mill tire right now. i doubt you could find a member of the military who doesn't know a gay or lesbian they have served with, yet they have functioned and functioned well. this is not introducing a brand new concept. third, i want you to think about the basic issue we should always consider in the armed services committee, how do the poll swiss advance make us safer? how does it make us safer to drive out of the military thousands of people who are serving and serving our country well? it doesn't. it takes away experience, expertise and talent at a time when we desperately need that. lastly, the 55% of the people in the survey did not offer no opinion. they offered the opinion that they did not think it would

matter one way or the other to repeal that law that 55% very clearly has no problem with serving with gays and lesbians. it is way past time to repeal this law, strengthen our military and allow gays and lesbians to serve our country and serve it with the bravery that they have shown along with all others who have served in our military. i thank you and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from missouri, mr. akin, the ranking member on the sea power subcommittee of the armed services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. akin: thank you, mr. speaker. some years ago, quite a number of years ago, i had an opportunity to witness a total solar eclipse. that's one of those things that happens very, very rarely. it was quite interesting. today, we are looking at another eclipse of reason that happens

very rarely. for the first time in 48 or 50 years, the congress has not passed a defense bill. now that's pretty serious. first time in 48 years no defense bill passed by congress? what are we here today debating? we are debating the idea of an imposition of somebody's social agenda that they want to impose on the military. it would seem to me that at a minimum, we would want to get down a defense bill before we got into this particular topic, but no, no instead we're going to try to impose something when we're fighting two wars. the fact of the matter is that in spite of of a sur vie that tried to be biased, you've got the leadership of the air force you should general schwartz, leadership of the army under general casey and the marine corps leadership under general amos all opposing making these changes on this instantaneous basis, imposing this social agenda.

so we are kind of experiencing something like a solar eclipse except it's an eclipse of reason. i have three sons who served in the marine corps, two currently in the marine. let me tell you even with the somewhat biased survey, of% of marines said this is a lousy idea. so why are we at the end of the year going to get into these social agendas. i don't think this is what the american public expects congress to be doing. i don't think we need an eclipse of are reason and i yield back my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california. mrs. davis: i yield -- i'm sorry -- two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: in considering their position on this bill, members should listen to echos of the past and consider some voices that have been violenced. in the past we heard if we should end this policy it would be a tragedy of great proportion. i fear such would remove our armed establishments from the ranks of history's greatest. those are the words of a senator in 1948 talking about the racial integration of the armed forces. they've thrived and prospered since that just and correct decision. listen to this voice. in the almost seven years since don't skrks don't tell was passed, attitudes and circumstances have changed. i fully support the approach by defense secretary gates and admiral mullen. that's the voice of colin powell, retired chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, someone who experienced all of the unit

leadership being talked about on the floor this afternoon. but i would invite the members to think about the silenced voices. men and women who lay maimed in military hospitals who are gays and lesbians who served their country, and been injured in the process. who cannot have a visit from the person they love most in the world because they've had to hide their sexual orientation. and i would urge the members to consider the silenced voices who lay beneath white crosses in arlington cemetery and other places of honor around the world who are gays and lesbians, who have been dishonored by a practice that says they cannot say who they really are even though they love their country so very much. this is an act of basic decency and justice. it is long overdue. for those who quarl with time, i agree with their quarl.

this should have been done a long time ago. today is the day to get it done. vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i yield two minutes to mr. lamb born a member of the house armed services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lamb born: i too am concerned that having don't -- that repealing don't ask, don't tell would have a negative impact on the readiness and effectiveness of our military, particularly our front line fores. the survey was fundamentally and fatally flaud. rather than asking the question, should the law be repealed, the survey presumed the law would be repealed and asked how our armed forces would implement the presumed change. the survey did itself reveal widespread concern about overturning the current law but it was largely ignored in the mainstream press coverage. for example, among personnel who said they've served with a leader they believed to be gay

or lesbian, 91% of those who believed that this affected unit morale said that they impact was mostly negative or mixed. 67% of our front line marines in combat arms units predict working alongside a gay man or lesbian will have a negative effect on their unit's effectiveness. we must not ignore the concerns of our combat troops. it is irresponsible for congress to fail to pass a defense authorization bill for the first time in almost 50 years and at the last minute attempt to pass a repeal of don't ask, don't tell to placate some within the democrat liberal base. the united states military is not the place for social experiments. congress should be focused on ensuring that our brave men and women have the are resources they need to protect this great nation instead of playing partisan games. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back his time. the gentlewoman from california. mrs. davis: i yield one minute to the gentleman from georgia, mr. lewis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute to address the house. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, i want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding. mr. speaker, i have just two words for you, my colleague, vote yes, vote yes to end don't ask, don't tell. vote yes for equality. vote yes because discrimination is wrong. vote yes because you believe in this community. vote yes because every american deserves the right to serve their country. vote yes because the survey results are in and the military leader for the troops are ready. vote yes because on the battlefield, it does not matter who you love, only the flag that

