[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 166 (Wednesday, December 15, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H8383-H8388]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2965, DON'T 
                   ASK, DON'T TELL REPEAL ACT OF 2010

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a 
privileged report (Rept. No. 111-681) on the resolution (H. Res. 1764) 
providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 
2965) to amend the Small Business Act with respect to the Small 
Business Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology 
Transfer Program, and for other purposes, which was referred to the 
House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 1764 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1764

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
     2965) to amend the Small Business Act with respect to the 
     Small Business Innovation Research Program and the Small 
     Business Technology Transfer Program, and for other purposes, 
     with the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the 
     House, without intervention of any point of order except 
     those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI, a motion offered 
     by the Majority Leader or his designee that the House concur 
     in the Senate amendment with the amendment printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. The Senate amendment and the motion shall be 
     considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader 
     and Minority Leader or their respective designees. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     motion to final adoption without intervening motion.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Richardson). The gentlewoman from Maine 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule 
is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Maine?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1764 provides for the consideration 
of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2965. The rule makes in order a motion 
offered by the majority leader or his designee that the House concur in 
the Senate amendment to H.R. 2965 with the amendment printed in the 
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying the resolution.
  The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion, equally divided and 
controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader or their 
designees. The rule waives all points of order against any 
consideration of the motion except those arising under clause 10 of 
rule XXI. The rule provides that the Senate amendment and the motion 
shall be considered as read.
  Madam Speaker, the time has come to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. We 
have all heard the arguments, the studies have been done, the hearings 
have been held. The men and women of the armed services have spoken and 
their leaders have weighed in. There are no more excuses not to repeal 
this misguided and harmful policy. There is no more reason to delay 
this any longer.
  Madam Speaker, for gay military personnel, how much longer do we ask 
them to serve in silence? How many more hearings and how much more 
testimony are we going to ask for before we finally hear what the men 
and women of the armed services have just said: Just because someone is 
gay doesn't make them any less of a soldier, an airman, or a marine. 
How many more times can we just turn our

[[Page H8384]]

heads and pretend we don't see the damage this policy has done to our 
military's readiness? And how many more competent, talented, and 
patriotic men and women will be kicked out of the service before this 
misguided and harmful policy is forever banned?
  The results of the comprehensive study of the attitudes of military 
personnel are clear and unequivocal. It is right here.
  When they were asked about the actual experience of serving in a unit 
with a coworker who they believed was gay or lesbian, 92 percent of the 
military personnel stated that the unit's ability to work together was 
``very good,'' ``good,'' or ``neither good nor poor.''
  When they were asked about having a servicemember in their immediate 
unit who said he or she was gay and how that would affect the unit's 
ability to work together to get the job done, 70 percent of 
servicemembers predicted it would have a positive, mixed, or absolutely 
no effect.
  And it is not just the men and women who make up our Armed Forces who 
are urging Congress to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell; our Nation's 
military leaders also believe it needs to come to an end.
  Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, 
``I would not recommend repeal of this law if I did not believe in my 
soul that it was the right thing to do for our military, for our 
Nation, and for our collective honor.''
  General George Casey, the Chief of Staff of the Army, agreed. He said 
repeal would not keep us from ``accomplishing our worldwide missions, 
including combat operations.''
  And Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations, said it simply: 
Repeal ``will not fundamentally change who we are and what we do.''
  Madam Speaker, it wasn't that long ago that women were not allowed to 
serve in combat. When we debated ending that ban, the critics predicted 
that if women were allowed in combat, that discipline would dissolve 
and unit cohesion would crumble.

