mckeon: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment, claiming the time in opposition although i'm not opposed. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, at this time yield three minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. shuster. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for three minutes. mr. shuster: i thank the gentleman -- the chair: the gentleman will suspend for just a moment. plase remove conversations from the floor. the gentleman fr pennsylvania. mr. shuster: i thank the chairman. i thank the gentleman from lifornia for yielding. i rise in support of the en bloc amenent, but i rise in opposition of the murphy amendment which will repeal don't ask, don't tell which is the current law of the u.s. military. our nation is at war and after making continuous sacrifice fighting two wars over the course of eight years, the men d women of our military deserve to be heard. this december the pentagon's don't ask, don't tell working group will retu

mckeon: i reserve. the chair: the chair wou like to remind members on both sides of the aisle, you probably don't realize it, but your small conversations are accumulating into a loud roar in the chamber. everybody deserves to be heard. th gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. skelton: madam chairwoman, i yield one minute to my colleague, the gentleman from illinois. the chair: the ntleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. >> mr. chaman, i rise in support of an amendment to optimize the technological posture of our armed forces, but i am also the son of a civil rights lawyer who wrote a lot of the enforcement language behind the civil rights act of 196and i'm proud to serve with our majority leader and the representative from pennsylvania. i rise in support of an amendment which would direct the secretary of defense to commission an independent study assessing the optimal balance of manned versus unmanned aircraft and whether our military can defend against a force of unmanned vehicles. w

mckeon: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from missouri, mr. akin, the ranking member of the sea power subcommittee. the chr: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. akin: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of h.r. 5136, that's the national defense authorization act which we have before us at this time, and it was approved unanimously by republicans and democrats on the house armed services committee. and we believe in overall and proper balance has been struck on this bill. i was personally concerned about some problems with our missile defense system. but i made several amendments looking to get a little more information from the administration on these programs. those were adopted. in addition, we were concerned about the department's assessment, even in the most rosie scenario that we are short on strike fighters and i was pleased that we were able to add some additional f-18's to the budget to at least, in a small way, mitigate that particular problem. i wou

mckeon: parliamentary inquiry. the chair: the gentleman from california will state his parliamentary inquiry. mr. mckeon: is it proper for the gentleman who this amendment belongs to to object to debate on his own amendment? the chair: any member may object. >> even to their own, which they should want to object? the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: madam chairwoman, may i yield five seconds to the sponsor of the amdment to say why you don't want it discussed fully? the chair: the gentleman may yield. mr. mckeon: the gentleman doesn't wish to respond. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: next monday is memorial day. americans will pause in many ways and in many places to honor and celebrate the courage, sacrifices, and patriotism of those who have served and are serving this nation in the armed forces. the hill newspaper carried a special ins

mckeon: parliamentary inquiry. the chair: the gentleman from california will state his parliamentary inquiry. mr. mckeon: is it proper for the gentleman who this amendment belongs to object to debate on his own amendment? the chair: any member may object. >> even to their own, which they should want to object? the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: madam chairwoman, may i yield five seconds to the sponsor of the amendment to say why you don't want it discussed fully? the chair: the gentleman may yield. mr. mckeon: the gentleman doesn't wish to respond. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: i yield myself as much time as i mayonsume. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: next monday is memorial day. americans will pause in many ways and in many places to nor and celebrate the courage, sacrifices, and patriotism of those who have served and are serving this nation in the armed forces. the hill newspaper carried a special insert e

mckeon and mr. wilson. as a veteran i, too, would like to honor those who gave the ultimate sacrifice on memorial day. i rise in support of house resolution 1353, a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of student financial aid awareness month, to raise awareness of student financial aid. in many low-income households, many students rely on numerous federal financial aid programs to accomplish that goal. for example, the pell grant originally created in 1972 and known then as the basic opportunity grant program is used as the cornerstone for a low-income student financial aid package. through this grant and the other financial aid pgrams like federal work study, the supplemental educational opportunity grant, the perkins loan program and the stafford loan program, millions of students have been able to pursue their dream of a postsecondary education. while it is important to recognize the role that the role that federal financial aid plays in access, it is important to discuss the partnership that must

mckeon. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in my opening comments i stated that at merrill mike mullen told this committee in afghanistan we do what we can and iraq and we do what we must 18 months ago. and actually this statement was made december of 2007 swy wanted to correct that for the record. as i stated earlier, i'm concerned that the 40,000 troup cap for afghanistan forcing difficult decisions to be made when it comes to finding certain key enablers including force protection measures for via forward operating basis do we have a troup cap in afghanistan? >> we do not have a truck cab. 30,000 is the number of forces the president has approved. it isn't a cap, per say petraeus bac that is based on the assessment on the ground and the assistant subject to review both by general mcchrystal and back here in washington. and the 30k that people refer to is just one component, sir, because we have an additional nine to 10,000 of nato forces and then we have what is now in route to 134 afghan national army and up to 170 some af

