[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.
____________________