                              {time}  1350

  The arguments against allowing women to serve in combat were exactly 
the same thing they are saying today about allowing openly gay men and 
women to serve. But after two wars where women have served ably and 
bravely alongside their male counterparts, none of the grim predictions 
came true. Discipline has not suffered and our military remains the 
most powerful and effective in the world.
  But those two wars have taken their toll on recruitment and 
retention. Our military is stretched thin, and the last thing we should 
be doing is kicking out skilled men and women who volunteered to fight 
for our country. The last thing we should be doing is telling troops 
that we have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to train that we 
don't need your services anymore. And the last thing we should be doing 
is saying that no matter how brave you are, no matter how dedicated you 
are, no matter how patriotic you are, if you are gay, we don't want you 
to wear the uniform of the United States.
  Don't Ask, Don't Tell threatens our national security. It wastes 
precious resources, and it goes against the values that our military 
embodies: integrity, honesty, and loyalty.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank my good 
friend, Ms. Pingree from Maine, for the time and I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, we find ourselves back on the House floor with yet 
another closed rule. In fact, we haven't seen a single open rule during 
this entire 111th Congress. I never thought that I would see that, 
Madam Speaker, an entire Congress pass without a single open rule.
  Just 3 hours ago, the Rules Committee was meeting on the underlying 
legislation before us today. This is the fifth rule since the election 
that will deny the minority the basic right even to a motion to 
recommit; in other words, one alternative piece of legislation which, 
when we were in the majority, we wrote into the rules that the minority 
would have that right. And since the election last month, this majority 
has brought five, with this piece of legislation, five bills to the 
floor with a rule denying even that right to the minority--a motion to 
recommit.
  The underlying legislation repealing the so-called Don't Ask, Don't 
Tell policy is important and should be considered carefully and 
thoroughly by all Members of this House. As a matter of fact, Madam 
Speaker, when I spoke on this issue on this House floor in May of this 
year, I said and I reiterate what I said at that time: Sexual 
preference should not even be a point of reference when judging 
individuals.
  This is an important issue. Unfortunately, the congressional majority 
has not even held a hearing in the Armed Services Committee since the 
Pentagon released their findings of this recent survey. Members of the 
House on both sides of the aisle support our men and women in uniform. 
Ensuring the best equipment, improving quality of life for soldiers and 
their families, and doing everything we can to increase pay are issues 
of the utmost importance.
  For 48 consecutive years, Congress has provided the necessary 
oversight by passing the Defense authorization bill always in a 
bipartisan manner. This record of effective congressional review is in 
jeopardy as we proceed along with what could be the final week of this 
Congress. I think the majority continues to give insufficient 
seriousness to even important issues such as this by closing the 
process.
  The repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not a policy decision to be 
taken lightly. The Defense Department, at the urging of Congress, spent 
10 months collecting and analyzing survey responses from the men and 
women in our Armed Forces. I believe that analysis, nearly 15,000 pages 
in length, including the direct comments of our troops, should be the 
most important factor in considering this legislation, in considering 
how we vote on this legislation.
  The Department of Defense released the results of their survey on 
November 30, just over 2 weeks ago. Now the majority is asking Congress 
to move forward in a manner that denies the committees of jurisdiction 
any review, that denies input from the membership of this House, that 
takes the product of the Speaker and the author of the legislation and 
forces the House to vote on it without any ability to offer 
alternatives, not even a motion to recommit.
  I think we do a disservice to this body when we do not debate and 
deliberate with transparency. That lack of transparency has been 
standard procedure for the past 4 years. Obviously, we should not 
expect this congressional majority to change in its final weeks, but 
that will change in the next Congress.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Maine, and I 
rise today in support of the repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell 
policy. This resolution would ensure that the military has the ability 
to implement the recommendation from its recently completed study.
  Don't Ask, Don't Tell is the only law in the country that requires 
people to be dishonest or be fired if they choose to be honest. It is a 
law that not only is hurtful to the men and women who put themselves at 
risk serving in our Armed Forces, but it is a law that is hurtful to 
our national security.
  A recent study found that 8 out of 10 Americans support repealing the 
law. Regardless of their political party, people recognize that on the 
battlefield, it doesn't matter if a soldier is gay or straight. What 
matters is they get the job done and protect our country.
  Now, it is important to remember that we already debated and voted on 
this issue early this summer. We passed an amendment with the same 
repeal language for the defense authorization bill. At that time, there 
were some Members on both sides of the aisle who weren't yet ready to 
support this repeal. They wanted to see an extensive report by the 
military that was scheduled to come out December 1. It came out one day 
earlier.
  I personally didn't feel we needed to see that report. I was already 
convinced this would not be a threat to military readiness and would, 
in fact, enhance military readiness due in part

