Congressional Record, Volume 156 Issue 166 (Wednesday, December 15, 2010)

[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 166 (Wednesday, December 15, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H8390-H8410]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 1520
DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL REPEAL ACT OF 2010

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution
1764, I call up 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 I have a motion at the desk.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cuellar). The Clerk will designate the
Senate amendment.
The text of the Senate amendment is as follows:

Senate amendment:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``SBIR/STTR Reauthorization
Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
Sec. 3. Definitions.

TITLE I--REAUTHORIZATION OF THE SBIR AND STTR PROGRAMS

Sec. 101. Extension of termination dates.
Sec. 102. Status of the Office of Technology.
Sec. 103. SBIR allocation increase.
Sec. 104. STTR allocation increase.
Sec. 105. SBIR and STTR award levels.
Sec. 106. Agency and program collaboration.
Sec. 107. Elimination of Phase II invitations.
Sec. 108. Majority-venture investments in SBIR firms.
Sec. 109. SBIR and STTR special acquisition preference.
Sec. 110. Collaborating with Federal laboratories and research and
development centers.
Sec. 111. Notice requirement.

TITLE II--OUTREACH AND COMMERCIALIZATION INITIATIVES

Sec. 201. Rural and State outreach.
Sec. 202. SBIR-STEM Workforce Development Grant Pilot Program.
Sec. 203. Technical assistance for awardees.
Sec. 204. Commercialization program at Department of Defense.
Sec. 205. Commercialization Pilot Program for civilian agencies.
Sec. 206. Nanotechnology initiative.
Sec. 207. Accelerating cures.

TITLE III--OVERSIGHT AND EVALUATION

Sec. 301. Streamlining annual evaluation requirements.
Sec. 302. Data collection from agencies for SBIR.
Sec. 303. Data collection from agencies for STTR.
Sec. 304. Public database.
Sec. 305. Government database.
Sec. 306. Accuracy in funding base calculations.
Sec. 307. Continued evaluation by the National Academy of Sciences.
Sec. 308. Technology insertion reporting requirements.
Sec. 309. Intellectual property protections.

TITLE IV--POLICY DIRECTIVES

Sec. 401. Conforming amendments to the SBIR and the STTR Policy
Directives.
Sec. 402. Priorities for certain research initiatives.
Sec. 403. Report on SBIR and STTR program goals.
Sec. 404. Competitive selection procedures for SBIR and STTR programs.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act--
(1) the terms ``Administration'' and ``Administrator'' mean
the Small Business Administration and the Administrator
thereof, respectively;
(2) the terms ``extramural budget'', ``Federal agency'',
``Small Business Innovation Research Program'', ``SBIR'',
``Small Business Technology Transfer Program'', and ``STTR''
have the meanings given such terms in section 9 of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638); and
(3) the term ``small business concern'' has the same
meaning as under section 3 of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 632).
TITLE I--REAUTHORIZATION OF THE SBIR AND STTR PROGRAMS

SEC. 101. EXTENSION OF TERMINATION DATES.

(a) SBIR.--Section 9(m) of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 638(m)) is amended by striking ``2008'' and inserting
``2017''.
(b) STTR.--Section 9(n)(1)(A) of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 638(n)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``2009'' and
inserting ``2017''.

SEC. 102. STATUS OF THE OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY.

Section 9(b) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638(b))
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (8), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and'';
(3) by redesignating paragraph (8) as paragraph (9); and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(10) to maintain an Office of Technology to carry out the
responsibilities of the Administration under this section,
which shall be--
``(A) headed by the Assistant Administrator for Technology,
who shall report directly to the Administrator; and
``(B) independent from the Office of Government Contracting
of the Administration and sufficiently staffed and funded to
comply with the oversight, reporting, and public database
responsibilities assigned to the Office of Technology by the
Administrator.''.

[[Page H8391]]

SEC. 103. SBIR ALLOCATION INCREASE.

Section 9(f) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638(f))
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``Each'' and inserting ``Except as provided in paragraph
(2)(C), each'';
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
and
(C) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the
following:
``(C) not less than 2.5 percent of such budget in each of
fiscal years 2009 and 2010;
``(D) not less than 2.6 percent of such budget in fiscal
year 2011;
``(E) not less than 2.7 percent of such budget in fiscal
year 2012;
``(F) not less than 2.8 percent of such budget in fiscal
year 2013;
``(G) not less than 2.9 percent of such budget in fiscal
year 2014;
``(H) not less than 3.0 percent of such budget in fiscal
year 2015;
``(I) not less than 3.1 percent of such budget in fiscal
year 2016;
``(J) not less than 3.2 percent of such budget in fiscal
year 2017;
``(K) not less than 3.3 percent of such budget in fiscal
year 2018;
``(L) not less than 3.4 percent of such budget in fiscal
year 2019; and
``(M) not less than 3.5 percent of such budget in fiscal
year 2020 and each fiscal year thereafter,''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses
(i) and (ii), respectively, and adjusting the margins
accordingly;
(B) by striking ``A Federal agency'' and inserting the
following:
``(A) In general.--A Federal agency''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Department of defense and department of energy.--For
the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy, to
the greatest extent practicable, the percentage of the
extramural budget in excess of 2.5 percent required to be
expended with small business concerns under subparagraphs (D)
through (M) of paragraph (1)--
``(i) may not be used for new Phase I or Phase II awards;
and
``(ii) shall be used for activities that further the
readiness levels of technologies developed under Phase II
awards, including conducting testing and evaluation to
promote the transition of such technologies into commercial
or defense products, or systems furthering the mission needs
of the Department of Defense or the Department of Energy, as
the case may be.''.

SEC. 104. STTR ALLOCATION INCREASE.

Section 9(n)(1)(B) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
638(n)(1)(B)) is amended--
(1) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in clause (ii), by striking ``thereafter.'' and
inserting ``through fiscal year 2010;''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) 0.4 percent for fiscal years 2011 and 2012;
``(iv) 0.5 percent for fiscal years 2013 and 2014; and
``(v) 0.6 percent for fiscal year 2015 and each fiscal year
thereafter.''.

SEC. 105. SBIR AND STTR AWARD LEVELS.

