i would get the most revenue on the bread and if i were to the raise the tax, i would lose revenue because more and more people wouldn't buy any bread and i would have my tax revenue go down. on the other hand, if i lower the tax too much, then there is an optimum point and laugher is pointing out that the tax is so high, when you drop the tax, the federal government makes more money. this is falking about the top tax rate. we will see it in a larger scale when we look at the bush tax cuts in 2001, particularly the bush tax cut of may of 2003. so how does this -- how did things unfold back in 2003? i have some tcharts i think you

will find -- charts i think you will find very interesting. these charts are laid out essentially the same way. i have three charts in a row and the line that appears right here in all three charts is from may 2003, these are the years across here. 2001, march, there was a bunch of tax cuts. the job creation isn't looking too solid. some of the tax cuts were feel-good kinds of things and give people more money to spend and a few things like that. but there was another tax cut which was part of this whole series in may of 2003 and what we are going to focus on is this tax cut. capital gains, dividends and death tax. those weren't popular because it seemed those are tax cuts for people who have more money and

they are driving a lot of those businesses that have the jobs. let's take a look at what happens, this is may, 2003 and we introduced the tax cut to cut the capital gains to cut the death tax and the interest, the dividend rate. let's take a look. this is pre-tax relief. this is job creation. every line that goes down indicates that we have lost jobs out of the economy. that is what we have been doing, losing jobs out of the economy. this isn't good. we don't want to lose jobs. why do we lose jobs? because we are violating the basic principles of economics. we were losing jobs during these early years. we did some tax cuts, but the tax cuts didn't seem to turn this around, which suggests that not all tax cuts necessarily are going to lose -- not going to create jobs. here we go, may, 2003, and take a look at what happens now to job creation, all the lines

going up are creating jobs. you can see there is a pretty good difference between the tax cut and after the tax cut. so we see the immediate reflection in terms of jobs. now is jobs the only thing created by this tax cut? this is what we have been saying all along for a couple of years. my republican colleagues and i have respectfully stood on the floor and say we love the democrats but doing everything wrong. they are going to create unemployment and distress in the economy and make it hard for businesses and shift jobs overseas. you aren't going to be able to reduce the deficit, increase the deficit but break the back of america economically and we have been saying it over and over again from this floor and the last numbers indicate that's what is happening. but the fact of the matter is,

we can learn from history. this tax cut seems to have done an awful lot to change the job picture. you could make the case and say well, maybe it wasn't the tax cut. maybe something else was going on here that would explain this. the only other thing that is happening in the economy here and that is greenspan has got the interest rate close to zero and that is driving a big real estate bubble and that's what happens when the fed drops the interest rate very low. you have easy money looking for some place to invest and they landed on real estate and created a big problem. the interest rate being low could contribute to this. but it's interesting that you get this very stark and immediate contrast when the tax cut goes into place. this is a piece of history that is going to inform us where we

need to be in the decisions going into the new year. here is the same tax cut here. this is the beginning of 2003, but this is gross domestic product. and of course, that's a measure of the overall productivity or efficiency of the u.s. economy. this is pre-tax relief, average g.d.p. was 1.1%. it wasn't great for g.d.p. but kind of spotty. we are actually going down in gross domestic product and these numbers weren't high. and go to capital gains, dividends and death tax. now this is only carrying the thing over to 2006. these are older charts. but they are interesting charts. you can see the effect afterwards of going from 1.1 po 3.5 depending on which year. it is a marked difference. now the scary question which has

been suggested is, if there is a causal relationship between this tax cut, which allowed business people to make more investment in american businesses, if there is a causal relationship, what happens if you turn the economics upside down and do it in reverse? what happens if that tax cut goes away? what does it mean relative to job creation if all of a sudden this event which created more jobs, what happens if you do it upside down? isn't it logical that if these tax cuts expire that it will have a reverse effect, it will do the very thing opposite of when it went the other way? that's a scary thought because all of a sudden, now we have 9% or 10% unemployment and we do something to make it worse, that's not a very good idea. that's why even moderates and

even the president is starting to say, i'm not so sure we want to burden america with the biggest tax increase in the history of the country right at the time it is not clear we are out of the last recession. some people think we pulled out of the other recession we are in. i'm not so sure. and i measure that based on the same five points we have been talking about, that is the problem with excessive taxes, the problem with excessive red tape, the uncertainty created by all kinds of government actions in the marketplace, the liquidity problem in the banks and of course, excessive federal spending. so here is g.d.p. after the tax rates. g.d.p. has gone up. the job creation looks good. and here's the last chart. also very interesting. this is the one we have talked about a few minutes ago, which

appears to almost invalue date the law of gravity, you cut taxes here. this red line here is federal revenues. and federal revenues are going down. and then we cut taxes and you think, oh, they are going to go down even more. there is going to be a huge deficit, because we cut taxes and there is going to be a deficit. the congressional budget office adds it all up and says if we are making $100 now and cut it in half, we will make $50 and seems like a logical suggestion but it's not. when you cut taxes, businesses start get going and as businesses got going, it raised more taxes. what happens is the federal revenues actually go up as a result of the tax cut and that's one of the reasons there is this fundamental difference between democrats and republicans.

democrats want to say if you want to do a tax cut you have to cut something. it's not good economics. the fact of the matter is if you do tax cuts, you get more federal revenues and does not hurt the deficit, but helps reduce the deficit. that was the effect in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. four straight years of increases in federal revenues as a result of these taxes. now, now here's the scary question again. i'm going to say it over and over, what happens if you turn this upside down? what happens if instead of reducing capital gains, what happens if you increase them in the biggest tax increase in the history of the country? will it not do the exact opposite? when you increase the exact opposite and the federal revenues will drop even more

rapidly and the federal deficit will become unmanageable. there is good evidence and many would say we do not want to allow these things to expire. now, let's just say, let's just say that congress votes in the next couple of days as i think being a member of congress i suspect we might well do this, we will vote and pass this supposed tax cut deal. does that solve the problem of excessive taxes? well, it gets rid of the problem of the biggest tax increase in the history coming, so it's averting damage. but if you look at where we are right now we are still overtaxing and have the unemployment problem. does it fix where we are? no, it doesn't. and does that change the red

tape picture? no, the red tape picture is still bad? does it change the liquidity picture of the banks? no. does it change the high level of federal spending? no, it makes it worse. we are spending money on extending unemployment, which is a legitimate form of federal spending, which does affect the deficit. if it doesn't help the deficit in that way. and certainly, the question of uncertainty is one of those things is the glass half full or half empty. there is going to be an economic disaster on january 1 because we have not dealt with the massive tax increases coming. that, there is some certainty in that and there is a big problem coming. on the other hand, does kicking those tax cuts forward by one year or two years, does that create more certainty? well, the answer is no. it's maybe a little more

certain, but it's still doesn't give you a basis for estate planning or for capital gains, dividends. for the businessman, no. there are low in cycle, typically a five-year cycle. having a capital gains doesn't get wven that five year-year window. you could argue back and forth. so the republicans are caught in a weird situation. we think, well, certainly you shouldn't nail america with a big tax increase in the history of the country. that doesn't make sense. but even if you avert that disaster, does that mean these other elements are taken care of? and the answer is clearly no. you think that the things that is burdening our economy and holding down job creation and making it difficult on families, do you think those conditions