you serve. whatever your reason, i urge you, each of you, each of my colleagues, vote yes today and stand up and vote yes. vote yes because it is the right thing to do. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks, member of the house armed services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. franks: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i believe all of us in this room would agree that we have the greatest people in our military forces in the world. they are the most noble human beings in our society. of all of the things that people do for their fellow human beings, putting themselves at risk for the freedom and the happiness and hope of others is the most profound gift they can give to humanity. i believe our first purpose here

in this place is to make sure that those who protect freedom for the rest of us are the most well-equipped have the most important materials and weapons and capability that we can possibly give them. i know that there's some major disagreements on this policy but the leaders of our military have only asked us one thing, and that is to give them time to study and deal with this in their own way in a way that will not be forcing this policy upon them in a time of war. mr. speaker, i would suggest that we owe them that courtesy. they do not fight because they hate the enemy. they fight because they love all of us. if we cannot give them the simple courtesy of giving them the opportunity to deal with this policy in the way that they've asked, then i really feel like we've failed them. mr. speaker, i'd also say that the military leaders, most of the commanding generals have said that this will weaken our military that it will reduce the chances of them being able to

fight and win wars with the less -- the least casualties on both sides. i believe that they are in a position to know whether that's true or not, mr. speaker. i would just urge this body to give those who give all for us the chance to deal with this in their own way and vote no on this repeal. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from california. mrs. davis: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. mr. lang vin -- mr. langevin: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. langevin: i rise today in strong support of the don't ask, don't tell repeal act of 2010. at no time and certainly not at this critical juncture should we

be discharging qualified, dedicated service members who are willing to defend, serve, and sacrifice for our nation. don't ask, don't tell policy is costly, it is ineffective, and it is unnecessary. its repeal clearly makes a major step toward ending discrimination. the department of defense's own internal survey contradicted the claim that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would hamper military readiness, it would not. and my own sense of morality contradicts the idea that there's anything good about forcing these men and women to live in the chateaus or live a lie just to serve. at a time when we need americans to serve with great professionalism, with the years of training invested in them, clearly this is the time now when we should repeal this policy. i want to thank congressman murphy for bringing this critical issue to the floor and urge my fellow members to support our national security by

repealing this outdated and damaging policy. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: jash. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman who had two deployments to iraq, one in afghanistan, in combat situations. very proud of this young man, duncan hunter jr. from san diego, california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. hunter: i thank the gentleman from california and the ranking member on the armed services committee. let me quote general amos a couple weeks ago who is the commandant of the marine corps on this issue. he said, i don't want to lose any marines to this distraction. i want to meet any marines at bethesda with the loss of legs due to distraction.

distraction cost marines' lives. so that is from the commandant of the marine corps. they were part of the heaviest part in iraq in 2007 and 2004. this is not about race. general colin powell, he said, skin color is benign, non behavioral characteristic. sexual orientation is profound. comparison between the two is a valid but invalid argument. it sounds good to make that comparison if this is like the civil rights movement. the problem is the united states military is not the ymca. it's something special. and the reason we have the greatest military in the world is because the way it is right now. we are not great britain. we are not france. we are not germany. and the marine corps is not the place, nor is the army, navy, air force, the place to have a

liberal crusade to create a utopia of a liberal agenda and experiment during wartime while men and women are risking their lives. and probably the biggest problem i have with this repeal is this. the armed services committee in the two years i've been in congress, my first two was in afghanistan in 2007. since i've been in congress we have not had one full committee hearing on i.e.d.'s, on roadside bombs, nment one casualty causer in afghanistan. this is a distraction. this is a waste of time and every second i think we spend on this, and as secretary gates spends on this, and that our committee generals spend on this issue means we are not focusing on what's important. that is winning the mission in afghanistan and bringing our men and women safely home. this doesn't either. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mckeon: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. mr. hunter: i take it. this does not help us win the mission in afghanistan. this is not bringing our men

and women home any faster. it doesn't build better weapons. it doesn't train them better. it is a distraction so we don't focus the real eshoo onhand which is winning in iraq and afghanistan and bringing our men and women home. that's what's important. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california. mrs. davis: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. murphy, the sponsor of this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. speaker. today, we have a chance to do what is right. not just for gay and lesbian troops serving in our military but what is right for national security. when i deployed to iraq as captain of the 82nd airborne division, my unit didn't care if someone was gay or lesbian. we cared who could do their job so we could come home alives. other troops in other countries

have an openness such as france and great britain. it's an insult to the troops i served with and to all the troops serving in iraq and afghanistan to say that they are somehow less professional, was mission capable as a member of these foreign militaries. now, we have heard every excuse under the sun. first, it was, well, we need to study the issue. well, the pentagon finished their study and know what have known all along, repeal would not hurt our operation. and then we need to hear from our military leaders and our troops. they have spoken. the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the commander in chief and the majority of our troops believe this policy should go. enough. enough of the games. enough of the politics.