we're disrespecting them. >> woodruff: other house republicans joined mckeon in objecting to a vote on repeal, at least for now. >> the american people don't want the american military used as a vehicle to advance a liberal social agenda. give the men and women in uniform a say before bringing this change to the floor of this house. >> reporter: democrats countered the bill would not come into force until after the review was completed. >> it will meet, absolutely, the requirement that the secretary of defense and others have put out, to get input from the armed forces. and it will not-- let me repeat, will not be changed until the secretary of defense and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff certify that change. >> woodruff: supporters and opponents also argued over the wisdom of letting gays serve openly in the military. indiana republican steve buyer said no one is guaranteed the right to join the armed forces. >> it lies within the discretion of congress to establish qualifications for conditions for services in the armed forces. you can't be too tall, you can't be too short, you'

mckeon, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: mr. speaker, today we as a congress perform a duty in compliance with the constitution of the united states. article 1, section 8 states the congress shall have the power to provide fothe common defense and general welfare of the united states. it also provides for -- to provide and maintain a navy and make all rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. so today i rise in support of h.r. 5136, the national defense authorization acfor fiscal year 2011. i'm pleased to be joined here today by my friend, my colleague, the ranking member, buck mckeon. buck's been a true partner in this effort to bring forward a bipartisan bill that addresses the national security needs of our country. the committee passe the defense authorization bill by a vote of 59-0. our nation's been at war for nearly a decade. our troops are worn and their families are tired and the nation recognizes their sacrifices. the bill addresses many of the concerns that they have raised. i'

mckeon. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in my opening comments i stated that at merrill mike mullen told this committee in afghanistan we do what we can and iraq and we do what we must 18 months ago. and actually this statement was made december of 2007 swy wanted to correct that for the record. as i stated earlier, i'm concerned that the 40,000 troup cap for afghanistan forcing difficult decisions to be made when it comes to finding certain key enablers including force protection measures for via forward operating basis do we have a troup cap in afghanistan? >> we do not have a truck cab. 30,000 is the number of forces the president has approved. it isn't a cap, per say petraeus bac that is based on the assessment on the ground and the assistant subject to review both by general mcchrystal and back here in washington. and the 30k that people refer to is just one component, sir, because we have an additional nine to 10,000 of nato forces and then we have what is now in route to 134 afghan national army and up to 170 some af

mckeon. >> thank you, mr. chairman.early on in my statement and then in my questions i asked about the 30,000 cap and you both assured me there is no cap, the reason i talked about it and asked questions about it is that is the way that it's been reported in the press and the other way secretary gates talked about that the way the president did approve 30,000 the secretary had flexibility of about 10% that he could work with on that. i would like to go back over a little history as i remember eight in the last couple of years. the president became president in january of 2009. he approved i believe in march an additional 20,000 troops and came out with his strategy and replaced the commanding putting general mcchrystal and gave him time to come up with a implementation of the strategy. he presented in august and went up to the chain of command. we were first saw about it in the "washington post" and we have been given that. we've never seen the numbers attached that he cannot with leader. there's been lots of talks you

mckeon. >> thank you mr. chairman. in my opening comments, i stated that admiral mullen told this committee in afghanistan, we do what we can in iraq, we do what we must 18 months ago. actually that statement was made december of 2007 so i wanted to correct that for the record. as i stated earlier, i am concerned that the 30,000 troop cap for afghanistan, forcing difficult decisions to be made when it comes to finding certain key enablers including force protection measures for our forward operating bases. do we have a troop cap in afghanistan? steve sir, i would tell you we do not have a troop cap. 30,000 is the number of forces of our-- it is not a cat per se. >> that is based on the assessment on the ground both by general mcchrystal and back here in washington and the 30 k. that people commonly referred to as just one component sir because we have an additional 92,000-- 10,000 nato forces and then we have what is now 134 afghan national army and up to 170,000 some ---- national police say you have to look at the co

mckeon. >> thank you, mr. chairman. early on in my statement and then in my questions i asked about the 30,000 cap and you both assured me there is no cap, the reason i talked about it and asked questions about it is that is the way that it's been reported in the press and the other way secretary gates talked about that the way the president did approve 30,000 the secretary had flexibility of about 10% that he could work with on that. i would like to go back over a little history as i remember eight in the last couple of years. the president became president in january of 2009. he approved i believe in march an additional 20,000 troops and came out with his strategy and replaced the commanding putting general mcchrystal and gave him time to come up with a implementation of the strategy. he presented in august and went up to the chain of command. we were first saw about it in the "washington post" and we have been given that. we've never seen the numbers attached that he cannot with leader. there's been lots of talks you

i want to thank buck mckeon for being a supporter of this for over eight years.it's time that the senate, i hope, will look at the fairness of this issue that will be sent to the senate, united states senate, and that's all it is, recognition and fairness to the united states marine corps who are loved and endeared by the american people. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new mexico. mr. heinrich: i have no further requests for time and i yield back the balance of my time as well. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. all time having been yielded back, the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 24. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico seek recognition? mr.