have been mitigated? no. we are still taxing too much, too much red tape, too much uncertainty, too much federal spending and the liquidity problem of the banks is still not taken care of. here wer we have before us, a bill, republicans are kind of scratching their heads on it, because it has some good parts and bad parts and we understand what we have to do. this bill is not really going to solve the problem of unemployment. it's not going to solve the problem of overtaxation but prevents an evil from happening. but it is interesting to note what level of risk there is ahead for america if this issue of these taxes is not dealt with. and we aren't in a position to do that. that's something that has to happen with the senate and has to happen with the president and they are going to have to get serious about reducing spending

and also reducing taxes over the next number of months. i have not the slightest doubt that a republican-run house is going to choose -- they're going to choose jobs and paychecks over bureaucracy and unemployment. bureaucracy and food stamps. that's not our choice. our choice on the american dream is to allow people to take risks, to invest their own money and to get jobs and to receive paychecks. we think that's the best form of security economically is a good pay check, it's the best thing for a healthy nation. so we will be making proposals to cut taxes, to cut red tape, to create certainty and to reduce federal spending, all those things we will be making those proposals. we can

we can pass them out of the house but it has to get through the senate and if it gets through the senate, it has to be signed by the president. in the past when i was here, 2001, 2002, 2003, we passed a number of things through the house that were good policy, they were killed by democrats in the senate because we never had 60 votes in the senate. a couple of those are kind of interesting. one was an energy bill because we said we've got to pay attention to the fact that we are dependent on foreign countries, particularly the middle eastern foreign countries, for our oil supply, we are too dependent on foreign oil. so we put a number of energy bills together, killed in the senate by democrats. we also recognize there was a problem with health care, there were some things out of balance, we said there's some things that have to be done. we have to do some tort reform, we have to do some associated health plans, we've got to make some changes in health care.

all those proposals were killed in the senate by democrats. 20-20 hindsight, just like energy, fixing health care was an important priority. then we also passed a bill particularly to try to rein in the excessive practices of freddie and fannie. president bush, september 11, 2003, in the "new york times," not exactly a conservative oracle, said he wanted authority from the house and from the senate to allow him to regulate fannie and freddie because their financial practices were out of control and were really going to become a liability. we passed legislation to do that. it went to the senate, it was killed by the democrats in the senate. in each of those cases, republican house passed legislation that historically you look back and say, policy wise, you're right are, nobody noticed it, the media didn't cover it, but it occurred, you can check, it's part of the

record. the same thing could happen in this next year but i don't think it will. i don't think it will because i believe that americans have been paying more attention to what's going on in government. i believe americans are food ep. i believe that americans are at a point where they're saying the government is no longer the servant of the people. the government is becoming a master. it's an out of control government and it's time to start putting the genie back in the bottle. they're going to do that one way or the other. the question is whether those of us who have been elected to serve as servants are going to step up to our job, cut the red tape, cut the bureaucracy, cut the federal spending, cut the taxes and make the federal government a servant of the people. in order to do that, we can't just simply say, well, we're going to take 10% off this department, 10% off that department, 10% off another department. we can't say we're going to cut

waste, fraud, and abuse. it's a more complicated process than that. we have to start asking yourselves -- ourselves what are the essential functions the government must do. those we must fund. particularly that includes providing for the national defense. the other things that are not essential that the federal government, we have to say, maybe western herbed -- we should get out of that business, turn it back over to the states and the local cities and the citizens of america and let them deal with those things because the americans are fed up, they're fed up with unemployment. they're saying no more bureaucrats, what we want is jobs and paychecks. i think that's where the public is getting. the question is, what's everybody going to do with this

tax bill. we're not going to solve the real problems we have to do by simply postponing or kicking these things down the line a little bit. we cannot allow that to go forward. you'll see a pattern in the voting. there won't be any argument about what we need to do. there's no argument about the fact that we do not want 10% unemployment. there's no argument that we want the federal government to be a fearful master. we're sick of that. it's time for things to change. that is to some degree what has led me personally and quite a number of other republicans to understanding that as we approach this next year, there's a new area we have to go to. that is, we have to take a good look at this wonderful chamber,

we have to take a good look at the u.s. house and say, have we really run this place the way it should be run or have we allowed a series of fiefdoms to develop that got so unmanageable that fetch you put good people in it you get bad results. i believe the result the excessive growth results that there's a need for a redesign of the house entirely. we need to take a good look at the budget process a lot of confusion over what should or should not be the job of the congress to appropriate money constitutionally. we need to take a good look at, you can see we started that process by the new schedule that's being published already. it says we're going to tell people ahead of time, we're going to be serving in congress on these particular days, there

won't be votes before noontime so committees can do their work without telling witnesses that have flown across the country to testify that they have to wait 45 minutes while we name another post office after somebody. we're going to know for sure there won't be votes after 3:00, so people can schedule their flights home. what we're trying to do is redesign the entire system so we can deal with these kinds of problems. we're not going to do it with a quick shot that says we're going to postpone this for another year or a year and a half. it has to be a tax policy, one that's friendly to american jobs and allows us to be competitive. it gives me no satisfaction to see us create a set of rules which are guaranteed to have the international corporations in america say, hey, you're making the rules so we can't put jobs in this country.

we'll still make a profit. we'll still create jobs. the jobs will be in a foreign country. what good is that to us? maybe make some business people or investors a little more money. but it -- is it isn't where we should be going with federal policy. america can be competitive. let's not create a system where we basically are destroying ourselves. that's what's going on with excessive taxation and with excessive red tape and all. so that's where we are. what we're seeing again is this rush in the last week or two of this year to do things that show a priority that is a bit weird. today, it was on -- i was on the floor a little earlier, i commented on the fact that a long, long time ago there was a chance to see a total solar eclipse. if you've never had a chance to

see something like that, i was out on cape cod, it was an area of the u.s. where there would be a total shadow, and right in the middle of the day, it darkens and light doesn't totally disappear, but it's an eerie, strange feeling. but that doesn't happen often that you can observe an eclipse. what happened today was also a kind of eclipse. what's happening at the end of this year. this is the first time in i believe it's 48 years that the house has not had a defense budget. that is weird. that's an eclipse of reason that we have no defense budget. so today, when the house has no defense budget, instead, what do we vote on? we vote on getting rid of the

don't ask, don't tell, so we're going to deal with gay policies in the military. we don't even have a military budget and we're pushing some social agenda here in the last couple of days for fear that the new people that come in won't really want to do this thing. so at the last minute, we'll hurry up and do something which you've got three generals, the general of the armies of america, the general of the air force of america, the general of the marine corps, all are saying is a bad policy. we've got two wars going on. and what are we doing? are we doing our business? are we passing a testifies budget? no. no, instead, we're tampering around with social policy to try to make some constituency happy. why do we want to burden the military with social policy anyway? why not allow them just to defend us and keep the discussion on social policy as a -- as an american and local kind of question.

let the states deal with it. no, not going to pass a military budget, we're going to do that. it's a question of priorities here. this effect that we're seeing says there's big trouble next year if we don't do something about what happens. if these numbers go in reverse, what you're going to see instead is federal revenue, instead of going up, will go down. what you'll see in reversion is, if you do the reverse of this change here on g.d.p., you'll see g.d.p. going from just -- it isn't too strong now, it's going to get worse, we don't want that to happen. particularly, this is cruel and harsh to americans, you're going to see jobs vaporizing and disappearing. that's not where we need to be going. we're not calling the shots on that.