our troops are the best of the best. and they deserve a congress that puts their safety and our collective national security over rigid, partisan interests and a closed-minded ideology. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staffs, admiral mike mullen, testified that this issue comes down to integrity. the integrity of our troops and the military as an institution. well, this is also about the integrity of this institution. i ask for an additional 10 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mrs. davis: 10 seconds. mr. murphy: this is also about the integrity of this institution. this vote is about whether we're going to continue telling people willing to die for our freedoms that they need to lie in order to do so. i urge my colleagues to vote why he on repeal, and i yield

back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, dr. fleming, a member of the house armed services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. fleming: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i rise today to oppose the repeal of don't-ask, don't-tell. you know, this has been the policy of the military that's worked very well for many years. there has been a study of this. finally, when we approached the period in which it was going to be once again brought up in congress, there was a study commission which asks the questions of many, many people. however, the study was flawed from the git-go. first off, it did not ask whether this policy should be implemented. it asked the question how it should be implemented. i am a physician. i come from a medical background. if ever we tried to determine what the effective way of treating a disease is, we would

never start with the presupposition that this treatment is already the accepted treatment of that. no. in fact, we go and study it. this was not done. but, let's talk about the questions a little bit in this study. a study that came out on november 30, really only a few days ago. the question actually asks in the survey, it asks active duty members to define what they thought was going to happen as a result of this policy. that's an impossibility. it also sets the stage for social experimentation, a time in which we're at war, when we have all the logistical problems that go on, and here we are dropping in the middle of it this bomb of social experimentation. you know, even in times of peace when we have a major deployment we actually have a mortality rate. people die even when we have peaceful exercises. but in a day when you're actually at war, just think

about the additional head aches of all the logistical problems with implementing such a policy. then there's the question of constitutionality. gee, how can we do something with the military that we don't do with people at large? and the supreme court has spoken out on this and they said that the military is a unique organization. the speaker pro tempore: the time has expired. mr. fleming: may i have 30 more seconds? mr. mckeon: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. mr. fleming: that the military is indeed a unique organization and that such restriction in such policies can indeed go forward. i'd just like to say in wrapping up some important statistics that i think should be mentioned and that is that 60% to 67% of army and marine combat members said that this would be a major disruption if this were implemented. 17% of the spouses said they would urge their active duty member to get out and that

certainly negates the problem of somehow we would lose too many soldiers in this. so i urge my colleagues today to vote against this. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will note that the gentleman from california has nine minutes remaining. the gentlewoman from california has 13 1/4 minutes remaining. the gentlewoman. mrs. davis: thank you. i yield one minute to the majority leader of the house of representatives, the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentlelady for yielding, and i rise in strong support of this amendment. it is never too late to do the right thing, and that's the proposition that's before this house. the proposition that we are going to, as barry goldwater said, whether people can participate, not whether they are straight. what he meant by that is, are they competent, are they

patriotic, are they trained well, are they prepared to fight for our country? that's the litmus test. now, that wasn't always the litmus test. there was sometimes when that group over there could fight over there and the other group over here could fight over here because after all we mixed those groups it would be damaging to the national security. that proposition was wrong then and it is wrong now. this may we passed sometime ago a defense bill. we passed a defense bill through this house. we adopted an amendment to that bill. that bill is still in the senate. it's still in the senate very frankly because the minority party has not allowed it to move. it has the votes to move.

it simply doesn't have almost 2/3 to move. this may the house approved a repeal of our armed forces policy on don't-ask, don't-tell adopted some 17 years ago by a vote of 234-194. we voted to end the outdated policy that frankly undermines our national security. pending a comprehensive defense department report that reviewed the issues associated with implementing repeal and study our troops' attitudes towards open service. that study was undertaken. that study has been reported. that study showed that some 70% of the members surveyed said no problem, not an issue. again, i'm worried about

someone who has the willingness and courage and commitment to defend our country. that, from their perspective, is the criteria. that report was released on november 30, as i said, and included an exhaustive survey of the views of more than 115,000 people. we take a poll, you're talking about maybe 500, maybe 1,000 and you rely on that and you make some pretty important decisions based on those polls. you spend money based upon those polls. you decide to run based upon those polls. you decide to implement issue a or b based upon those polls. and frankly in some respect your career depends upon that. so you rely on those surveys. this survey, 70% came to an unambiguous conclusion.