(a) SBIR Adjustments.--Section 9(j)(2)(D) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638(j)(2)(D)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$100,000'' and inserting ``$150,000'';
and
(2) by striking ``$750,000'' and inserting ``$1,000,000''.
(b) STTR Adjustments.--Section 9(p)(2)(B)(ix) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638(p)(2)(B)(ix)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$100,000'' and inserting ``$150,000'';
and
(2) by striking ``$750,000'' and inserting ``$1,000,000''.
(c) Triennial Adjustments.--Section 9 of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 638) is amended--
(1) in subsection (j)(2)(D)--
(A) by striking ``5 years'' and inserting ``3 years''; and
(B) by striking ``and programmatic considerations''; and
(2) in subsection (p)(2)(B)(ix) by striking ``greater or
lesser amounts to be awarded at the discretion of the
awarding agency,'' and inserting ``an adjustment for
inflation of such amounts once every 3 years,''.
(d) Limitation on Certain Awards.--Section 9 of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(aa) Limitation on Certain Awards.--
``(1) Limitation.--No Federal agency may issue an award
under the SBIR program or the STTR program if the size of the
award exceeds the award guidelines established under this
section by more than 50 percent.
``(2) Maintenance of information.--Participating agencies
shall maintain information on awards exceeding the guidelines
established under this section, including--
``(A) the amount of each award;
``(B) a justification for exceeding the award amount;
``(C) the identity and location of each award recipient;
and
``(D) whether a recipient has received any venture capital
investment and, if so, whether the recipient is majority-
owned and controlled by multiple venture capital companies.
``(3) Reports.--The Administrator shall include the
information described in paragraph (2) in the annual report
of the Administrator to Congress.
``(4) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection
shall be construed to prevent a Federal agency from
supplementing an award under the SBIR program or the STTR
program using funds of the Federal agency that are not part
of the SBIR program or the STTR program of the Federal
agency.''.

SEC. 106. AGENCY AND PROGRAM COLLABORATION.

Section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638), as
amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(bb) Subsequent Phases.--
``(1) Agency collaboration.--A small business concern that
received an award from a Federal agency under this section
shall be eligible to receive an award for a subsequent phase
from another Federal agency, if the head of each relevant
Federal agency or the relevant component of the Federal
agency makes a written determination that the topics of the
relevant awards are the same and both agencies report the
awards to the Administrator for inclusion in the public
database under subsection (k).
``(2) SBIR and sttr collaboration.--A small business
concern which received an award under this section under the
SBIR program or the STTR program may receive an award under
this section for a subsequent phase in either the SBIR
program or the STTR program and the participating agency or
agencies shall report the awards to the Administrator for
inclusion in the public database under subsection (k).''.

SEC. 107. ELIMINATION OF PHASE II INVITATIONS.

(a) In General.--Section 9(e) of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 638(e)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (4)(B), by striking ``to further'' and
inserting: ``which shall not include any invitation, pre-
screening, pre-selection, or down-selection process for
eligibility for the second phase, that will further''; and
(2) in paragraph (6)(B), by striking ``to further develop
proposed ideas to'' and inserting ``which shall not include
any invitation, pre-screening, pre-selection, or down-
selection process for eligibility for the second phase, that
will further develop proposals that''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--The Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638) is amended--
(1) in section 9--
(A) in subsection (e)--
(i) in paragraph (8), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(ii) in paragraph (9)--

(I) by striking ``the second or the third phase'' and
inserting ``Phase II or Phase III''; and
(II) by striking the period at the end and inserting a
semicolon; and

(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(10) the term `Phase I' means--
``(A) with respect to the SBIR program, the first phase
described in paragraph (4)(A); and
``(B) with respect to the STTR program, the first phase
described in paragraph (6)(A);
``(11) the term `Phase II' means--
``(A) with respect to the SBIR program, the second phase
described in paragraph (4)(B); and
``(B) with respect to the STTR program, the second phase
described in paragraph (6)(B); and
``(12) the term `Phase III' means--
``(A) with respect to the SBIR program, the third phase
described in paragraph (4)(C); and
``(B) with respect to the STTR program, the third phase
described in paragraph (6)(C).'';
(B) in subsection (j)--
(i) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``phase two'' and
inserting ``Phase II'';
(ii) in paragraph (2)--

(I) in subparagraph (B)--

(aa) by striking ``the third phase'' each place it appears
and inserting ``Phase III''; and
(bb) by striking ``the second phase'' and inserting ``Phase
II'';

(II) in subparagraph (D)--

(aa) by striking ``the first phase'' and inserting ``Phase
I''; and
(bb) by striking ``the second phase'' and inserting ``Phase
II'';

(III) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``the third phase''
and inserting ``Phase III'';
(IV) in subparagraph (G)--

(aa) by striking ``the first phase'' and inserting ``Phase
I''; and
(bb) by striking ``the second phase'' and inserting ``Phase
II''; and

(V) in subparagraph (H)--

(aa) by striking ``the first phase'' and inserting ``Phase
I'';
(bb) by striking ``second phase'' each place it appears and
inserting ``Phase II''; and
(cc) by striking ``third phase'' and inserting ``Phase
III''; and
(iii) in paragraph (3)--

(I) in subparagraph (A)--

(aa) by striking ``the first phase (as described in
subsection (e)(4)(A))'' and inserting ``Phase I'';
(bb) by striking ``the second phase (as described in
subsection (e)(4)(B))'' and inserting ``Phase II''; and
(cc) by striking ``the third phase (as described in
subsection (e)(4)(C))'' and inserting ``Phase III''; and

(II) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``second phase'' and
inserting ``Phase II'';

(C) in subsection (k)--
(i) by striking ``first phase'' each place it appears and
inserting ``Phase I''; and
(ii) by striking ``second phase'' each place it appears and
inserting ``Phase II'';
(D) in subsection (l)(2)--
(i) by striking ``the first phase'' and inserting ``Phase
I''; and
(ii) by striking ``the second phase'' and inserting ``Phase
II'';
(E) in subsection (o)(13)--
(i) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``second phase'' and
inserting ``Phase II''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``third phase'' and
inserting ``Phase III'';
(F) in subsection (p)--
(i) in paragraph (2)(B)--

(I) in clause (vi)--

(aa) by striking ``the second phase'' and inserting ``Phase
II''; and
(bb) by striking ``the third phase'' and inserting ``Phase
III''; and

[[Page H8392]]

(II) in clause (ix)--

(aa) by striking ``the first phase'' and inserting ``Phase
I''; and
(bb) by striking ``the second phase'' and inserting ``Phase
II''; and
(ii) in paragraph (3)--

(I) by striking ``the first phase (as described in
subsection (e)(6)(A))'' and inserting ``Phase I'';
(II) by striking ``the second phase (as described in
subsection (e)(6)(B))'' and inserting ``Phase II''; and
(III) by striking ``the third phase (as described in
subsection (e)(6)(A))'' and inserting ``Phase III'';

(G) in subsection (q)(3)--
(i) in subparagraph (A)--

(I) in the subparagraph heading, by striking ``First
phase'' and inserting ``Phase i''; and
(II) by striking ``first phase'' and inserting ``Phase I'';
and

(ii) in subparagraph (B)--

(I) in the subparagraph heading, by striking ``Second
phase'' and inserting ``Phase ii''; and
(II) by striking ``second phase'' and inserting ``Phase
II'';

(H) in subsection (r)--
(i) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Third Phase''
and inserting ``Phase III'';
(ii) in paragraph (1)--