[[Page H8385]]

to the fact that we have discharged over 13,000 people from our 
military--after taxpayer money went for their training--for reasons 
totally unrelated to their performance, not to mention countless others 
who didn't reenlist or left the military because of this policy.
  But I do understand that many Members of this body from both sides of 
the aisle, including the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction, 
wanted to see that report in December. Well, the report has come out, 
and it is very clear with regard to the fact that--no surprise to me, 
but hopefully of consolation to those who were concerned--this change 
in policy does not represent a threat to the security of this country. 
And, in fact, there were several practical suggestions about how to 
implement this change.
  In addition, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of 
Defense have been very clear that they want to see this policy 
legislatively repealed. Why? Because repeal of this policy is 
inevitable. It is a question of when, not if. There are already several 
court orders in various stages of appeal, and the military feels that 
to plan for it with us in this legislative process is better for 
military readiness than running the greater risk of having an instant 
court order, an on-or-off-again court order, which is also a 
possibility, which would prevent the regular military planning process 
from going forward. The sooner we act, the better. Despite our 
differences, it is clear that leaving it up to the courts is the wrong 
way to go about it.
  In 1993, the passage of Don't Ask, Don't Tell was the result of a 
political process, not a military one. Today, we can rectify that, 
remove the statutory requirement and allow the military to do the right 
thing to improve military readiness and enhance the protection of our 
country.

                              {time}  1400

  Let us be on the right side of history and finally move forward with 
repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell today.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes 
to my friend from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I rise in strong opposition to the rule providing for the 
repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. While the majority in the Senate has 
been unsuccessful in repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell through the 
National Defense Authorization Act, my colleagues on the Democratic 
side of the aisle seem adamant to move forward on this issue by 
bringing it to the floor again today yet as a standalone bill. What we 
should be doing, Madam Speaker, is prioritizing the need of our troops 
over the majority's social agenda and considering the National Defense 
Authorization Act free of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell language.
  I know that advocates for this repeal will point to the survey of 
U.S. Armed Forces personnel regarding the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't 
Tell, that 9-month survey that my friend from Florida just mentioned. 
But let me point to a specific statistic from that survey as well. 
Question No. 71, posed to active servicemembers with combat deployment 
experience since September 11, 2001, asks how unit effectiveness would 
be different if Don't Ask, Don't Tell was repealed. An overwhelming 
number of those surveyed for this question answered that unit 
effectiveness for those stationed in a field environment or out at sea 
would be ``negatively'' or ``very negatively'' harmed by repeal.
  Madam Speaker, this survey, which does not present any benefits of 
appeal and it solely focuses on the mitigation of consequences, has not 
presented a clear path forward to the question of repealing this ban. 
The Marine Corps Commandant, General James Amos, stated that repealing 
the 17-year-old ban could endanger troops and cost lives. Air Force 
Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz echoed concerns about 
overturning the ban in the midst of the global war on terror.
  Here is a quote from General George Casey, the Army's Chief of Staff: 
I believe that the implementation of repeal in the near term will, 
number one, add another level of stress to an already stretched force; 
number two, be more difficult in our combat arms units; and three, be 
more difficult for the Army than the report suggests.
  Because military leaders must fulfill their constitutional mission of 
defending America, their views on how to achieve optimal readiness 
should be respected.
  Madam Speaker, none--not one--of our service branch chiefs have 
outright endorsed repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Similar 
apprehensions have been noted by the American Legion; over 1,500 
retired flag and general officers, and countless others. Clearly, the 
Democrats believe they know better.
  Madam Speaker, I do not believe that now, in the midst of the war on 
terror, is the time to rewrite tested military policies. Indeed, the 
Armed Forces is a special institution that must be free to hold itself 
to stricter rules than those observed by the rest of our society. And 
for these reasons, Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues, oppose 
this rule and oppose the underlying bill.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).
  Ms. TSONGAS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule to 
consider legislation to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Don't Ask, Don't 
Tell remains the only Federal statute mandating a person be fired based 
on their sexual orientation. Since this policy became law, thousands of 
dedicated, honorable Americans have suffered discrimination while 
thousands more have been discouraged from even considering the 
military.
  Don't Ask, Don't Tell removes highly skilled, trained, and capable 
servicemembers out of the military at a time when we need them for 
multiple deployments to fight two wars. The Pentagon's study of Don't 
Ask, Don't Tell confirms that lifting the ban on gay and lesbian 
soldiers serving openly in our Armed Forces would not adversely affect 
our military's readiness or strain unit cohesion. This report comes 
months after nearly a year of careful study, which included thousands 
of conversations with enlisted personnel, officers, and military 
commanders. The results of this study showed that there is no longer 
any remaining justification to continue a policy that prevents some of 
the best and brightest from honorably serving in our Armed Forces.
  All our servicemen and -women are first and foremost Americans, 
protecting freedom throughout the world. We cannot with any true moral 
standing discriminate against distinguished and courageous members of 
our own military for the simple act of living an authentic life.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).
  Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, as a rookie Member of Congress in 1993, I 
sat in the most junior chair on the Armed Services Committee, just a 
few feet from the witness table. Then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff Colin Powell testified in favor of the Clinton administration's 
Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. I drew a deep breath and told the general 
that I thought Don't Ask, Don't Tell was unconstitutional. I opposed it 
then, and I oppose it now.
  No good has ever come of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but a lot of bad has. 
I applaud the personal courage of current Joint Chiefs of Staff 
Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, who told Congress: ``It is my personal 
belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the 
right thing to do. No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape 
being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces 
young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their 
fellow citizens.'' He's right, and I have no doubt that America's Armed 
Forces will successfully transition to a post-DADT world.
  We are hearing the alarms sounded again about morality and morale, 
unit cohesion, and readiness. Similar arguments were made when women 
and African Americans were allowed to serve alongside our white male 
counterparts. But be it race, gender, or now sexual orientation, our 
military services have demonstrated the commitment and ability to 
integrate and embrace diversity.
  As a female officer in the 10th Mountain Division blogged recently, 
``when