quote, the risk of repeal to overall military effectiveness is low. now, i heard members on the other side of the aisle who have debated this issue. said, oh, no, that's not right. and very frankly i heard generals quoted, but this is, after all, who the generals are concerned about, the people in the field, the men and women who are actually in the battle. they come back and say, no problem. our troops stand with our military leaders and the vast majority of americans in calling for repeal. the majority of them would be baffled by the fear with which some of my colleagues -- don't-ask, don't-tell is discussed. some say that our troops are unwilling or ap prehencive serving with gays in the

military, yet 92% of those who have done so have called that experience very good. now, let me say to my friends on both sides of the aisle, you're serving with gays in this body. you are interfacing with gays every day in the staffs on both sides of this capitol. you may know or you may not know. but disabuse yourself of the theory that somehow you are bothered by that because you're not. they serve here with distinction, they serve here with dedication and they serve here at no risk to any one of us or their colleagues. either as employees, as members or as visitors to this capitol.

there are surely countless stories that prove that point. we have gay men and women, one fighter said, in my unit. he's big, he's mean and he kills lots of bad guys. no one cared he was gay. why? because what they focused on was whether or not he did the job, whether he was patriotic, committed and effective. that's the test. that ought to be the test for every american. the test of character, the test of performance, the test of compliance with the rules and regulation and the laws. that ought to be our test. that is certainly what we expect, i think, of others in judging us.

despite all of this, the senate has failed to pass a defense authorization bill. as i said, we passed one last may, actually it was last june, i think. above all we must pass this bill because our choice is between a thoughtful, responsible repeal plan developed over months of study or a sudden disruptive review imposed by the courts. our military leaders understand that the courts are likely to overturn don't-ask, don't-tell. and that is exactly why they are urging congress to pass a legislative solution instead. i tell my friends, i talked to secretary gates earlier this week, and he said, pass this bill. and he said, pass this bill because we need a legislative, not a court-imposed, solution.

in just a minute. admiral mike mullen who supports repeal wants it to come, and i quote, through the same process with which the law was enacted rather than precipitously through the courts. so i tell my friends that the chairman of the joint chiefs and the secretary of defense, who by the way as we all know is not of my party, but he's not partisan, he is a promoter of the military security and welfare of the troops. and i refer to bob gates for whom i think we all have a great deal of respect and confidence. i will yield briefly to the gentleman. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding and for his well thought-out arguments on this issue. what does the gentleman think about the actual service chiefs, the marine corps comcan't, the

army chief of staff, the -- commandant, the army chief of staff, the people who lead the men and women we speak about being against the repeal, especially now? mr. hoyer: reclaiming my time, i'll tell you what i think about that, their concern seems to be for the morale of the troops, of the performance of the troops, which is exactly why we said, and i tell my friend, in may, let's ask the troops. and that's why we surveyed 115,000 of the troops and said, is this a problem? and they responded overwhelmingly, it is not a problem. there are some -- not this minute, there are some who apparently do not accept that. i understand the gentleman. i am not necessarily surprised by that. my friend and my colleague, i don't know exactly your age,

you're much younger than i am, this is not a new phenomena, i tell my young friend. when we've made changes in the service sector in the past there have been voices who have said, this would undermine morale and performance. and i suggest to my friend it did not. and i tell my friend, for those who believe it will, i believe this survey indicates the contrary and i believe the contrary based on experience. based upon oh, and based upon history, i tell my friend. it's a hard choice, it seems to me, to reject, to reject a considered, thoughtful, planned approach to implementing a policy that secretary gates and chairman of joint chiefs mullens

believe is going to happen. and i tell my friends in this body, my conversations with members of the senate indicate that there are sufficient numbers in the senate to pass this policy. more than that, mr. speaker, it's time to end a policy of official discrimination that's cost america the service of some 13,500 men and women who worry on -- wore our uniform with honor. they were not discharged because they did not perform their duties or because they were not honorable in their service. they were discharged simply because they were gay. one of those young men who deserves better is a constituent named ian golden. actually he was not dismissed but i'll tell you his story.

he wrote to me a compelling letter and i want to close with his words. congressman hoyer, i joined the army reserve officers training corps last year after president obama reaffirmed his campaign pledge to end don't-ask, don't-tell. i've always known what -- that i wanted to serve my country in the armed forces. but one thing was always holding me back, i'm gay. i've been open about that part of my life since high school and i was not willing to go back in the closet. but after the president promised to end that i decided to finally join rotc, hopeful that i would not have to hide my sexuality for long. i quickly realized that i had made the right choice, although i was a new recruit i was already in the top of my class of cadet privates first class in land navigation.