(I) in the first sentence--

(aa) by striking ``for the second phase'' and inserting
``for Phase II'';
(bb) by striking ``third phase'' and inserting ``Phase
III''; and
(cc) by striking ``second phase period'' and inserting
``Phase II period''; and

(II) in the second sentence--

(aa) by striking ``second phase'' and inserting ``Phase
II''; and
(bb) by striking ``third phase'' and inserting ``Phase
III''; and
(iii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``third phase'' and
inserting ``Phase III''; and
(I) in subsection (u)(2)(B), by striking ``the first
phase'' and inserting ``Phase I'';
(2) in section 34--
(A) in subsection (c)(2)(B)(ii), by striking ``first phase
and second phase SBIR awards'' and inserting ``Phase I and
Phase II SBIR awards (as defined in section 9(e))''; and
(B) in subsection (e)(2)(A)--
(i) in clause (i), by striking ``first phase awards'' and
all that follows and inserting ``Phase I awards (as defined
in section 9(e));''; and
(ii) by striking ``first phase'' each place it appears and
inserting ``Phase I''; and
(3) in section 35(c)(2)(B)(vii), by striking ``third
phase'' and inserting ``Phase III''.

SEC. 108. MAJORITY-VENTURE INVESTMENTS IN SBIR FIRMS.

(a) In General.--Section 9 of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 638), as amended by this Act, is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(cc) Majority-venture Investments in SBIR Firms.--
``(1) Authority and determination.--
``(A) In general.--Upon a written determination provided
not later than 30 days in advance to the Administrator and to
the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the
Senate and the Committee on Small Business of the House of
Representatives--
``(i) the Director of the National Institutes of Health may
award not more than 18 percent of the SBIR funds of the
National Institutes of Health allocated in accordance with
this Act, in the first full fiscal year beginning after the
date of enactment of this subsection, and each fiscal year
thereafter, to small business concerns that are owned in
majority part by venture capital companies and that satisfy
the qualification requirements under paragraph (2) through
competitive, merit-based procedures that are open to all
eligible small business concerns; and
``(ii) the head of any other Federal agency participating
in the SBIR program may award not more than 8 percent of the
SBIR funds of the Federal agency allocated in accordance with
this Act, in the first full fiscal year beginning after the
date of enactment of this subsection, and each fiscal year
thereafter, to small business concerns that are majority
owned by venture capital companies and that satisfy the
qualification requirements under paragraph (2) through
competitive, merit-based procedures that are open to all
eligible small business concerns.
``(B) Determination.--A written determination made under
subparagraph (A) shall explain how the use of the authority
under that subparagraph will induce additional venture
capital funding of small business innovations, substantially
contribute to the mission of the funding Federal agency,
demonstrate a need for public research, and otherwise fulfill
the capital needs of small business concerns for additional
financing for the SBIR project.
``(2) Qualification requirements.--The Administrator shall
establish requirements relating to the affiliation by small
business concerns with venture capital companies, which may
not exclude a United States small business concern from
participation in the program under paragraph (1) on the basis
that the small business concern is owned in majority part by,
or controlled by, more than 1 United States venture capital
company, so long as no single venture capital company owns
more than 49 percent of the small business concern.
``(3) Registration.--A small business concern that is
majority owned and controlled by multiple venture capital
companies and qualified for participation in the program
authorized under paragraph (1) shall--
``(A) register with the Administrator on the date that the
small business concern submits an application for an award
under the SBIR program; and
``(B) indicate whether the small business concern is
registered under subparagraph (A) in any SBIR proposal.
``(4) Compliance.--A Federal agency described in paragraph
(1) shall collect data regarding the number and dollar
amounts of phase I, phase II, and all other categories of
awards under the SBIR program, and the Administrator shall
report on the data and the compliance of each such Federal
agency with the maximum amounts under paragraph (1) as part
of the annual report by the Administration under subsection
(b)(7).
``(5) Enforcement.--If a Federal agency awards more than
the amount authorized under paragraph (1) for a purpose
described in paragraph (1), the amount awarded in excess of
the amount authorized under paragraph (1) shall be
transferred to the funds for general SBIR programs from the
non-SBIR research and development funds of the Federal agency
within 60 days of the date on which the Federal agency
awarded more than the amount authorized under paragraph (1)
for a purpose described in paragraph (1).''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Section 3 of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(t) Venture Capital Company.--In this Act, the term
`venture capital company' means an entity described in clause
(i), (v), or (vi) of section 121.103(b)(5) of title 13, Code
of Federal Regulations (or any successor thereto).''.
(c) Assistance for Determining Affiliates.--Not later than
30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Administrator shall post on the website of the Administration
(with a direct link displayed on the homepage of the website
of the Administration or the SBIR website of the
Administration)--
(1) a clear explanation of the SBIR affiliation rules under
part 121 of title 13, Code of Federal Regulations; and
(2) contact information for officers or employees of the
Administration who--
(A) upon request, shall review an issue relating to the
rules described in paragraph (1); and
(B) shall respond to a request under subparagraph (A) not
later than 20 business days after the date on which the
request is received.

SEC. 109. SBIR AND STTR SPECIAL ACQUISITION PREFERENCE.

Section 9(r) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638(r))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Phase iii awards.--To the greatest extent
practicable, Federal agencies and Federal prime contractors
shall issue Phase III awards relating to technology,
including sole source awards, to the SBIR and STTR award
recipients that developed the technology.''.

SEC. 110. COLLABORATING WITH FEDERAL LABORATORIES AND
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTERS.

Section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638), as
amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(dd) Collaborating With Federal Laboratories and Research
and Development Centers.--
``(1) Authorization.--Subject to the limitations under this
section, the head of each participating Federal agency may
make SBIR and STTR awards to any eligible small business
concern that--
``(A) intends to enter into an agreement with a Federal
laboratory or federally funded research and development
center for portions of the activities to be performed under
that award; or
``(B) has entered into a cooperative research and
development agreement (as defined in section 12(d) of the
Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C.
3710a(d))) with a Federal laboratory.
``(2) Prohibition.--No Federal agency shall--
``(A) condition an SBIR or STTR award upon entering into
agreement with any Federal laboratory or any federally funded
laboratory or research and development center for any portion
of the activities to be performed under that award;
``(B) approve an agreement between a small business concern
receiving a SBIR or STTR award and a Federal laboratory or
federally funded laboratory or research and development
center, if the small business concern performs a lesser
portion of the activities to be performed under that award
than required by this section and by the SBIR Policy
Directive and the STTR Policy Directive of the Administrator;
or
``(C) approve an agreement that violates any provision,
including any data rights protections provision, of this
section or the SBIR and the STTR Policy Directives.
``(3) Implementation.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall
modify the SBIR Policy Directive and the STTR Policy
Directive issued under this section to ensure that small
business concerns--
``(A) have the flexibility to use the resources of the
Federal laboratories and federally funded research and
development centers; and
``(B) are not mandated to enter into agreement with any
Federal laboratory or any federally funded laboratory or
research and development center as a condition of an
award.''.