we are not creating the policies which support a good, stable economy. the policies are available. it's not just republican policies. j.f.k. saw this same kind of turn-around while he was a democrat president. also ronald reagan did the same thing he inherited. people made fun it, called it reaganomics and things like that, they made fun of him for a year or two. the economy steams along for many years and these same

policies work. they worked for george bush when he did it here. the question is are we going to learn from history. or are we going to take a recession and turn it into a great depression. it get into sew teric -- into esoteric rules, and then we have fannie and freddie, which affected people's savings terribly. it was caused by a series of things in the housing industry that were not done properly, it's courtesy of the u.s. congress, it was the fault of the u.s. congress and the senate and we haven't fixed any of those things.

so not only have we not fixed tax increases, not only have we not fixed red tape, not only have we not fixed the problem of liquidity, not only have we maintained an air of uncertainty which is problematic, not only are we excessively spending at the federal level, so all these things lead us to understand that there has to be fundamental change with the way things are done here in washington, d.c. that says we cannot afford the level of spending and excessive taxation that have burdened our economy the way it has. it's a treat to be able to join everybody this evening, it's a treat to be able to talk about these things because it's current and relevant. it's quite possible that tomorrow the vote will come up

on the tax thing. i think what you'll see is a mixed pattern from republicans. there's bad stuff is it's going to enrich the deficit, we're preventing a terrible tax increase and yet overall it's not fixes the problem. the solution is going to come, it's something that's going to happen one piece at a time, we'll send it to the senate and give them an opportunity to -- one of the things we'll do is take the death tax and say, let's make a decision, what are we going to do on this, this thing has been running along since may of 2003. everybody knows you need to make a decision on it. what are we going to do? we're going to make it permanent, in some way we're going to let people plan and know what the federal policy is going to be. after we nail people for taxes all their life, are we going to nail them again when they die? when a son inherits his farm from his dad, and the farm is

worth a number of million dollars and the protection is only $1 million cap, does the son have to sell the farm, liquidate the farm, to pay the taxes that we're going to extract from the person who died? that's a question. died. and it's time for us to make a decision. it's -- is it going to be more bureaucrats. that's the decision before us? we will send those pieces of legislation to the senate. we'll send them. the question is going to be. what's the president going to do. i'm joined by congressman king from iowa, a person who has love for america and good reason to have a love affair with free enterprise. started his own business, sustained his family and held

his head high and proud. he has some tendency sometimes to speak on the floor of congress. many of you know congressman king and call on him and ask if he would like to make on comment or two about this whole situation that's coming up this week and how it relates to the bush tax cuts and whether or not it's going to solve the problems that the country has and what the solutions really would be. and i believe i hear a story that is very common sense and refreshing and hopeful. my good friend, congressman king. mr. king: i thank the gentleman from missouri from bringing his insights when others call it a day, americans are worried and concerned about what happens here in this great deliberative body and the destiny is

established here on the floor of the house of representatives and every word that is spoken by the gentleman is essential and contributes to the direction that america takes and as i listen to the gentleman present this factual presentation and i remember my friend, congressman gutknecht, if you have a chart, you are 40% more probable. but i would aspire as i listen to the gentleman's discussion about the estate tax and what happens it is so important when we think about tax policies and i listen to the class envy and there are many over there that are steeped in class envy and thinks if a person works their entire life and compiles money and worthy to be of the tax man

and the tax man takes a chunk and there is justice at the end of the generation to take the earnings of that generation and spread it out amongst the other people instead of allowing it to go to the next generation and i think about my ancestors that came across the prarie and great grandfather who came here from germany in 1894 and four, five children with him and balance of his nine children born here in the united states and his dream was to be able to homestead, buy and build a farm for each of those nine children and he bought nine quarter sections of land, 160 acres each and that's what it took to support a family and you could raise, 10 kids on 160 acres and had a farming

operation, milk could yous, oats and hey ground and everybody went to work and they built their destiny and the dream was can we hand it over and take this unit and deliver it to the next generation and thinks dream with those nine children and set them up with 160 acres and land they would inherit from him that if they took care of the land and livestock and they could raise their children, the next generation could build upon the equity. mr. akin: i can't help but get excited. before there was tampering government. and the thing i find amazing. let's compare your grandfather to somebody else that i don't know who it was, somebody else, instead of making those

sacrifices, went out and drank and gambled and died penniless, the system of tax that is being proposed by the democrats is going to reward that guy because he won't pay death taxes at all but your grand dad who made hard work to set up his children grandchildren he will get his hide taxed. what kind of tax policy is that. a tax policy should encourage the american dream, not destroy it. mr. king: if he was sitting in germany in 1893 planning his trip here in 1894 thinking he was ta faced with a tax policy that would confiscate his life's earnings and distribute it to the people that weren't engaged, 55% if the ball drops at times

square, taking away half of what he earned in his lifetime, he would not have had that dream. he is unlikely to have bought those nine quarter sections of land because before he could hand it off, the tax man would come in and swallow it half of it. he lost all of that land when the stock market crashed in 1929. he didn't lament that. he engaged in free enterprise capitalism. the timing was wrong and lived the rest of his life a lonely man but he had the dream and had the chance to access the dream and deposit work out for him but his children received the vision of his dream and they went to work and they built and they raised their children with the same dream that brought him here to the united states and so i think today even though it

hasn't worked out for my family and there isn't wealth that counts as taxable in the estate tax configuration, it inspired them nonetheless. they invested capital any way and they went to work. mr. akin: just stopping your story there for a minute. it strikes me that the policies that killed your grandfather's dream in the great depression were the same policies that we have been following for the last two, three years. there isn't anything new about it. excessive federal spending, excessive federal taxation, and henry morgenthau after he he killed that dream he said, it's not working. i just feel like we have got to learn something from history and your grandfather is an inspiration and what he passed

on was the vision of the fact that you can make it in this country. you can go from being poor to well-to-do if you try hard and live that dream because that's what america is supposed to be about. mr. king: the dream was passed on, even though the equity was not. they didn't build the equity. the olings and the appreciation for america embracing my ancestors coming here was passed on to me was to stand up for this united states of america, this free enterprise dream. and today, the families it has worked out for, have spent two or three generations more building a family farm and it's not 160e acres to sustain a family but 1,000 acres to sustain a family and let's just say that that unit that was put

together, two sections of land, 640 sections -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. akin: thank you, mr. chairman and i thank my colleagues for joining us in the discussion about the future -- the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king for half the remaining time until midnight. mr. king: i appreciate you being recognized. it's my privilege and i would pick this narrative where it was left off in the transition component and where it was acres sustained a unit of operation these acres and a home place that was built with grain storage and transfer equipment

and livestock facilities that make it a system. rented land out here. pasture, hay ground that keeps it an effective unit. mr. akin: couple tractors, some equipment. mr. king: five kids. good number, five kids and raised on this farm. two sections of land paid for and the 90-year-old elder of this family has reached the end of his life and watching his life's work the legacy of his predecessors the life's work adding up to this point where if he passes away and the first minute of next year, the tax man hovers over the death bed and reachts in and pulls out aside from the $1 million 55% of the asset value. that means that half of the land that's been accumulated goes to

pay the tax man. the other half of that man, the five children that would inherit the balance of what's left, a 20% equity share in the land that's left. and 45% roughly of what is left. none of those children have enough equity to hold that system, that unit in place. and so, they look at this and they would think, do i want to be in debt trying to retire this debt of borrow the money toe buy the section of land to pay the tax land and buy the 80% that's left that they don't have equity in and then to be able to turn the cash flow to retire it to serve the interest and principle on the two sections of land and the answer think will come with, you can't hold this land. i'm sorry you have to put it before the auction, sell this land off, pay the tax man and distribute the the leftover.