[[Page H8386]]

DADT is overturned, I won't be jumping out of my office screaming ``I'm 
gay'' to the world. I'll just be able to breathe easier knowing my job 
is secure.'' With this historic vote we will allow all service women 
and men who are holding their breath in fear--not of an enemy but of a 
law created by Congress--to breathe easier.
  Vote ``aye'' on the rule and on the Hoyer-Murphy bill.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I continue to 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of the repeal of the 
Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is outdated and 
it's unjust. No individual, especially those in our Armed Forces, 
should be discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. Our 
troops fight honorably to protect our freedom. The least we can do in 
return is to fight to protect their rights as well. My hometown of Las 
Vegas includes Nellis Air Force Base, one of the premier Air Force 
bases in our country. The courageous men and women who serve there 
deserve to be treated with equality and dignity and respect that they 
have earned, regardless of their sexual orientation. This unjust and 
unnecessary practice is also unsound. It makes no sense for our 
military to discharge valuable servicemembers, especially during a time 
of war, when we need every American who is willing and able to serve.
  My colleagues, this is the easy stuff. If a fellow citizen volunteers 
to don the uniform of our Nation, no matter what their sexual 
orientation, we shouldn't be discriminating against them. We should be 
thanking them for their service. Don't Ask, Don't Tell does nothing to 
contribute to our national security. It only undermines the strength 
and integrity of our military. I believe this practice should be 
repealed immediately. Its time has come, not only for the benefit of 
our Armed Services, but for the security of our great Nation.