SEC. 111. NOTICE REQUIREMENT.

The head of any Federal agency involved in a case or
controversy before any Federal judicial or administrative
tribunal concerning the SBIR program or the STTR program
shall provide timely notice, as determined by the
Administrator, of the case or controversy to the
Administrator.
TITLE II--OUTREACH AND COMMERCIALIZATION INITIATIVES

SEC. 201. RURAL AND STATE OUTREACH.

(a) Outreach.--Section 9 of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 638) is amended by inserting after subsection (r) the
following:
``(s) Outreach.--
``(1) Definition of eligible state.--In this subsection,
the term `eligible State' means a State--

[[Page H8393]]

``(A) for which the total value of contracts awarded to the
State under this section during the most recent fiscal year
for which data is available was less than $5,000,000; and
``(B) that certifies to the Administrator that the State
will, upon receipt of assistance under this subsection,
provide matching funds from non-Federal sources in an amount
that is not less than 50 percent of the amount provided under
this subsection.
``(2) Program authority.--Of amounts made available to
carry out this section for each of fiscal years 2010 through
2014, the Administrator may expend with eligible States not
more than $5,000,000 in each such fiscal year in order to
increase the participation of small business concerns located
in those States in the programs under this section.
``(3) Amount of assistance.--The amount of assistance
provided to an eligible State under this subsection in any
fiscal year--
``(A) shall be equal to not more than 50 percent of the
total amount of matching funds from non-Federal sources
provided by the State; and
``(B) shall not exceed $100,000.
``(4) Use of assistance.--Assistance provided to an
eligible State under this subsection shall be used by the
State, in consultation with State and local departments and
agencies, for programs and activities to increase the
participation of small business concerns located in the State
in the programs under this section, including--
``(A) the establishment of quantifiable performance goals,
including goals relating to--
``(i) the number of program awards under this section made
to small business concerns in the State; and
``(ii) the total amount of Federal research and development
contracts awarded to small business concerns in the State;
``(B) the provision of competition outreach support to
small business concerns in the State that are involved in
research and development; and
``(C) the development and dissemination of educational and
promotional information relating to the programs under this
section to small business concerns in the State.''.
(b) Federal and State Program Extension.--Section 34 of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657d) is amended--
(1) in subsection (h), by striking ``2001 through 2005''
each place it appears and inserting ``2010 through 2014'';
and
(2) in subsection (i), by striking ``2005'' and inserting
``2014''.
(c) Matching Requirements.--Section 34(e)(2) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657d(e)(2)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) in clause (i), by striking ``50 cents'' and inserting
``35 cents''; and
(B) in clause (iii), by striking ``75 cents'' and inserting
``50 cents'';
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``50 cents'' and
inserting ``35 cents'';
(3) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as
subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively; and
(4) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
``(C) Rural areas.--
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the
non-Federal share of the cost of the activity carried out
using an award or under a cooperative agreement under this
section shall be 35 cents for each Federal dollar that will
be directly allocated by a recipient described in paragraph
(A) to serve small business concerns located in a rural area.
``(ii) Enhanced rural awards.--For a recipient located in a
rural area that is located in a State described in
subparagraph (A)(i), the non-Federal share of the cost of the
activity carried out using an award or under a cooperative
agreement under this section shall be 15 cents for each
Federal dollar that will be directly allocated by a recipient
described in paragraph (A) to serve small business concerns
located in the rural area.
``(iii) Definition of rural area.--In this subparagraph,
the term `rural area' has the meaning given that term in
section 1393(a)(2)) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''.

SEC. 202. SBIR-STEM WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT GRANT PILOT
PROGRAM.

(a) Pilot Program Established.--From amounts made available
to carry out this section, the Administrator shall establish
a SBIR-STEM Workforce Development Grant Pilot Program to
encourage the business community to provide workforce
development opportunities for college students, in the fields
of science, technology, engineering, and math (in this
section referred to as ``STEM college students''), by
providing a SBIR bonus grant.
(b) Eligible Entities Defined.--In this section the term
``eligible entity'' means a grantee receiving a grant under
the SBIR Program on the date of the bonus grant under
subsection (a) that provides an internship program for STEM
college students.
(c) Awards.--An eligible entity shall receive a bonus grant
equal to 10 percent of either a Phase I or Phase II grant, as
applicable, with a total award maximum of not more than
$10,000 per year.
(d) Evaluation.--Following the fourth year of funding under
this section, the Administrator shall submit a report to
Congress on the results of the SBIR-STEM Workforce
Development Grant Pilot Program.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section--
(1) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;
(2) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2012;
(3) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2013;
(4) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2014; and
(5) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2015.

SEC. 203. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR AWARDEES.

Section 9(q)(3) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
638(q)(3)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``$4,000'' and
inserting ``$5,000'';
(2) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) by striking ``, with funds available from their SBIR
awards,''; and
(B) by striking ``$4,000 per year'' and inserting ``$5,000
per year, which shall be in addition to the amount of the
recipient's award''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Flexibility.--In carrying out subparagraphs (A) and
(B), each Federal agency shall provide the allowable amounts
to a recipient that meets the eligibility requirements under
the applicable subparagraph, if the recipient requests to
seek technical assistance from an individual or entity other
than the vendor selected under paragraph (2) by the Federal
agency.
``(D) Limitation.--A Federal agency may not--
``(i) use the amounts authorized under subparagraph (A) or
(B) unless the vendor selected under paragraph (2) provides
the technical assistance to the recipient; or
``(ii) enter a contract with a vendor under paragraph (2)
under which the amount provided for technical assistance is
based on total number of Phase I or Phase II awards.''.

SEC. 204. COMMERCIALIZATION PROGRAM AT DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

Section 9(y) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638(y))
is amended--
(1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Pilot'';
(2) by striking ``Pilot'' each place that term appears;
(3) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by inserting ``or Small Business Technology Transfer
Program'' after ``Small Business Innovation Research
Program''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following: ``The authority to
create and administer a Commercialization Program under this
subsection may not be construed to eliminate or replace any
other SBIR program or STTR program that enhances the
insertion or transition of SBIR or STTR technologies,
including any such program in effect on the date of enactment
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2006 (Public Law 109-163; 119 Stat. 3136).'';
(4) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or Small Business
Technology Transfer Program'' after ``Small Business
Innovation Research Program'';
(5) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``or Small Business
Technology Transfer Program'' after ``Small Business
Innovation Research Program'';
(6) by striking paragraph (6);
(7) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (7); and
(8) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
``(5) Insertion incentives.--For any contract with a value
of not less than $100,000,000, the Secretary of Defense is
authorized to--
``(A) establish goals for the transition of Phase III
technologies in subcontracting plans; and
``(B) require a prime contractor on such a contract to
report the number and dollar amount of contracts entered into
by that prime contractor for Phase III SBIR or STTR projects.
``(6) Goal for sbir and sttr technology insertion.--The
Secretary of Defense shall--
``(A) set a goal to increase the number of Phase II SBIR
contracts and the number of Phase II STTR contracts awarded
by that Secretary that lead to technology transition into
programs of record or fielded systems;
``(B) use incentives in effect on the date of enactment of
the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2009, or create new
incentives, to encourage agency program managers and prime
contractors to meet the goal under subparagraph (A); and
``(C) include in the annual report to Congress the
percentage of contracts described in subparagraph (A) awarded
by that Secretary, and information on the ongoing status of
projects funded through the Commercialization Program and
efforts to transition these technologies into programs of
record or fielded systems.''.