but it became increasingly difficult to hide such an important part of who i am. because, of course, the policy that we have in place asks people to lie. honor, duty, country. lying is not a component part of that philosophy. but that's what we expect people if they want to serve their country in the armed forces of the united states to do. after learning about the delays in congress i decide i needed to quit rotc until the ban was repealed. i've spent this past semester studying abroad and i will spend next semester in cairo. i have invaluable experience abroad. i'm an advanced arabic speaker, i'm an a student at a top national university. most importantly, he says, i want to serve my country. when i can serve openly i will finish rotc and be commissioned

as an officer in the u.s. army and there are many others like me, i've met them, he concluded. so, please, do whatever you can to repeal don't-ask, don't-tell. ladies and gentlemen, we have an opportunity to accept those who are willing, those who are able, those who want to serve their country, yes, in harm's way. let us take this action. it's the right thing to do and the right time. in closing, let me say to my friend mr. mckeon, mr. mckeon, when i ended my debate when we passed this in may, you will recall, you mentioned general colin powell. i did not respond but as you know, general colin powell over these 17 years has changed his perspective. i didn't respond at that time of that fact but he has done so because he has come to the conclusion that now is the time

to act. for our country, for our principles and for our men and women in service. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. we've had a number of questions asked. one question that we did not just hear that was expressed is important, is a person impediment to the good order and discipline of the military, of the military's mission, that is important. and i heard the speaker say earlier in essence, we need to allow or honor the service of all those who want to serve. that is not true. every day people who want to serve are not allowed to serve because they will be an impediment. we heard the leader talk about how we can work together in this

body even though there are homosexuals in this body. that's right. this isn't the military and i can promise you if people did some of the things that have been done by members of this body they would never have been allowed and would not be allowed to continue serving in the military. we have that margin to work with here in the mill -- here. in the military there is the military mission. there is not that margin to work with. we're talking life and death. now, week of heard, how does it make us safer to lose thousands from the military? and good question. because the hundreds i've heard from that i didn't bring their quotes down here have said, you pass this and i'll tell you personally, but i will not say it in the presence of my commander, you pass this, i will not re-enlist, i won't say it publicly because it will affect my assignment after that because we know what this president, this commander in chief wants, just as does the secretary of defense, the two people that the

president appoints said, let's do it, because they know the president appointed, he's their boss, and all those who do not answer directly to the president, they've said, this is a terrible idea. you want an racket poll, take one -- you want an accurate poll, take one where military officers can answer privately with no ability of the commanders to figure out who answered where. and let's find out how many thousands or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands we can lose with this activity. that's important. now we were told, don't-ask, don't-tell is inconsistent with american values. i would submit the military -- mr. mckeon: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. mr. gohmert: the military is inconsistent with american values. it does not have freedom of speech and assembly, it does not have the freedom to express its love to those in the military the way you can out here. because it's an impediment to the military mission. you can't do that. you can imagine military members

being able to tell their commander what they think of him using freedom of speech or assembling where they wish? it doesn't work and so this is one of those issues that is so personal to the military. we need to have an accurate poll and to my friend who said history will judge us poorly, i would submit, if you will look thoroughly at history, and i'm not saying it's cause and effect, but when militaries throughout history of the greatest nations in the world have adopted the policy that it's fine for homosexuality to be overt, you can keep it prie private, if you can't, that's fine, too, they're toward the end of their existence as a great nation. let's look at this more carefully before we arm our military -- harm our military. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. >> i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. reyes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. reyes: thank you. i thank the gentlelady for

yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the don't-ask, don't-tell repeal act and i do so as a proud veteran who served in vietnam a long time ago. but i can tell you, gays served proudly in vietnam with us just as gays are serving in today's military. but what we're arguing about here is the inconsistency of forcing people to lie about who they are. i feel strongly that all americans who are fit and willing to serve ought to have a fair and equal chance to volunteer for military service. lifting the ban to allow our troops to serve openly is consistent with the american values of which the previous speaker spoke about, that our military members risk their lives to defend. i can attest to the fact that i

represent a large military facility in my district. so i get an opportunity to ask the troops for their opinion on this particular issue. their opinions track with the study that was done. they don't care what sexual preference their buddy might be, they only care that he or she performs when they're in combat, when they have to have their back and they have to depend on them having their back. it's a simple -- as simple as that. this is an idea whose time has expired like my time is about to expire. i urge members to vote for repeal of this act. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mckeon: might i inquire of the time that's left on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has six minutes remaining. the gentlewoman has 10 3/4

remaining. mr. mckeon: maybe we could yield to the other side to even time out a little. mrs. davis: mr. speaker, before i yield one minute i want to yield to ms. chu for the purpose of an unanimous consent request. ms. chu: i rise in strong support of this bill to repeal the flawed "don't ask, don't tell" policy and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and submit my statement for the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. davis: i yield one minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. sestak. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. sestak: when i was in charge of a battle crew, i knew as an admiral that a certain percentage was gay. i wondered how one could come home and say they don't deserve equal rights. i respect the different