                              {time}  1410

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I continue to reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2965, a 
bill to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
  Just blocks from the Capitol lies Congressional Cemetery, the resting 
place of Technical Sergeant Leonard Matlovich, recipient of the Bronze 
Star and the Purple Heart for his distinguished service in Vietnam.
  As a race relations instructor, he was instrumental in helping the 
military overcome its past legacy of racial discrimination, but he fell 
victim to the Air Force's discriminatory ban on gays, and was 
discharged in 1975.
  His headstone, in sight of the Capitol dome, reads: ``When I was in 
the military, they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge 
for loving one.''
  As a great man said, when it comes to matters of equality, it is 
always the right time to do the right thing. Our national security and 
our country's long-standing history of fairness depend on it.
  Today, I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and support the 
rule and H.R. 2965 for Technical Sergeant Matlovich and for our 
country.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I continue to reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentlewoman.
  When we get to this bill, I will address the substance of the 
argument that the presence of someone like me will so destabilize our 
brave young men and women that they will be unable to do their duty. I 
regard that as bigoted nonsense, but I will address that more fully 
then. Now I want to talk about this bizarre procedural argument that we 
are somehow not following regular order.
  Madam Speaker, this amendment came up in regular order after the 
committee considered the bill and on the floor of the House, and it was 
adopted in a full vote on the floor of the House after a lot of debate. 
The Senate in committee adopted this amendment. The notion that the 
committees of jurisdiction have been deprived here is delusional.
  What is the procedural situation?
  In effect, the House, in a full debate on the floor, adopted this 
amendment. It went to the Senate. In the Senate, the Senate committee, 
by a majority, voted for this amendment and then voted the bill out, 
and it has been stopped twice narrowly by filibusters. It has gotten 57 
and 58 votes. It has been openly debated. The notion that somehow we 
are the ones who are ignoring procedure when this bill gets a majority 
in the House after open debate on the floor, a majority in the Senate 
committee and is then filibustered makes no sense.
  Beyond that, we are told, Well, don't hold up the big bill. Well, 
that's the point of this. Don't Ask, Don't Tell was originally adopted 
as part of the military authorization of 1993. That is the regular 
order we followed. Some have now said, Well, the Senate would like to 
be able to vote on this differently from the main bill. I will say that 
many of us do not think that we should adopt anything until we do the 
whole package, but if they want to do these two bills, that's fine. 
Sending this over will facilitate the Senate's procedures.
  Now, there are at least five Republican Senators who previously, most 
of them, voted against cloture--one, Senator Collins, voted for it--who 
said they couldn't vote for it for various procedural reasons dealing 
with the tax agreement and the funding of the government. Those are on 
their way to being resolved.
  What we do when we pass this bill today is to say to the Senate, 
Okay, you can do it one way or the other as long as you do both, and we 
give them the chance--they already had the tax issue--to have resolved 
the CR, and we will get a vote on the merits. What this does is to 
strip away any excuse that any member of the Senate--Democrat or 
Republican--will have for not voting on the merits. We will strip away 
any justification for a filibuster.
  The gentleman says, Well, we didn't go through regular order. We've 
gone through triple regular order. A vote on the House floor is part of 
the consideration of the bill, as is a vote in the Senate committee and 
two efforts to break the filibuster.
  So the question is: Do you allow a filibuster and some procedural 
excuses from Senators who say they're for this repeal but didn't get to 
vote for it? We are giving them a chance to do that. This is something 
many House Members have long wanted to do in addition to repealing 
Don't Ask, Don't Tell--getting the Senate to stand up and take a 
straight up-or-down vote. That is what we are enabling.
  So I hope that the rule passes and that the bill separately passes as 
well.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, with regard to this point of process, which I think is 
important, I think it is appropriate to point out the facts.
  The majority is bringing this legislation to the floor by using 
another bill as a shell. The other bill is the Small Business 
Innovation Research Reauthorization bill, which has extraordinary 
bipartisan support. So the rule before us now strikes that legislation, 
which is job growth legislation--again, supported overwhelmingly in a 
bipartisan fashion in this House. It strikes that, and it inserts into 
that shell this legislation, the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The 
Don't Ask, Don't Tell legislation is not germane to the underlying 
legislation, so it is anything but regular order.
  The House Armed Services Committee has absolutely no jurisdiction 
over that Small Business bill which the majority is using as a shell to 
move this legislation out of regular order in order to prohibit 
transparency, even a motion to recommit. The majority has demonstrated 
time and time again its willingness to eliminate transparency, to void 
regular order and to take steps totally out of regular order as it is 
doing again today.
  So I think this is important to put on the record because this 
legislation, which by the way is important, as I said before, I think 
deserves to be