that means a century of work, three generations or more that have compiled these assets is gone away that comes from the class envy and people who think that you shouldn't be able to transfer wealth from generation to generation and because someone else worked that created the capital of this nation thrives on should be punished. the gentleman from missouri knows this and they should know this all across america. mr. akin: what you are talking about and economists would say, if you have a farm of 2,000 acres that would be viable and have to sell off 55% of your land, 55% of your tractors or equipment and divide it across several siblings, it won't work anymore. and what you have done is not only have you taken away

something that was part of the dream that somebody saved all their life to pass on to their kids, they're saying we are going to punish people. that's not the american dream. that's killing the american dream. you raised another thing and i would like to talk about this. i have heard people and talk show hosts talk about this and they aren't approaching this in the right way. it's the upper class, middle class and i'm for the middle class and all this class, class, class stuff. and i feel like saying stuff. i thought america was a classless society and i thought you could come here dirt poor and end up as a millionaire and nobody made a whole lot of stuff about that. they couldn't tag you. that's the way it is in europe. the america i know is classless

and i don't look my down my nose that is working hard and going to be hiring my kid. why do we talk about classes? why don't we talk about jobs and the american dream? mr. king: let's say an entrepreneur has a bright idea and this bright idea from the entrepreneur starts a business and they build their equity base because of the creativity and the energy and energy and productivity and the competition they put into the marketplace and this individual reaches that age of 45 or 50 and can look ahead and say i can check out of this and sell out my business and i can make the rest of this on really, solid investments and not worry the rest of my life and if i continue to work,

continue to produce and expand the capital base of america, everything that i worked for the rest of my life is going to go off to the tax man to be redistributed among people across america and i can't give it to my children. i submit that a rational person would come to the conclusion that it didn't pay to continue to produce once you reached the level that you could take care of yourself for the rest of your life because you couldn't take care of your children. i see my friend, the judge, the gentleman from texas, who concluded that legislating from the bench was the wrong thing, coming here to legislate from congress was the right thing. mr. poe: i appreciate my friend from iowa yielding exactly what you're talking about in my case was a great aunt, predeceased

by her husband, they had 2,500 acres in south texas, built up over 100 years, they'd done exactly what you're talking about. they worked and by the sweat of their brow and all the sweat equity, scraping together money, they kept accumulating land and passed that on. along comes a greedy congress that decides when you're dead, we're going to do what, as our friend said talked about in his court, a case tried in his court, where a guy died in an accident and a thief came in and stole his wallet out of his pocket while he was dead. well, that guy went to prison for a long time because he was caught. the government is doing that. so anyway work my great aunt, her husband predeceased her, when she died she had a will

that set aside one section of land to be sold to pay off the estate tax. unfortunately, this was this was 1986 and that also happened to be a time when fdic and the slic, later the r.t.c., they start aid cumulating and dumping land around that area. mr. gohmert: land had been valued at around $2,000 at the time of her death in 1986 but within a year or so, when the estate was being settled because of land being dumped in the area, it fell to $600 or $700 an acre. the i.r.s. took every acre of the estate because at the time the land fell to $600 or $700, and the i.r.s. did allow a year or two extension, hoping the land value would come back so they'd get to save an acre or two, but out of 2,500 acres,

when the land value went -- it was around a $5 million estate, 2,000 acres, some comparables around that when she died to show it was that value but when it fell to $600 or $700, the i.r.s. said, it's all ours. it will take all, every acre of land to pay your 55% estate tax even after the exemption. they forced the sale of every acre of land and her home where she had designated specific bequests, i want you to have my china, i want you to have my crystal, i want you to have these beautiful pieces of furniture, you to have the table, well, we got oa cry from the -- from her immediate family, please come because think public is coming to this auction the i.r.s. is auctioning every single item from her home. i was one of a number of family members, we had an agreement between ourselveses if the

individuals that she had specifically bequested things to were able to bid, we let them bid on those things. and stayed back. but it was heartbreaking to see item that aunt lily loved after item that she loved being bought by the general public who had come with lots of money to take aunt lily's things all because a greedy congress could have cared less that they took every acre, they took her home place, and her eyre that was supposed to -- that was willed the home, had to buy her home. that's the i.r.s. and of course the i.r.s. is nothing more than the designee of this congress to go steal things from people and we make it all legal by what we pass here. morally, it's not right.

what we do in taking people's property and prying the wallet from the dead carcass of someone because we can. because we have that power. it's not right. and i can tell you in my immediate family, i'll never be affected by the estate tax. not in my immediate family. i won't be. but i know as a moral factor it is wrong. it's just wrong. it's incentive-killing. and speaking of congress and the things we do, we may be voting as early tomorrow as -- on this so-called tax extender bill, leave it to this congress to figure out a way, when people across america have said, hey, people across america didn't get a pay raise, social security they didn't get a pay raise they got no cola. you guys don't get nikola, you don't get a pay raise. this congress, democratic

majority said, you're right, we're not going to get a pay raise. you know what, in this tax extender bill, we're going to cut 2% off the social security tax, we're going to give ourselves well over a $2,000 raise. how ingenious was it for this congress to come up with a way to get a pay raise when we promised people we weren't going to do that this year. i yield back to my friend. mr. king: i look at the proposal coming to the floor tomorrow, i am troubled by it. there are some things, the tax brackets can run for two years, that's good, it's not as good as it needs to be. it mitigates the increase in the death tax but doesn't fix the problem, just makes it less

egregious. those are the good things about it. i'm one who supports the credits for ethanol and biodiesel. it's in the a bumper sticker argument but the federal government has said, we want you to invest your biocapital. now we're looking at that rug being jerked out from under the feet of the people. we need to eliminate and abolish the death tax because it's an immoral tax and into this bargain, what do we get? we get an increase in the death tax from zero on up to a million-dollar exemption with a 35% death tax.

that ax hanging over the head instead is a $1 million exemption and 55%. george steinbrenner's eyres paid zero in death tax and those who pass away this year pay zero, no matter their equity. these are the good things about the proposal. the bad things are this. the unemployment extensions that are there take it out to 99 weeks. we've gotten along for about three generations with about 26 -- -- with unemployment. you look at the time people on unemployment spend to search for a job, it's about 20 minutes a day in the first weeks of their unemployment and as that unemployment winds down into the 26th week it's about 70 minutes a day they spend looking for a job. they're far more likely to find a job the first week after their unemployment runs out than to find a job in the first week that their unemployment

runs out. so there's a huge transfer of wealth that takes place there, paid for out of borrowed money, the interest and principal dumped on our children and that's about 56 1/2 billion dollars. then we have about $40 billion for the transfer payments that come in the form of refundable tax credits. refundable tax credits is money that goes off budget, 1,00% of it is borrowed. i do not have a liability for the child tax credit. add this up. that's about $40 billion in this category, $56.5 billion in that category. $101 billion or $102 billion before you get to the payroll component of this. which troubles me because they lower the payroll tax by 2% on the employee side but not on the employer side.