SEC. 205. COMMERCIALIZATION PILOT PROGRAM FOR CIVILIAN
AGENCIES.

Section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638), as
amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(ee) Pilot Program.--
``(1) Authorization.--The head of each covered Federal
agency may set aside not more than 10 percent of the SBIR and
STTR funds of such agency for further technology development,
testing, and evaluation of SBIR and STTR Phase II
technologies.
``(2) Application by federal agency.--
``(A) In general.--A covered Federal agency may not
establish a pilot program unless such agency makes a written
application to the Administrator, not later than 90 days
before to the first day of the fiscal year in which the pilot
program is to be established, that describes a compelling
reason that additional investment in SBIR or STTR
technologies is necessary, including unusually high
regulatory, systems integration, or other costs relating to
development or manufacturing of identifiable, highly
promising small business technologies or a class of such
technologies expected to substantially advance the mission of
the agency.
``(B) Determination.--The Administrator shall--
``(i) make a determination regarding an application
submitted under subparagraph (A) not later than 30 days
before the first day of the fiscal year for which the
application is submitted;
``(ii) publish the determination in the Federal Register;
and
``(iii) make a copy of the determination and any related
materials available to the Committee

[[Page H8394]]

on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate and the
Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives.
``(3) Maximum amount of award.--The head of a Federal
agency may not make an award under a pilot program in excess
of 3 times the dollar amounts generally established for Phase
II awards under subsection (j)(2)(D) or (p)(2)(B)(ix).
``(4) Matching.--The head of a Federal agency may not make
an award under a pilot program for SBIR or STTR Phase II
technology that will be acquired by the Federal Government
unless new private, Federal non-SBIR, or Federal non-STTR
funding that at least matches the award from the Federal
agency is provided for the SBIR or STTR Phase II technology.
``(5) Eligibility for award.--The head of a Federal agency
may make an award under a pilot program to any applicant that
is eligible to receive a Phase III award related to
technology developed in Phase II of an SBIR or STTR project.
``(6) Registration.--Any applicant that receives an award
under a pilot program shall register with the Administrator
in a registry that is available to the public.
``(7) Termination.--The authority to establish a pilot
program under this section expires at the end of fiscal year
2014.
``(8) Definitions.--In this section--
``(A) the term `covered Federal agency'--
``(i) means a Federal agency participating in the SBIR
program or the STTR program; and
``(ii) does not include the Department of Defense; and
``(B) the term `pilot program' means the program
established under paragraph (1).''.

SEC. 206. NANOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE.

(a) In General.--Section 9 of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 638), as amended by this Act, is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(ff) Nanotechnology Initiative.--Each Federal agency
participating in the SBIR or STTR program shall encourage the
submission of applications for support of nanotechnology
related projects to such program.''.
(b) Sunset.--Effective October 1, 2014, subsection (ff) of
the Small Business Act, as added by subsection (a) of this
section, is repealed.

SEC. 207. ACCELERATING CURES.

The Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 44 as section 45; and
(2) by inserting after section 43 the following:

``SEC. 44. SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH PROGRAM.

``(a) NIH Cures Pilot.--
``(1) Establishment.--An independent advisory board shall
be established at the National Academy of Sciences (in this
section referred to as the `advisory board') to conduct
periodic evaluations of the SBIR program (as that term is
defined in section 9) of each of the National Institutes of
Health (referred to in this section as the `NIH') institutes
and centers for the purpose of improving the management of
the SBIR program through data-driven assessment.
``(2) Membership.--
``(A) In general.--The advisory board shall consist of--
``(i) the Director of the NIH;
``(ii) the Director of the SBIR program of the NIH;
``(iii) senior NIH agency managers, selected by the
Director of NIH;
``(iv) industry experts, selected by the Council of the
National Academy of Sciences in consultation with the
Associate Administrator for Technology of the Administration
and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology
Policy; and
``(v) owners or operators of small business concerns that
have received an award under the SBIR program of the NIH,
selected by the Associate Administrator for Technology of the
Administration.
``(B) Number of members.--The total number of members
selected under clauses (iii), (iv), and (v) of subparagraph
(A) shall not exceed 10.
``(C) Equal representation.--The total number of members of
the advisory board selected under clauses (i), (ii), (iii),
and (iv) of subparagraph (A) shall be equal to the number of
members of the advisory board selected under subparagraph
(A)(v).
``(b) Addressing Data Gaps.--In order to enhance the
evidence-base guiding SBIR program decisions and changes, the
Director of the SBIR program of the NIH shall address the
gaps and deficiencies in the data collection concerns
identified in the 2007 report of the National Academies of
Science entitled `An Assessment of the Small Business
Innovation Research Program at the NIH'.
``(c) Pilot Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Director of the SBIR program of the
NIH may initiate a pilot program, under a formal mechanism
for designing, implementing, and evaluating pilot programs,
to spur innovation and to test new strategies that may
enhance the development of cures and therapies.
``(2) Considerations.--The Director of the SBIR program of
the NIH may consider conducting a pilot program to include
individuals with successful SBIR program experience in study
sections, hiring individuals with small business development
experience for staff positions, separating the commercial and
scientific review processes, and examining the impact of the
trend toward larger awards on the overall program.
``(d) Report to Congress.--The Director of the NIH shall
submit an annual report to Congress and the advisory board on
the activities of the SBIR program of the NIH under this
section.
``(e) SBIR Grants and Contracts.--
``(1) In general.--In awarding grants and contracts under
the SBIR program of the NIH each SBIR program manager shall
place an emphasis on applications that identify products and
services that may enhance the development of cures and
therapies.
``(2) Examination of commercialization and other metrics.--
The advisory board shall evaluate the implementation of the
requirement under paragraph (1) by examining increased
commercialization and other metrics, to be determined and
collected by the SBIR program of the NIH.
``(3) Phase i and ii.--To the greatest extent practicable,
the Director of the SBIR program of the NIH shall reduce the
time period between Phase I and Phase II funding of grants
and contracts under the SBIR program of the NIH to 6 months.
``(f) Limit.--Not more than a total of 1 percent of the
extramural budget (as defined in section 9 of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638)) of the NIH for research or
research and development may be used for the pilot program
under subsection (c) and to carry out subsection (e).
``(g) Sunset.--This section shall cease to be effective on
the date that is 5 years after the date of enactment of the
SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2009.''.
TITLE III--OVERSIGHT AND EVALUATION

SEC. 301. STREAMLINING ANNUAL EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS.