opinion. there was 5,000 sailors on that aircraft carrier i commanded. their average age is 19 1/2 and they just don't care. and i honestly believe that those you are supposed to be leading is actually ahead of the leaders. leaders lose credibility. i joined up during vietnam. we were having race rides on our aircraft carriers then. we worked through that. -- we were having race riots on our aircraft carriers then. we worked through that. i put up one woman with seven men. she was the one that disobeyed my orders and defense without permission and saved four special forces. my point is we don't do this just for equality. may i have 10 extra seconds? we do it because we want the best of all, whether it's race, whether it's gender or sexual

orientation. and that's why i support the repeal of don't-ask, don't-tell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california. mrs. davis: thank you. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. frank. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. frank: mr. speaker, first, let's strip away the smokescreen. the argument that we're holding up the defense bill. it passed this house over the observation of almost every -- objection of almost every republican and it's been filibustered by the senate. so let's talk about the merits. first of all, we're told it will be a distraction to repeal it it. it is a grave distraction to maintain it. people have said, the gentleman from texas, well, we know there are gay and lesbian people now serving. that's right. what they are telling us, mr. speaker, is let's have people serving who are in fear of being thrown out. how much of a distraction is

that? what sense does it make to say, ok, you come here but we are going to watch you and you may get kicked out. and what about the money that's spent? what about the people that is lost, translators and others? the maintenance of this policy is a distraction. the repeal of it would not be. why are we told the repeal would be a problem of don't-ask, don't-tell? people keep quoting colin powell. let me quote him from 20 years ago when i asked him about this. i asked him if the problem is gay and lesbian and bisexual members are not good at their jobs? he said, no, that's not absolutely the case. so let's not have a libel of gay and lesbian and bisexual people that is being rebuffed by the people on the other side. colin powell, nobody is arguing that it's their fault. what we're told is there are other people who are so offended by their very presence because the code of military justice will stay in place. anybody who misbehaves sexually is subject to being kicked out quite similarly. we are told their very presence

will anow people and -- annoy people and will distract them. what does that say about our military? the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, said anybody that's allowed gays in is the end of civilization. they didn't change it, they need every human being they can get who's willing to serve. and the israeli defense forces have suffered no deterioration. what we are told is -- i ask for 15 seconds. 10 seconds. i must say it is not that the young members of the military who face death, who face the destruction of their comrades, they're not the ones who are upset about this. it's our colleagues on the other side who are impugning their own unease about the presence of gay and lesbian people to the young people in the military who i think are better than that. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from indiana, mr.

pence, republican conference chair. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. pence: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. pence: mr. speaker, i appreciate the distinguished ranking member for yielding and the passion that's been expressed on both sides of this issue. but let me state the obvious if i can. we are a nation at war. we have soldiers that are in harm's way at this hour forward deployed at bagram and helmand province, places i visited just a few short weeks ago. and so this business is not taking place in a vacuum. we are a nation at war, and let me say to the distinguished gentleman from massachusetts who just spoke who suggested

that those of us who oppose a repeal of don't-ask, don't-tell would commit some libel against americans with whom we differ on lifestyle choices. nothing can be further from the truth. as a conservative, i have a particular world view about moral issues. they do not bear upon this question. this is an issue exclusively that is about recruitment, readiness, unit cohesion and retention because we are a nation at war. now, i'm not a soldier but i'm the son of a combat soldier. i think we should listen to our soldiers as we continue this debate. and the recent key findings in the pentagon study, overall u.s. military predicted negative or very negative effects, 30%. percentage of the marine corps 43%. 48% within the army. 58% within marine combat units. we know the leadership that's

testified before the congress. air force chief of staff, general normal schwartz, said, i do not think it prudent to seek full implementation. too risky, he said. of course, the most ominous of all was the suggestion by the army chief of staff, general george casey, who said, quote, increase the risk on our soldiers. men and women, no one in this house would desire to increase the risk on our soldiers at a time of war. i know that. and so i rise today simply to say, let's remember the time in which we live. let's remember the first obligation of the national government is to provide for the common defense, and i believe the first obligation in providing for the common defense is to provide the circumstances and the resources for those who wear the uniform and carry the weapon and provide the shield under which we live and our freedom survives. we're a nation at war. reject this measure.