which distorts the equation of $1 out of the employee, $1 out of the employer. most of us see this as the -- that's all money that's earned by the employee. as an employer, i'll make that case. but when you distort the equation, then you're presuming the employer is making money and the employee is not and the favor goes to the employee side of this. it'll take a while for economics to balance that one out. but in the end, we have a two-year extension of current tax structure for personal income tax. which if you think about it from a business perspective, if you have a business plan and business model and you're going to invest capital in order to try to get a return on that capital, which means make some money and in the process of doing that you create jobs, if you have a business model that has a two-year r.o.i., return on investment if you've got that kind of business model, you've invested that as fast as you can come up with the idea and come up with the capitol to

invest it. most of this on the other side, most capital investments are 10 or 15-year returns on investment. so if you've got a two-year extension and tax increase on the other side of that, it doesn't release the capitol in such a way that it's going to create the jobs. we don't get anywhere near the kick out of this for our economy that some of the economists say we do and the day will come at the end of these two years, we're in the middle of a presidential race, congressional races, house and senate and the debate then engages again, do we do president obama's keynesian economics on steroids, do we continue and add to the $3 trillion in wasteful spending that's come from that and they're going to say, we gave you your tax model for two years and it didn't work, therefore we need to go back to spending money like morgenthau admitted was wrong. i yield to the gentleman from missouri, i see we have three minutes left, i yield and then we'll find a way to get this done.

mr. akin: i think the point you said eloquently, i tried to make earlier tonight. that is, what you're looking at here is not the republican solution. it's not a good economic solution. it's not a good moral solution. it's something that is a christmas-new year's solution on something that people have seen for three or four years coming along. it's plenty of time -- plenty of time if we wanted to deal with it. the other thing is that all the discussion i hear is so amazingly oblique to what we should be thinking. it's all about, does the middle class guy get more, does the poor guy get more? it's not about that. it's about america. it's about the fact that we've got an economic recession going. it's about the fact that we want the american dream to have fresh life breathed into it and economic policies that don't rip people off. it's about the fact that socialism is theft. it's not a legitimate function under the constitution of the government. it's about the fact that we

want the government to be the servant, not the master. it's the time now for us to blow the whistle and say, enough already. it's time to get back to the system that was designed by our forefathers, not this endless class warfare beginnerish which misses the fact that we're u.s.a. americans. i yield back. mr. king: reclaiming my time, we have the 87 freshman republicans and however many democrats, they're the cavalry coming over the hill, i can them to weigh in and they need an opportunity to weigh in on this tax issue. mr. gohmert: one thing about the unemployment insurance, if people haven't found a job already, rather than pay them not to work for other a year, train them to do a different job where there are jobs. one more comment about the tax

policy that took all my great aunt's land, i bought at the auction her music box that was a church that played amazing grace at the end of the auction, most everybody had left and the observation i had is, there is nothing amazing or graceful about that policy. i yield back. mr. king: i thank the gentleman from texas and the speaker for his indulgence and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. does the gentleman have a motion? mr. king: i move that the house adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye.

>> coming up, today's house debate on the military's "don't ask don't tell" policy. then the next chairman of the house armed services committee talks about the committee's agenda next year. later, a house judiciary committee hearing on home foreclosures. in the house, members voted 250- 175 to repeal the "don't ask don't tell" policy that prohibits a gay soldiers from serving in the military openly. here is part of the debate that

led it to devote her. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] 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 dartment of defen. 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 is body was welcome to attend.

though few republicans actuay 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 corre. 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 currt 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 ser 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 an 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 real 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 canno bin this new challenge until we repeal don't ask, don't tell. mr. speaker, change is never easy. but it is rarely as necessry as

it is today. in addition to clear statiics in favor of repeal, the survey responses got to what is at the heart of this issue. fairness. gay and lesbian personnel hav the same value the same values toward their servi 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 search 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 ises 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 theouse leadership behind him bring to the floor to -- in complete disregard for the testimony of the three service chiefs and their warni 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 ilementing repeal now will have a negative impact on combat readiness. is 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 thinit'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 athe small unit level as it will no doubt divert leadership attention from a singular focus on preparing units for combat.

sed 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 onombat. all i'm asking is the opportunity to imement repeal at a time and choosing when my marines are not singularly tightly focused on what they'r 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 believehat 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 speakepro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california. mrs. davis: thank you,r. eaker. 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 ofepresentatives, the gentlelady from california, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker of the house is recognized. the speaker: i thank the gentlelady from califoia, 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 r us to act. i want to thank barney frank, derrick polis, tammy baldwin for their leadership. i particularly want to acknowledge patricmurphy. 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 admal 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 th 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 definitivy 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 m and women in uniform being discharged from the military. thousands more have decided not to re-enlist. fighr 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 contrite 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 s 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 prote us. we honor -- let us honor their sacrife, 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 me. 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 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. thservice 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 followi -- 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 tt are deployed in combat. commandant of the marine corps, geral james amos, had this to say, if the law has changeit 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 fl 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 argu 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. davisi 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 allto 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 stied 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 safe

how does it make us safer to drive out of the military thousands of people who are serving and serving our country well? itoesn'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 th 55% very clearly has no problem with serving with gays and lesbians. it is way past time to repeal this l, 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 mtime. 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 minute mr. akin: thank you, mr. speaker. some years ago, quite a number of years ago, 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 where 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 ye 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 gentman 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 listeto echos of the past and consider some voices that have been violenced. in the past we heardf we should end this policy iwould be 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 aost seven ars 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 theembers 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 th time, i agree with their quarl. this should have been done a long time ago. today is the day to get it done. te 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 authorizatiobill for the first time in almost 50 years and at the last minute atmpt to pass a repeal of don't ask, don't

tell to placate some within the democrat liberal base. the ited 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 inste 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 cmiee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. franks: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i believe allf 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 is 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 u 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 no mr. speaker. i would just urge this body to give tse 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. langin -- mr. langevin: i ask animous 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 tion. 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 dirimination. 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 ea 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 ti 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. e speaker pro tempore: jash. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlemafrom california. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman who had two deployments to iraq, onen afghanistan, in combat situations. very proud of this young man, duncan hunter jr. from san diego, california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from californiis recognized for two mutes. 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 ym. 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 ves. 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 imptant. that is winning the mission in afghistan 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 thr 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 al about the integrity of this institution. i ask for an additional 10

conds. 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 te. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to t 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 broughup 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,t 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 actual at war, just think about the additional head aches ofll 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 supremcourt 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 ould be mentioned and that is that 60% to 67% of army and marine combat mbers 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 t 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 minutesemaining. 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 oth 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 pends upon that. so you rely on those surveys. this survey, 70% came to an unambiguous colusion. quote, the risk of repeal to overall military effectiveness is low. now, i heard members on the her 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 theear with which some of my colleagues -- don't-ask, don't-tell 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 theisle, 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 dicatioand 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 ameran. 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 develed 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 we, 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 defee, 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 befly to the gentleman. >> i thankhe 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, ich 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 that. my fend 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 sa, 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 theenate indicate that there are sufficient numbers in the senate to pass this policy. more than that, mr. saker, 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 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 t 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 firstlass 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 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 xt semester in cairo. i have invaluable experience abroad. i'm an advanced arabic speaker, i'm an a student at a top tional 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 minute mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. spker. 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 wt 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 mitary --