[[Page H8387]]

treated with respect, consideration, and the membership of this House I 
think deserves to be listened to, to be heard on legislation, 
especially legislation which evidently is important, like the one we 
are discussing today.
  I wanted to put that on the record.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters).
  Mr. PETERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of 
Representative Murphy and Leader Hoyer's Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal 
Act of 2010.
  As a former lieutenant commander in the United States Navy Reserve, I 
served with many brave, patriotic and dedicated men and women who were 
always ready to serve their country. I was never concerned about their 
sexual orientation, just their ability to serve the United States 
honorably.
  This discriminatory policy has forfeited over 13,000 able-bodied men 
and women from our military while our Nation is engaged in two wars. It 
has wasted over 1 billion taxpayer dollars through investigations, 
legal proceedings, and the wasted training of fighter pilots, 
mechanics, medics, and even Arabic translators. Military leaders have 
testified before Congress in support of repeal, and Defense Secretary 
Gates has said ``this can be done and should be done.''
  We must allow our military to recruit and retain any qualified, 
patriotic, and courageous American who wants to serve our country. This 
is why I urge passage of the rule and of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell 
Repeal Act of 2010.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I continue to reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

                              {time}  1420

  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. It is moving to hear so many members of the 
United States military who have served to come to the floor and honor 
the flag and the Constitution. I am not that fortunate to have served 
in the military, but I have been fortunate enough to travel amongst 
them, from Kosovo to Bosnia to Albania to Iraq and Afghanistan and 
places within those nations.
  If I have observed anything, I've observed men and women who 
understand the Constitution and take great pride to be on the front 
lines to be able to say I live in a country of the land of the free and 
the brave. So I ask today for my colleagues to be brave and to be free, 
to unshackle themselves of stereotypes and to repeal the Don't Ask, 
Don't Tell and vote for the rule and the underlying bill. Do it in the 
name of my constituent, a young man by the name of Seaman Provost, who 
had the unfortunate circumstances, I believe, of being considered 
someone who should not be in the United States Navy.
  So I would call upon those who believe in the Constitution, who 
understand the values of the human rights campaign of which I had the 
privilege of receiving notice from, that we all are created equal. It 
is time now to bust this unholy alliance that suggests that men and 
women whose lifestyles may be different do not have a heart of gold and 
love the red, white, and blue. It is time now for America to be 
America.
  Let us vote for this rule and the underlying bill. Let us vote for 
freedom, stand for all those who are brave, and stand behind the men 
and women who fight for us every single day of their lives. God bless 
all of them.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, in closing, I 
thank my friend from Maine for her courtesy and all who have come to 
the floor to debate this rule, and I reiterate, I think it's an 
important piece of legislation. I'm sorry that it was brought forth in 
an unnecessarily closed manner. I think the legislation deserves more 
respect, and I think especially the membership of this House deserves 
more respect.
  I have, again, gratitude for all of my colleagues, and I thank them 
for having participated in this debate.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the 
other side of the aisle for his thoughts on this. He is getting ready 
to retire from Congress. I just want to say I've enjoyed the 
opportunity to serve with you on the Rules Committee and appreciate the 
thoughts that you bring to the issues that we have to deal with.
  With all due respect, I want to disagree with you on one particular 
point, as I did earlier today in the Rules Committee, and without 
questioning anything that you had to say today, I will just say that my 
experience on the issue of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, whether it is in my 
position as sitting on the Armed Services Committee or with some of my 
colleagues on the Rules Committee who have questioned this particular 
bill as the vehicle, it is that sometimes I feel like people run out of 
substantive arguments and they go back to process and they say, well, 
there's something flawed about this process.
  And over the 2 years that I've been here, as we've been discussing a 
piece of law that no longer works, that shouldn't be in law, that tells 
people who are gay or lesbian that they can no longer serve in the 
military, for the past 2 years I've heard over and over again, well, 
this is a flawed process. So as a member of the Armed Services 
Committee, even though my good colleague Representative Davis held 
subcommittee hearings on this issue and there has been much discussion 
of it, people said, well, we need to have a study.
  So we got a study. It's a big, thick study. It's a wonderfully well 
done study. And when I had the opportunity just recently to sit in the 
Armed Services Committee and listen to the briefing by the military on 
the work they had done in this study, I have to say, I was very 
impressed. Something like 150,000 people participated in this study.
  Now, as my colleagues know, when you're a Member of Congress or a 
challenger running, you're lucky to have a poll of 400 people to get 
their opinion. Maybe sometimes the poll has 1,200 people, and we take 
that as public opinion. But to ask 150,000 people associated with the 
military ``So, what do you think?'' is quite a piece of work, and I 
think it was extremely well done.
  And what we were told that day in that briefing was, overwhelmingly, 
our military said, you know, this is just fine. Many of them said: I 
already know. I serve alongside someone who is a gay or lesbian member 
of the Armed Forces, and it doesn't bother us at all. It isn't 
interfering with unit cohesion or ability to fight. People said 
overwhelmingly: What is taking so long to change this particular 
provision in law?
  So I look at this and I say, whether it's the vehicle that we have 
before us today--today, in some of the final days of this particular 
Congress; today, when I think we have to act with urgency here in this 
House, after this House has already passed this provision in the Armed 
Services, in the general authorization bill. We've already passed this 
once. We've already shown that we're in favor of this here. Now, it's 
back again as a standalone to make it easier for people to deal with 
this as an individual issue--to go back and say, well, it's all about 
the process, we haven't had enough process, I think shows great 
disrespect to those members of our Armed Forces and their leaders who 
have said to us: Change this, move on, get it done so those 13,000-plus 
soldiers who have already been told they can no longer serve in the 
military and we've lost the ability to use their expertise and their 
training and their patriotism in this country, to say that there isn't 
urgency today and that we should somehow allow a process argument to 
slow us down doesn't make any sense.
  I very proudly come from the State of Maine, and something like 17 
percent of our 1.3 million residents in Maine are either active duty 
personnel or veterans who have served this country. I go home and hear 
the people in my district, whether I'm talking to a veterans' group or 
someone who's just on their way to serve in Afghanistan or coming back 
or, sadly, sometimes at a military funeral, and people do not say to 
me, Prohibit gay and lesbian people from serving in the military. 
People say to me in my home district, in a State that is very dedicated 
to serving the military, they say, When are you going to end this 
process of discrimination?
  And that is why we are here today. We are here to move forward on the