Section 9(b) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638(b)),
as amended by section 102 of this Act, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (7)--
(A) by striking ``STTR programs, including the data'' and
inserting the following: ``STTR programs, including--
``(A) the data'';
(B) by striking ``(g)(10), (o)(9), and (o)(15), the
number'' and all that follows through ``under each of the
SBIR and STTR programs, and a description'' and inserting the
following: ``(g)(8) and (o)(9); and
``(B) the number of proposals received from, and the number
and total amount of awards to, HUBZone small business
concerns and firms with venture capital investment (including
those majority owned and controlled by multiple venture
capital firms) under each of the SBIR and STTR programs;
``(C) a description of the extent to which each Federal
agency is increasing outreach and awards to firms owned and
controlled by women and social or economically disadvantaged
individuals under each of the SBIR and STTR programs;
``(D) general information about the implementation and
compliance with the allocation of funds required under
subsection (cc) for firms majority owned and controlled by
multiple venture capital firms under each of the SBIR and
STTR programs;
``(E) a detailed description of appeals of Phase III awards
and notices of noncompliance with the SBIR and the STTR
Policy Directives filed by the Administrator with Federal
agencies; and
``(F) a description''; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following:
``(8) to coordinate the implementation of electronic
databases at each of the Federal agencies participating in
the SBIR program or the STTR program, including the technical
ability of the participating agencies to electronically share
data;''.

SEC. 302. DATA COLLECTION FROM AGENCIES FOR SBIR.

Section 9(g) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638(g))
is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (10);
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (8) and (9) as paragraphs
(9) and (10), respectively;
(3) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following:
``(8) collect annually, and maintain in a common format in
accordance with the simplified reporting requirements under
subsection (v), such information from awardees as is
necessary to assess the SBIR program, including information
necessary to maintain the database described in subsection
(k), including--
``(A) whether an awardee--
``(i) has venture capital or is majority owned and
controlled by multiple venture capital firms, and, if so--

``(I) the amount of venture capital that the awardee has
received as of the date of the award; and
``(II) the amount of additional capital that the awardee
has invested in the SBIR technology;

``(ii) has an investor that--

``(I) is an individual who is not a citizen of the United
States or a lawful permanent resident of the United States,
and if so, the name of any such individual; or
``(II) is a person that is not an individual and is not
organized under the laws of a State or the United States, and
if so the name of any such person;

[[Page H8395]]

SEC. 303. DATA COLLECTION FROM AGENCIES FOR STTR.

Section 9(o) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638(o))
is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (9) and inserting the following:
``(9) collect annually, and maintain in a common format in
accordance with the simplified reporting requirements under
subsection (v), such information from applicants and awardees
as is necessary to assess the STTR program outputs and
outcomes, including information necessary to maintain the
database described in subsection (k), including--
``(A) whether an applicant or awardee--
``(i) has venture capital or is majority owned and
controlled by multiple venture capital firms, and, if so--

``(I) the amount of venture capital that the applicant or
awardee has received as of the date of the application or
award, as applicable; and
``(II) the amount of additional capital that the applicant
or awardee has invested in the SBIR technology;

``(ii) has an investor that--

``(iii) is owned by a woman or has a woman as a principal
investigator;
``(iv) is owned by a socially or economically disadvantaged
individual or has a socially or economically disadvantaged
individual as a principal investigator;
``(v) received assistance under the FAST program under
section 34 or the outreach program under subsection (s);
``(vi) is a faculty member or a student of an institution
of higher education, as that term is defined in section 101
of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001); or
``(vii) is located in a State in which the total value of
contracts awarded to small business concerns under all STTR
programs is less than the total value of contracts awarded to
small business concerns in a majority of other States, as
determined by the Administrator in biennial fiscal years,
beginning with fiscal year 2008, based on the most recent
statistics compiled by the Administrator; and
``(B) if an awardee receives an award in an amount that is
more than the award guidelines under this section, a
statement from the agency that justifies the award amount;'';
(2) in paragraph (14), by adding ``and'' at the end;
(3) by striking paragraph (15); and
(4) by redesignating paragraph (16) as paragraph (15).

SEC. 304. PUBLIC DATABASE.

Section 9(k)(1) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
638(k)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(F) for each small business concern that has received a
Phase I or Phase II SBIR or STTR award from a Federal agency,
whether the small business concern--
``(i) has venture capital and, if so, whether the small
business concern is registered as majority owned and
controlled by multiple venture capital companies as required
under subsection (cc)(3);
``(ii) is owned by a woman or has a woman as a principal
investigator;
``(iii) is owned by a socially or economically
disadvantaged individual or has a socially or economically
disadvantaged individual as a principal investigator;
``(iv) received assistance under the FAST program under
section 34 or the outreach program under subsection (s); or
``(v) is owned by a faculty member or a student of an
institution of higher education, as that term is defined in
section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1001).''.

SEC. 305. GOVERNMENT DATABASE.

Section 9(k)(2) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
638(k)(2)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) as
subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F), respectively;
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
``(C) includes, for each awardee--
``(i) the name, size, location, and any identifying number
assigned to the awardee by the Administrator;
``(ii) whether the awardee has venture capital, and, if
so--

``(I) the amount of venture capital as of the date of the
award;
``(II) the percentage of ownership of the awardee held by a
venture capital firm, including whether the awardee is
majority owned and controlled by multiple venture capital
firms; and
``(III) the amount of additional capital that the awardee
has invested in the SBIR technology, which information shall
be collected on an annual basis;

``(iii) the names and locations of any affiliates of the
awardee;
``(iv) the number of employees of the awardee;
``(v) the number of employees of the affiliates of the
awardee; and
``(vi) the names of, and the percentage of ownership of the
awardee held by--

``(I) any individual who is not a citizen of the United
States or a lawful permanent resident of the United States;
or
``(II) any person that is not an individual and is not
organized under the laws of a State or the United States;'';
and

(3) in subparagraph (D), as so redesignated--
(A) in clause (ii), by striking ``and'' at the end; and
(B) by adding at the end, the following:
``(iv) whether the applicant was majority owned and
controlled by multiple venture capital firms; and
``(v) the number of employees of the applicant;''.

SEC. 306. ACCURACY IN FUNDING BASE CALCULATIONS.