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 litary members being able to tell their commander what they think of him using freedoof 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: thankou. 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 defe. 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 sh 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 timeut 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 toevise and extend my remarks and submit my statement for the record. the speaker pro tempore: witht objection, so ordered. mrs. dis: 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/ 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 throughthat. -- we were having race riots on our aircraft carers 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 sport 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 observatioof almost every -- objection of most every publican 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, ilet'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 comeere 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 oting 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 arnot 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 becausthe code omilitary 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, ey'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 gentlen 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 raing 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 le me say to the distinguished gentleman from massachusetts who just spoke who suggested that those of 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 implemention. 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 lieve 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 succesul compromise in 1993 >> the house later approved the measure. it now goes to the senate. the house will return at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. members are scheduled to take up the tax cut and unemployment benefits bill. we will have live coverage on c- span. after the house vote, democrats

talked about the change in the military don't ask don't tell policy. we will hear first from steny hoyer out -- steny hoyer. this is a half-hour. >> good afternoon. we have just had the opportunity to pass, again, legislation to do what secretary gates and the commander in chief of the armed forces -- mike mullins, has asked us to do, and this pope was 250-175, a very strong statement that it was time to move forward. we have a number of groups here that have worked very hard to see the state realized. the human rights campaign, the center for american progress, service members united, the

iraq-afghanistan veterans of america, a service employees legal defense network, a third way, and others who have been extraordinarily -- have all left out -- have been extraordinary diligent in making the case that it is time to make sure that we judge people on the basis of their character, their commitment, their patriotism, their willingness to serve, and their abilities. this vote overwhelmingly says that is what we want to do. don't ask, don't tell is a policy of officially sanctioned discrimination. sources men and women to lie about who they are and it compromises the core value of integrity every day. we want our men and women in uniform to tell the truth. but ironically, we put many in that position and say to them,

do not tell the truth. it has cost our country the service of some 13,500 k and lesbian troops who wore our uniform with honor. that is the key, individuals who served with honor. the house has now voted to repeal the policy. americans want repealed. the majority of our troops want repealed. the leaders of our armed forces with whom i spoke, one now the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, want it repealed as well. and i talked to secretary gates early this week and he said, yes, we need this legislation so that we can make an orderly, measured, awful transfer to this new policy. admiral mullen argued for the same process for the law was enacted, rather than precipitously through the

courts. as secretary gates put it, given the present circumstances, those that choose not to act legislatively are rolling the dice for this policy not being abruptly overturned by the courts. in fact that courts are addressing dishy shoot and are overturning this policy. it is very likely that it will be overturned by the courts if congress fails to act. again, but the house of representatives did today and what secretary of gates and mike mullen asked us to do, provide for an orderly transition. in may we said to a study. we asked 115,000 men and women in our armed forces, what you think about changing this policy? he will undermine the unit cohesion? will and undermine our national security?

70 bernstein, an overwhelming majority, said no, it will not. this is a responsible repeal plan. for those who put the well being of our troops and our military first, there is no doubt which is the better course. that is why i hope the senate and i urge the senate to join the house and vote for responsible ends to don't ask, don't tell. i want to stress the house is now passed this measure twice. first on the defense bill. we asked for a report, the report came, the end of november, and the report confirmed what many of us thought. the men and women of our armed forces did not believe this was a policy that caused any problems and was a right thing to do. i hope the president obama will continue to lead on this issue and helped push the senate to pass this bill. the senate can and must step up and pass this bill as soon as

possible to send it to the president's desk for his signature. now i am pleased to join with the speaker in congratulating and bringing to this program -- podium the individual who served in combat, who served with men and women in harm's way, and knows firsthand that this is the right policy and has been the leader in the house on this issue, and was the principal sponsor of the bill that passed today. congressman patrick murphy of pennsylvania. patrick. [applause] >> thank you. thank you, leader hoyer and speaker and all of you for being here. today was a great day because today we set enough. enough with the games, in up with playing politics with our national security, and though i

served in baghdad as a captain, my mennonite did not care -- nine men and i did not care if a man was riding home to in girlfriend or a boyfriend. we care whether you could shoot straight. that you do your job so that we all come home alive. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said that repealing this policy comes down to integrity. theirs as individuals, and ours as an institution. it is also about the integrity of this institution. this congress. today's vote is about whether we will continue telling people willing to die for our freedom that they need to lie in order to do so. in a moment, we will hear from an american hero, a former major who was deployed to the

middle east four times where he led hundreds of men into battle and faced daily mortar attacks. despite -- despite his distinguished service, this american hero was discharged from our air force after the military searched his personal remount while he was employed on our behalf -- while he was deployed in our behalf to iraq. he was willing to take a bullet for our country, our families, and yet he was told he could not serve the -- he could not serve. the ball is now in the senate's court and i urge our senators of both parties to pass this bill and finally dismantled don't ask, don't tell once and for all. and with that, i would turn it

over to a true american hero. [applause] >> thank you, congressman murphy, and congratulations on the vote today and particularly for your leadership. it means a great deal. as the congressman just mentioned, i started as an officer in the united states officer for 13 years following in the footsteps of my daughter, a senior officer in the air force. i did four deployments to the middle east. i lead a team of nearly 10 men and women whose mission it was to operate and maintain the command and control system used to control the air space over iraq. all my last up one man, my unit did that. we control the air space over iraq as the marines were invading and liberating the city of fuzhou -- fallujah.

we came under daily sites, one of which cause significant damage to our women as well as striking down one of my own trees. fortunately he survived and was returned to duty. while i was in iraq, i will -- i wrote personal and private e- mails to someone i dated at the time, no different from my straight counterparts, simply to relieve the stress of the combat zone and take -- and stay in touch with loved ones back home. shortly after i left aright, i did not realize that someone had inadvertently stumbled on my private e-mails. they proceeded to raise these, raise them up to the chain of command, and without consulting with the lawyer, they authorized the search. in iraq during the height of the insurgency, they care force took time out from the war to search my personal private e-mail solely to determine if i had violated don't ask, don't tell and to gather whatever evidence they could against me.

about six weeks after i had returned from iraq, my commander called me to his office. he read me the military policy on homosexuality and then he handed me the stack of e-mails. obviously i was dumbfounded and bewildered. the air force asked. in fact, they demanded that i tell them. and i refuse. i never answer the question. i simply tell my commander i would not make a statement until i talk to an attorney. i was fired on the spot, relieved of my duties. i can imagine it had a huge disruptive effect on my squadron. cohesion suffered. my security clearance was later suspended. part of my pay was terminated. i was forced to endure a 16- month rolling investigation before i was finely turned out of the military. all my final day of duty, i was

given a police escort from the base as if i were a common criminal or threaten national security. while i was awaiting final determination, the air force recommended that the promoted to lieutenant colonel. despite that they were actively trying to throw me out, they recognize my performance as well as that of my unit and my squadron and recognize my leadership and my abilities and sought to promote me to the next grade even though they were trying to throw me out. there is nothing that i want more than to resume my career as an officer and a leader in the air force. i want to serve with integrity and honor without sacrificing my personal values, without having to lie every day about who i am, and that story is reflective of the 16,000 estimated gay and lesbian troops now serving, the 14,000 patriotic americans from