[[Page H8388]]

rule, to make sure that once and for all this House of Representatives, 
again, says let's repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Let's remember that 
this is a threat to our national security, that it's disrespectful of 
all of our soldiers, that there will be no serious ramifications of 
this, and, in fact, our military is very well prepared and has good 
plans to move forward on this transition.
  Let's remember that this is the patriotic vote to cast. This is the 
vote for national security. This is the vote for respecting the 
investment we have made in these soldiers. This is a vote for 
increasing recruitment in our military and saying to even more members 
who currently are unsure, saying to more people who are unsure about 
whether or not they should join the military because they worry that 
they would possibly be out of it, it's a measure to say we welcome you.
  Our Armed Services will be only stronger when we repeal Don't Ask, 
Don't Tell. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous 
question and on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, on that I demand 
the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adopting House Resolution 1764 will be followed by 5-
minute votes on suspending the rules and adopting House Resolution 1761 
and House Resolution 1743.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232, 
nays 180, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 635]

                               YEAS--232

     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--180

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Djou
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Baird
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bonner
     Buyer
     Cardoza
     Conyers
     Davis (IL)
     Granger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Marchant
     McCarthy (NY)
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rush
     Shadegg
     Space
     Wamp
     Woolsey

                              {time}  1459

  Messrs. LoBIONDO, BRADY of Texas, LEWIS of California, CULBERSON, and 
BURGESS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. GUTIERREZ and Ms. WATERS changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________