don't-ask, don't-tell was a successful compromise in 1993, and so that compromise should remain. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california. mrs. davis: thank you. mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. walz, who happens to be the highest ranking enlisted service member serving in congress. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. walz: thank you, mr. speaker, and the gentlewoman from california, my friend from pennsylvania. the greatest privilege i had in my life has been serving this country in uniform for 24 years and helping preserve the freedoms and liberties of this country for all americans. i had the honor of training soldiers from all walks of life, and at the end of the day my top priority would be could they meet the standards and do the job. as a career-enlisted soldier i know how important it is to fill our military with qualified, professional and motivated personnel. i have no doubt that the brave men and women who serve our country have the professionalism to end this discriminatory poll sifment i'm offended by the idea and the

notion that they're not able to handle change in policy these men and women make up the greatest fighting force this world has ever seen. they accept and complete missions every day that require incredible discipline and bravery. this discriminatory policy is hurting our military readiness and weakening our nation such as releasing dozens of arabic linguists simply because they were homosexual. serving in the military we believe in duty, honor and country. asking these people to lie goes against all our values. our america heroes know it's time to end this policy. the american people know it's time to end this policy. in a few moments we will take the step to end it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will note that the gentleman from california has three minutes remaining. the gentlewoman from california has 6 1/4 minutes remaining. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from indiana who just recently retired after 30 years' service as a colonel in

the army, mr. buyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman -- mr. mckeon: also serves on the house veterans services committee. mr. buyer: i thank the gentleman. let me thank iraq skelton who led that back in 1993 when i was a freshman right after desert storm, came here to the congress and began to learn about compromise. some things are being thrown around here today that we who serve in the military understand. it is about small unit could he heesive. it's measured by your buddy from your left to your right. that's the reality. this congress is about to dump a policy onto the services which the service chiefs have already told us can have a detrimental impact upon our warriors in harm's way. why are we doing this? you know, this thing about -- this is discrimination, the military -- the supreme court allows congress to discriminate on how our services are put together. if you're too tall, if you're too heavy, if you don't run

fast enough, you can't do the pushups, if you're colorblind. i mean, there is a whole array. why do we do that? because we want the very best, able and fit, to do what? to go fight and defend america. the speaker pro tempore: the time has expired. mr. buyer: i might ask for 15 seconds. mr. mckeon: i yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds. mr. buyer: i end with this, tolerance does not require a moral equivalency. think about it. this is a bad thing to repeal don't-ask, don't-tell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california. mrs. davis: i yield one minute to the gentleman from ohio, mr. boccieri, who was a major in the air force reserves. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. boccieri: president john kennedy said a man may die, nations may rise and fall, but ideas live on. the idea to which many of our troops have fought to preserve and protect for our great nation is the idea of freedom.

the freedom to live in a country where you can be anything you want to be, the freedom to do anything you want to do and the freedom to go anyplace you want to go. today, our troops are over in iraq and afghanistan so that the people of those nations can have even a little of what we take for granted. the mark of a great country is that men and women when called will leave everything behind, sacrifice everything for someone, something, some place they consider greater than themselves. while the cause of such a noble idea of freedom lives on, our troops sacrifice daily on foreign land, we must maintain constant vigilance for those at home. the issue before us today is one in which the very soldiers who fight to spread the idea of freedom to countries who don't know it find an ever fleeting policy that denies them the opportunity to be who they want to be and the freedom to do what they want to do. as one who spent 17 years in the military flying wounded and fallen soldiers out of iraq and afghanistan, the finest men and women have served our nation.

i find it regrettable that for some -- the speaker pro tempore: the time has expired. mr. boccieri: 15 seconds, 15 seconds. it's strubbling that men and women from our -- it's troubling that men and women from our country have to lie. the courts have spoken, the military leadership have spoken, our military have spoken. it's time for congress to speak that when you take an oath to die for our freedom it matters not who you love at home but more importantly that you love our country. the speaker pro tempore: the time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, we'll reserve our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california. mrs. davis: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from california, ms. sanchez. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. sanchez: thank you, mr. speaker. i've had the opportunity to in 14 years on the armed services committee to meet a lot of our

military men and women. i do not believe that they are so fragile that having a gay person serve next to them will kill them. i rise today to express my strong support for the don't-ask, don't-tell repeal act of 2010. the mission of our armed forces is to deter war and to prevent and to protect the security of our country. if a soldier's capable and willing to sacrifice his or her life to honorably serve this country, that soldier is truly defending this country. if a gay soldier is capable and willing to fight for this country, that soldier, too, is protecting the security of this country. if that shoulder is willing to fight for our -- solder is willing to fight for our country but the government denies him or her that right because the soldier is gay, then it is not

the gay soldier who puts our security at risk but this government. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. cohen: how much time do we have? -- mr. mckeon: how much time do we have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 1 3/4 remaining. the gentlewoman from has four minutes remaining. mr. mckeon: we'll reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california. mrs. davis: i yield one minute to ms. shea-porter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. shea-porter: thank you. i've been listening to my colleagues on the other side point out that this is a nation at war. yes, it is. it's been at war for nine long years and i wish this congress would talk about these wars and the cost. but i want to talk today about the cost of the men and women who are kicked out of the military, who have done nothing wrong, have been serving the country all this time, put their careers on the line, put their lives on the line and they're being thrown out for something that they have nothing to do with.