that under this law, and those before don't ask, don't tell was enacted as a lot. it is the only law in america that mandates we fire someone solely because of who they are, and that must end. it relegates us as second-class citizens and says that we're unable to served with honor and integrity. i am delighted by the vote today in the house. i urge the senate to follow through so that i can resume my career as an officer and a leader. thank you. [applause] >> what an honor it is to ser of podium with him. thank you, major, for your patriotism, for your courage, and for standing up for our values. thank you, patrick murphy. you have serve the people of our country in the congress and on the battlefield and you bring your experience to bear here, to

pass laws which support our values. thank you for helping us honor those who protect and defend the constitution of the united states. our first responsibility is to protect the american people. power of the office is to protect the constitution. we do so to that -- by passing laws to support the constitution. patrick murphy it did so by putting their lives on the line. imagine doing so and then standing up for values when the military was not standing up for them. we had a 75-vote margin. i thanked the leader hoyer for orchestrating it in this way,

and for congressman murphy for his strong leadership on this issue and i see we have been joined by others. you do not have to be straight to shoot straight, ok? in any event, they're all leaders in terms of what we want to do for the american people. it is a happy day, indeed. to be with my colleagues. 75-vote majority, almost doubling the number of republicans who voted for the bill the last time, reflecting the fact as mr. hoyer said, the american people 8 in 10 support don't ask, don't tell. so i think everyone who made this possible, outside mobilization, mr. hoyer's leadership, and that of others, and it is a very proud day for this congress when we're

fighting discrimination and have the power to do so. thank you for giving us that power. >> thank you, mace -- madam speaker. let me add my voice to this. to these members of congress who are here, to those who have -- the outside forces helping us to get to this point today. i have been officially associated with this issue for about 36 years. 18 years as an administration in state government in south carolina where i supervised various investigations of discrimination. this is one issue that i always had serious emotional problems with, simply because of the few court decisions and others that

separated out sexual preference as being separate and apart from race, sex, and gender, and would not allow us to treat it the same way when we investigated various offenses. so when it became an opportunity for me to be engaged with this legislatively, i saw at as a labor of love and a commitment to to fairness and justice. and i am very proud that we have gotten this issue to this point for the second time, and i hope that the senate will join very soon. and with that, may i yield to my good friend and a warrior,

partner. >> thank you, mr. whip. thank you, patrick murphy, who without his combat experience i do not think we could have, and to our leaders, i cannot over emphasize the extent to which they had been such committed supporters here. they had great pressures from a number of quarters. it took skill and great integrity. let me touch on a couple of events. we had this argument that getting rid of this policy would be a distraction. you heard the major. the distraction is the policy. the distraction is tens and thousands of brave americans who have to live under a cloud that they will be somehow intruded upon and is treated this way, distracted is officers stopping

to do this, distracting is the lack of good people. we have stood a good deal of recruitment and maintenance of good people. the result will be very clear. in 1990 when i first asked about this, there has never been throughout this been any allegation that lesbian, gay, bisexual members of the military are in any way deficient in the performance of their duties. no one has ever alleged that they have not done their job as well as any other group. " we have been told is that there ought other people who do not like us, and therefore we must exclude them. it is a case of an older in generation computing their deeply held prejudices to a younger generation that is free from them. in the military that has allowed openly gay and lesbian people had been totally deteriorated. i think the israeli defense forces along would be enough to repudiate that.

i want to thank the major here and others. it is one thing to volunteer to fight for your country. it is another the volunteer to fight for the right to fight for your country. not many people do that. not many people would go through the indignity and the impudence to they have had. we're talking about and that -- extraordinary group of americans. i am proud to. this to the senate. they're well over 67 -- the notion that we're holding up the bill is tax -- exactly opposite of the truth. twice the senate leadership tried to bring this up and it was filibustered. we have done what the senate asked. we have given it this repeal in an separate bill. that tax issue is getting worse off. the spending issue is getting resolved. there is no further place to

hide. if they are for repeal, we have given them every opportunity to do people must demand that we get an up and down vote for this in the senate. i'm not proud to introduce my great colleague in the fight for eat -- i am now proud to introduce my great colleague in the fight for equal rights. >> it has been a strong day and a bold and strong both in the house just now. at the co-founder and co-chair of the lgbt equality congress and the -- in the congress, we made repeal of don't ask, don't tell one of our house priorities. we removed action -- we were moved to action by stories of our brave men and women who have been discharged for who they are. we have been moved to action because of the discharge after

discharge that have deprived our armed forces of people with needed skills and patriotic americans who want to serve their country. as you have heard from patrick murphy and from the major, integrity is a hallmark of military service. it for 17 years, we have had a statutory policy that leaves some millet -- members of our military to deceive dentists conceal and to fly. i believe that that is simply an american free -- to deceive and to conceal and to lie. i believe that is simply un- american. we call our colleagues in the senate to take action. we will not finally celebrate until this repeal is on the president's desk in its his signature. but i want to add my words of

thanks to the colleagues both them and outside of congress who have worked so hard and shown such leadership to bring this floor -- bring this note to the floor and have the strong results that we celebrate today. and now i would like to recognize my colleague in another chair, jared polis. >> i want to echo with some of my colleagues time. it is about time. it is about time that are gay and lesbian service members will no longer have to live or mislead their colleagues just to continue in their jobs. this is been one of the strongest shows of bipartisan support for any bill in the house during my tenure. i think it will provide strong momentum into the senate for a real chance to finally repealed

this policy. it will allow the military to get on with the business of defending our country. one of the key changes from the last time around is that the military itself has requested this change. the chairman of the joint chiefs, the secretary of defense, rather than the uncertain climate of accords that would rather have the certainty of the planning process that our legislation around -- allows. we pass this what the high hopes that not only will the senate take it up in short order but that president obama will soon be able to sign of repeal of don't ask, don't tell into law. thank you. >> we will take a couple of questions. [inaudible] i do not know any scheduling for vote on this. i had a conversation with mr. reed that we would take this action, so he anticipated this

action. i've also had conversations with a number of members of the united states senate, republican members, and this was said by others, but my belief is that there are the requisite number of votes in the united states to affect cloture and the passage of the legislation. last question. [inaudible] >> could you repeat your question? [inaudible] we were just beginning our caucus. i had to come out to gut the the floor and said we're just beginning the caucus to talk about it. we always have a continuing debate in an hour caucus over the subject of -- and it seemed

unfair to members there where we have opposable forest, 6600 families in america, $25 billion, and hope the rest of the provisions in the bill of tax cuts, both being held hostage to that white male. mail. that black mal [inaudible] >> the priorities our caucus is establishing will be proxy vote and we will make our vote. steny hoyer runs the floor so we will see what the rules committee will said. i would love to see substitutes

to the bill we passed here a year ago for estate tax, for the wealthy rather than have an estate tax that is fair rather than a 6600 families getting $25 billion. think of what you could do with that $25 billion. you could reduce the deficit. but if you took a piece of it, you could address the issues that affect america's families very directly -- their health, cancer, alzheimer's, diabetes, heart disease -- you name it. there is a crying need for more funding for research and a small piece of it could raise salaries of our teachers across the country, it could create jobs. instead, we're giving taxes to 6600 families that do not create jobs, increase the deficit, and is unfair to the middle class. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> on tomorrow's "washington journal," jim jordan of ohio and anthony wiener of new york. also looking at the earmarks in the trillion dollar omnibus earmarks bill. "washington journal" is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> this sunday on c-span, in her first televised interview, the new supreme court justice elena kagan on the confirmation process, if her adjustment to the court, and her relationship with john roberts. an unprecedented, on the record conversation on c-span.