(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, and every 3 years thereafter, the
Comptroller General of the United States shall--
(1) conduct a fiscal and management audit of the SBIR
program and the STTR program for the applicable period to--
(A) determine whether Federal agencies comply with the
expenditure amount requirements under subsections (f)(1) and
(n)(1) of section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
638), as amended by this Act;
(B) assess the extent of compliance with the requirements
of section 9(i)(2) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
638(i)(2)) by Federal agencies participating in the SBIR
program or the STTR program and the Administration;
(C) assess whether it would be more consistent and
effective to base the amount of the allocations under the
SBIR program and the STTR program on a percentage of the
research and development budget of a Federal agency, rather
than the extramural budget of the Federal agency; and
(D) determine the portion of the extramural research or
research and development budget of a Federal agency that each
Federal agency spends for administrative purposes relating to
the SBIR program or STTR program, and for what specific
purposes, including the portion, if any, of such budget the
Federal agency spends for salaries and expenses, travel to
visit applicants, outreach events, marketing, and technical
assistance; and
(2) submit a report to the Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship of the Senate and the Committee on Small
Business of the House of Representatives regarding the audit
conducted under paragraph (1), including the assessments
required under subparagraphs (B) and (C), and the
determination made under subparagraph (D) of paragraph (1).
(b) Definition of Applicable Period.--In this section, the
term ``applicable period'' means--
(1) for the first report submitted under this section, the
period beginning on October 1, 2000, and ending on September
30 of the last full fiscal year before the date of enactment
of this Act for which information is available; and
(2) for the second and each subsequent report submitted
under this section, the period--
(A) beginning on October 1 of the first fiscal year after
the end of the most recent full fiscal year relating to which
a report under this section was submitted; and
(B) ending on September 30 of the last full fiscal year
before the date of the report.

SEC. 307. CONTINUED EVALUATION BY THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF
SCIENCES.

Section 108 of the Small Business Reauthorization Act of
2000 (15 U.S.C. 638 note) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(e) Extensions and Enhancements of Authority.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date
of enactment of the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2009,
the head of each agency described in subsection (a), in
consultation with the Small Business Administration, shall
cooperatively enter into an agreement with the National
Academy of Sciences for the National Research Council to
conduct a study described in subsection (a)(1) and make
recommendations described in subsection (a)(2) not later than
4 years after the date of enactment of the SBIR/STTR
Reauthorization Act of 2009, and every 4 years thereafter.
``(2) Reporting.--An agreement under paragraph (1) shall
require that not later than 4 years after the date of
enactment of the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2009, and
every 4 years thereafter, the National Research Council shall
submit to the head of the agency entering into the agreement,
the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the
Senate, and the Committee on Small Business of the House of
Representatives a report regarding the study conducted under
paragraph (1) and containing the recommendations described in
paragraph (1).''.

SEC. 308. TECHNOLOGY INSERTION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

Section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638), as
amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(gg) Phase III Reporting.--The annual SBIR or STTR report
to Congress by the Administration under subsection (b)(7)
shall include, for each Phase III award made by the Federal
agency--
``(1) the name of the agency or component of the agency or
the non-Federal source of capital making the Phase III award;
``(2) the name of the small business concern or individual
receiving the Phase III award; and
``(3) the dollar amount of the Phase III award.''.

SEC. 309. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTIONS.

(a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct a study of the SBIR program to assess
whether--
(1) Federal agencies comply with the data rights
protections for SBIR awardees and the technologies of SBIR
awardees under section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
638);
(2) the laws and policy directives intended to clarify the
scope of data rights, including in prototypes and mentor-
protege relationships and agreements with Federal
laboratories, are sufficient to protect SBIR awardees; and
(3) there is an effective grievance tracking process for
SBIR awardees who have grievances

[[Page H8396]]

against a Federal agency regarding data rights and a process
for resolving those grievances.
(b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit
to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of
the Senate and the Committee on Small Business of the House
of Representatives a report regarding the study conducted
under subsection (a).
TITLE IV--POLICY DIRECTIVES

SEC. 401. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO THE SBIR AND THE STTR
POLICY DIRECTIVES.

(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall promulgate
amendments to the SBIR Policy Directive and the STTR Policy
Directive to conform such directives to this Act and the
amendments made by this Act.
(b) Publishing SBIR Policy Directive and the STTR Policy
Directive in the Federal Register.--Not later than 180 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator
shall publish the amended SBIR Policy Directive and the
amended STTR Policy Directive in the Federal Register.

SEC. 402. PRIORITIES FOR CERTAIN RESEARCH INITIATIVES.

(a) In General.--Section 9 of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 638), as amended by this Act, is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(hh) Research Initiatives.--To the extent that such
projects relate to the mission of the Federal agency, each
Federal agency participating in the SBIR program or STTR
program shall encourage the submission of applications for
support of projects relating to security, energy,
transportation, or improving the security and quality of the
water supply of the United States to such program.''.
(b) Sunset.--Effective October 1, 2014, section 9(hh) of
the Small Business Act, as added by subsection (a) of this
section, is repealed.

SEC. 403. REPORT ON SBIR AND STTR PROGRAM GOALS.

Section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638), as
amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(ii) Annual Report on SBIR and STTR Program Goals.--
``(1) Development of metrics.--The head of each Federal
agency required to participate in the SBIR program or the
STTR program shall develop metrics to evaluate the
effectiveness, and the benefit to the people of the United
States, of the SBIR program and the STTR program of the
Federal agency that--
``(A) are science-based and statistically driven;
``(B) reflect the mission of the Federal agency; and
``(C) include factors relating to the economic impact of
the programs.
``(2) Evaluation.--The head of each Federal agency
described in paragraph (1) shall conduct an annual evaluation
using the metrics developed under paragraph (1) of--
``(A) the SBIR program and the STTR program of the Federal
agency; and
``(B) the benefits to the people of the United States of
the SBIR program and the STTR program of the Federal agency.
``(3) Report.--
``(A) In general.--The head of each Federal agency
described in paragraph (1) shall submit to the appropriate
committees of Congress and the Administrator an annual report
describing in detail the results of an evaluation conducted
under paragraph (2).
``(B) Public availability of report.--The head of each
Federal agency described in paragraph (1) shall make each
report submitted under subparagraph (A) available to the
public online.
``(C) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term `appropriate
committees of Congress' means--
``(i) the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship
of the Senate; and
``(ii) the Committee on Small Business and the Committee on
Science and Technology of the House of Representatives.''.

SEC. 404. COMPETITIVE SELECTION PROCEDURES FOR SBIR AND STTR
PROGRAMS.

Section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638), as
amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(jj) Competitive Selection Procedures for SBIR and STTR
Programs.--All funds awarded, appropriated, or otherwise made
available in accordance with subsection (f) or (n) must be
awarded pursuant to competitive and merit-based selection
procedures.''.

Motion to Concur

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the motion.
The text of the motion is as follows:

Mrs. Davis of California moves that the House concur in the
Senate amendment to H.R. 2965 with an amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal
Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE POLICY CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALITY
IN THE ARMED FORCES.