i was a military spouse, i can't ever remember anybody getting upset about whether people were gay or straight. and people knew. of course they knew. but what we judged each other on was a code of behavior, behavior. and when we see men and women who are bavegging and serving our country honorably, it is absolutely disgraceful to throw them out. so if we want to talk about the military and the war, then i think we should be talking about the military and the war and the cost, not the people who are fighting it or the people who have served this country so honorably. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from california. mrs. davis: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from wisconsin, mrs. tammie baldwin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. baldwin: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to urge my colleagues to do the right thing and act to repeal don't-ask, don't-tell. after 17 years of this policy,

we know that it is unjust, discriminatory and in my opinion unamerican. integrity, after all, is a hall mark of military service. yet we have in statute a policy that requires some in our military to conceal, deceive or to lie. mr. speaker, since the house voted in may to repeal don't-ask, don't-tell, the department of defense released its comprehensive review of the impact of repealing this unjust law. the report confirms that our military personnel are ready to serve alongside american soldiers who are openly gay and lesbian. the time has come to repeal don't-ask, don't-tell and move further down the path to lgbt equality for all americans. in this land of the free and home of the brave, it is long past time for congress to end

this policy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i'm happy to yield at this time the gentleman from california, a member of the armed services committee, 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. >> i thank the gentleman from california. we've made this debate about a lot of things, gay rights, civil rights, our courts, the head of the joint chiefs of staff and the secretary of defense among other things. but all of this is truly about is our 18 and 20-year-old young men who are ordered to charge mr. upton:hill through a hail of bullets and close with and destroy -- uphill through a hail of bullets and close with and destroy the enemy. repeal don't-ask, don't-tell is going to cost our military fighting men effectiveness which is going to in turn possibly cost lives. that's why i'd like to reject to the appeal -- repeal of don't-ask, don't-tell and object to -- i yield the balance of my time back. mrs. davis: mr. speaker, i yield

one minute to the gentlelady from california, ms. richardson. ms. richardson: mr. speaker, all men and women are created equal. in america the last time i heard it also included life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. i heard today distraction. is it a distraction for a single woman to serve in the military? is it a distraction for a married man to serve in the military? i say no. we took an oath to uphold the constitution, it's time we start doing it. because all men and all women are created equal. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: how much time do we have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 1 1/4 minutes remaining. the gentlewoman from has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. mckeon: how many speakers do you have left? mrs. davis: i believe three. mr. cohen: -- mr. mckeon: ok. we'll reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from california. mrs. davis: i reserve 30 seconds for the gentleman from washington, mr. inslee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. without objection, so ordered. mr. inslee: our cab driver the other day said he served the last segregated african-american unit during the korean war. and he told me there were five guys in his unit that were gay and he thought those guys were the best because all five of those gays soldiers were on his boxing team of his unit and they beat the stuffing out of anybody they fought. and that's who we need right now in those 50 calibers, the best fighters america can produce. and right now in warfare, we cannot afford the luxury of discrimination, put those americans to work fighting for freedom we need them. -- freedom, we need them. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from california. mrs. davis: i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from texas, mr. green. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. green: mr. speaker, life has

prepared me for this vote. when you've had to sit in the back of the bus, the balcony of the movie and stand in a line for colored only, then you are prepared for this vote. and i assure you that i don't need a survey to tell me what's right when it comes to human rights. we cannot truly have a first-class military with second-class soldiers. and i close with this, i will not ask people who are willing to die for my country to live a lie for my country. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mckeon: how much time? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 1 1/4 minutes and the gentlewoman from california has 30 seconds remaining. mr. mckeon: i -- are you the final speaker? mrs. davis: i'll close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mckeon: thank you, mr. speaker. we've heard today a few times from the other side, let's do

the right thing. i think the right thing will be in the eye of the beholder. i choose to feel that the right thing for me is to protect those in uniform. i prefer to listen to those who are leading those men in combat to what they have to say. the survey, just one of the quotes out of the survey said, in war fighting units, the ones who will be most effective, 67% of marines in combat units predict working alongside a gay man or lesbian will have a negative effect on their unit's effectiveness in completing its mission in a field environment or out at sea. now we may all have different opinions, obviously, from this debate, we do. but these are the ones that are going to be affected -- affected. these are the guys that are on the line right now and they're saying it will have a negative impact. 67%. i don't think it's worth the risk to put them in any further jeopardy than they're in right

now. and so, mr. speaker, i would ask, i would implore our members to reject this don't-ask, don't-tell repeal and let's go back and look at it a little more thoroughly before we move forward. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california. mrs. davis: thank you. mr. speaker, we have the most adaptive, professional force in the world. so let's move forward. no more excuses. it is time to take away the barriers, the barriers of people who have put service above self and want to serve our country. i urge an aye vote as we repeal don't-ask, don't-tell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired.

all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 1764 the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion by the gentlewoman from california, mrs. davis, all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. mrs. davis: mr. speaker, the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device.