>> i am the education program specialist here at c-span classroom. we conduct of video documentary contest called studentcam. we asked people to think critically about the issues facing our nation. we chose this topic because we would like to explain how the federal government has affected an issue or an event in your life or committed. select a topic that interests you. once you get your top becoming you can begin your research. fully developed in researcher topic. provide different points of view, and include c-span footage to support your theme in the five-eight minute documentary. for more permission, you can visit our web site, studentcam.org, or e-mail us. go get started. we cannot wait to see when you can do.

>> you're watching c-span. bringing you politics and public affairs. every morning it is open " washington journal," our live program about the news of the day, connecting you with journalists. watch the u.s. house in our continuing coverage in the transition to the new congress. every night, congressional hearings and policy forums. supreme court oral arguments. on the weekend, you can see interview programs. on saturday, "the communicators," and others. you can also watch our programming any time at c-span dog or cat and it is all searchable in our c-span video library. washington your way. the public service created by america's cable companies. >> congressman but mckeon has been named the chairman of the house armed services committee. he talked to reporters about the committee's head into next year. this is 40 minutes.

>> are you having a good time? are you ready for christmas? i was just talking to some of the staff and they are saying, i was in the retail business before i came to congress. this was always a hectic period for me. we worked until christmas eve, and long nights, long days in the retail business. you say goodbye to your family at that is giving and you see them again on christmas. so this is not new, except that i did not know we were going to be off on christmas, and i do not know when or where. thesegoing to try to do often, once every year or so. [laughter] if you can put up with more, we will do them more often. but i do not have any agenda.

other than answering your questions. does anyone have a question? >> you say you will fully fund missile defense. what you mean by that or german deal with this restore the $1.2 billion that the administration took out? >> the way our committee functions mostly, under the new congress we will try to put more of authority back into the committees. we will have a schedule that allows committees to function more than in this last year or two, where we're in a hearing with the secretary of defense and we have to leave to vote to name a post office. we will have a lot of change in that regard. so the subcommittees will also

be more in front, so to speak. we will be operating -- the speaker's office is not going to be telling us what to do. we're told that we should be prepared to bring bills to the floor under open rules. it will be a different process that we have seen in the last few years. " we are going to do specifically on that, i think that we do -- i will wait and see when we go through the hearings and see what comes out of the subcommittee. on that, mr. turner is very capable. but sometimes after -- when the horses out, it is too late to close the barn. i don't know about change changes that they made two years ago.

i am concerned about cutting our missile defense and how we get back to what we really -- where we really need to be. there is that for me? i would like to make sure that our european allies are comfortable that we're providing them the defense the was originally there. in that cut, the plan was that we would replace the missiles that were going to be used with the missile that we do not have on the drawing board. i think that is probably not a good way to proceed. the same way with in california we have the silos that we're not going to put the missiles in. we need to go back and looked at each of those. what i like to do is make sure that the missile defense that was contemplated, that would give us the protection that we

need, is there. now whether we go back and replace it the way it was, that is what we're going have to look at. >> you're talking about a process for next year. can you discuss the turmoil that we have at the end of this year? >> this is one of the messiest years ever in terms of defense legislation. does this sit -- would you think about the situation now and you think it will cause you any harm next year? >> no, and i have expressed -- i was talking to chairman skelton yesterday. he really wants this bill to go through even though it is a shell of what we worked on. we did regular process and the house. we got a bill passed. weights --ate's senate waits until the last

minute. so we have not been participating in this -- i do not want to call it a sham or asia raid. i'm still -- i am sure that you use those words now. i am sure that senator levin is working very hard. i know that our staffs are working very hard, senator mccain, chairman skelton, but you all understand how regular processes. we pass a bill, they pass a bill, we have a conference and we negotiate between each other to come out with a finished, final product. this year, we passed a bill, they did not pass the bill. they put together a conference and so the house side was negotiated, taking out in our bill something that they never brought through the process. instead of going through the regular process, the leader over there, harry reid said we would

bring their bill to the floor but it has to have don't ask, don't tell in it, so they could not get it to the floor. they're more concerned about don't ask, don't tell, i believe, then the military and about carrying out our responsibilities for those fleeing their lives on the line every day to protect us. i think that is a bad system. we're going back to regular order. we will do what we did on our side last year, and i am hopeful that the senate will go through the regular process. i have tried to show them the we are not going to participate in some kind of process that brings us up to the last second of the last minute of the last hour of the last day with a gun to our head, to take whatever they decide to do. >> there is a standalone vote to repeal done as, don't tell.

if it goes through congress at the end of this year, will congressional republicans were to roll that back? >> we have not talked about that. again, the comments that were made about this have been the messiest -- was that the word? >> not quite a sham. >> but the process of jamming something through -- i was up in the rules committee. they're going to take a small business bill, stripped out, don't -- put don't ask, don't tell on a. bring it to the floor today under a closed rule -- they have not announced but i would bet it would be a closed rule -- and that is why it is on this. anything to forgo the process of real democracy. that has bothered me so much on

this whole process. i have not even taken a position on the don't ask, don't tell. i have just been trying to get the process to what it is really supposed to be. there was a speech by the president in january in the state of the union. if you wanted done less, don't tell repeal this year. -- don't ask, don't tell repeal this year. they all put together a plan that would until reaching out to the military and to their families to find out how this would affect readiness, morale, reenlistment, enlistment -- all the things -- what effect it would have on the guys fighting in the mountains of kandahar right now or eastern afghanistan or on the border of pakistan, how would it affect them.

as the year moved along, it looked more like republicans were going to do well in the election, and so when they wanted to short circuit that process, we were supposed to get a report in december. when we brought the bill to the floor, they brought an amendment to repeal don't ask, don't tell. that passed. again, nothing happened in the senate. so we have a one-legged stool. then the report came out. we were not given a chance to hold a hearing on our side. we have not had up full committee -- we had to subcommittee hearing, not one full committee hearing on the process. we have up unable to have a hearing on goeas, don't tell at the full committee level. what we did get was a briefing.

we went in and sat down. they gave us two copies of the report. we did not have a chance to go through it. it was all staged. this is been a one-way train -- a runaway train with one inning without any input or real discussion or collaboration, and at the end of the day, the senate got a hearing. and so they have the four cheese, the secretary and the chairman and then the next day they had the four chiefs. the chief of the navy said, i think we can go ahead with this. you all have general casey's statement -- not now, not down rennet not during the war. he said this would be a major cultural and policy change in the middle of a war. it would be implemented by

leaders already stretched by the cumulative a fact of almost a decade of war. and a force in which this is central number of soldiers perceive the repeal would have a negative impact on cohesion and morale and that implementation would be difficult. general amos said probably even more strongly, and yesterday he made a comment to the press that said, "a change in current policy could pose a deadly destruction on the afghanistan battlefield. i do not want to lose any marines to the distraction. i do not want to have merit -- marines leaving bethesda with any distraction." it seems to me that they are the ones, at least here in town, close as to what is going on in afghanistan and iraq or wherever we are engaged in war. at t