(a) Comprehensive Review on the Implementation of a Repeal
of 10 U.S.C. 654.--
(1) In general.--On March 2, 2010, the Secretary of Defense
issued a memorandum directing the Comprehensive Review on the
Implementation of a Repeal of 10 U.S.C. 654 (section 654 of
title 10, United States Code).
(2) Objectives and scope of review.--The Terms of Reference
accompanying the Secretary's memorandum established the
following objectives and scope of the ordered review:
(A) Determine any impacts to military readiness, military
effectiveness and unit cohesion, recruiting/retention, and
family readiness that may result from repeal of the law and
recommend any actions that should be taken in light of such
impacts.
(B) Determine leadership, guidance, and training on
standards of conduct and new policies.
(C) Determine appropriate changes to existing policies and
regulations, including but not limited to issues regarding
personnel management, leadership and training, facilities,
investigations, and benefits.
(D) Recommend appropriate changes (if any) to the Uniform
Code of Military Justice.
(E) Monitor and evaluate existing legislative proposals to
repeal 10 U.S.C. 654 and proposals that may be introduced in
the Congress during the period of the review.
(F) Assure appropriate ways to monitor the workforce
climate and military effectiveness that support successful
follow-through on implementation.
(G) Evaluate the issues raised in ongoing litigation
involving 10 U.S.C. 654.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (f)
shall take effect 60 days after the date on which the last of
the following occurs:
(1) The Secretary of Defense has received the report
required by the memorandum of the Secretary referred to in
subsection (a).
(2) The President transmits to the congressional defense
committees a written certification, signed by the President,
the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, stating each of the following:
(A) That the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have considered the
recommendations contained in the report and the report's
proposed plan of action.
(B) That the Department of Defense has prepared the
necessary policies and regulations to exercise the discretion
provided by the amendments made by subsection (f).
(C) That the implementation of necessary policies and
regulations pursuant to the discretion provided by the
amendments made by subsection (f) is consistent with the
standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit
cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.
(c) No Immediate Effect on Current Policy.--Section 654 of
title 10, United States Code, shall remain in effect until
such time that all of the requirements and certifications
required by subsection (b) are met. If these requirements and
certifications are not met, section 654 of title 10, United
States Code, shall remain in effect.
(d) Benefits.--Nothing in this section, or the amendments
made by this section, shall be construed to require the
furnishing of benefits in violation of section 7 of title 1,
United States Code (relating to the definitions of
``marriage'' and ``spouse'' and referred to as the ``Defense
of Marriage Act'').
(e) No Private Cause of Action.--Nothing in this section,
or the amendments made by this section, shall be construed to
create a private cause of action.
(f) Treatment of 1993 Policy.--
(1) Title 10.--Upon the effective date established by
subsection (b), chapter 37 of title 10, United States Code,
is amended--
(A) by striking section 654; and
(B) in the table of sections at the beginning of such
chapter, by striking the item relating to section 654.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Upon the effective date
established by subsection (b), section 571 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (10 U.S.C. 654
note) is amended by striking subsections (b), (c), and (d).

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1764, the
motion shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by
the majority leader and the minority leader or their respective
designees.
The gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. McKeon) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.

General Leave

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend
their remarks and in which to insert extraneous material in the Record
on the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Conditions for repeal have been met, due diligence has been done, and
the time to act is here. Regardless of what critics say, the issue
before us has been debated in Congress and reviewed by the Department
of Defense. In fact, Mr. Speaker, Members of the House have debated
repeal for some time.
My subcommittee held hearings on the issue. The first of those
hearings

[[Page H8397]]

was on July 23, 2008, actually 15 years after the decision had
originally been made, and the second hearing on March 3, 2010. Every
Member of this body was welcome to attend, though few Republicans
actually made the effort to be there at that time. For those of you who
weren't there, the takeaway from these hearings was that the current
policy does not work for our Armed Forces and is inconsistent with
American values. Next, this House approved language identical to what
is before us today as part of a National Defense Authorization Act.
And, finally, Mr. Speaker, the DOT completed its study on implementing
repeal, confirming our troops are ready for repeal.
Seventy percent of the force said that repealing Don't Ask, Don't
Tell will have a positive, a mixed, or no effect on our military.
Seventy-four percent of spouses said that open service would not change
their support for their spouse staying in the military. And 92 percent
of uniformed personnel who believe they have served with a gay
servicemember in the past said their unit's ability to work together
was ``very good.'' Eighty-nine percent of our warriors on the front
line said the same. In short, servicemembers and their spouses have
essentially the same view as the American public: Men and women in
uniform who are gay should be allowed to serve openly.
And I want to add, Mr. Speaker, that our top civilian and military
officials agree with the American people. Secretary of Defense Gates
has clearly stated that, with careful preparation, repeal poses a low
risk to the readiness and effectiveness of our forces. Admiral Mullen
shares that view. In fact, Secretary Gates' biggest concern is if
Congress doesn't act to repeal, then he points out the courts will
impose this change on the Department of Defense, leaving little or no
time to prepare and implement the transition plan properly.
Now, it is true that the military service chiefs have reservations
about the timing of repeal, but they all believe that the language has
adequate safeguards and, when implemented correctly, repeal can be done
and effectively managed. They acknowledge that leadership at all levels
will be key. And I have great confidence, Mr. Speaker, in the leaders
who are serving in our military and their professionalism. After all,
we trust them with decisions about our Nation's safety. We can trust
them to put this transition into practice in a way that addresses the
needs of our force. But we cannot begin this new challenge until we
repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Mr. Speaker, change is never easy, but it is rarely as necessary as
it is today. In addition to clear statistics in favor of repeal, the
survey responses got to what is at the heart of this issue--fairness.
Gay and lesbian personnel have the same values, the same values
toward their service as servicemembers at large. What is that? It is
love of their country. It is honor. It is respect. It is integrity and
service over self. In the words of one gay servicemember, repeal would
simply ``take the knife out of my back. You have no idea what it is
like to have to serve in silence.''
If we miss this opportunity to repeal this law, history will judge us
poorly for the damage we have done to our Nation and our military. I
urge Members of this House to be on the right side of history and help
end Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, here we go again. The Speaker has decided once more to
subvert regular order in the waning moments of this Congress and bring
to the floor, without consideration by the House Armed Services
Committee, a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Now, anyone who was
listening earlier to the Clerk read the bill that we're discussing, it
is titled: To amend the Small Business Act with respect to the Small
Business Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology
Transfer Program. Now, if you're confused, what they have done is taken
this bill that has passed, stripped out what is in it, and put in Don't
Ask, Don't Tell.
So today, we will debate this standalone measure as a priority when
we don't even have a National Defense Authorization Act for 2011. The
other body cannot get its work done on that bill because the leadership
there placed a higher priority on repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell to
satisfy a Democratic liberal agenda than on passing a bill designed to
meet the broad needs and requirements of our national defense, as well
as those men and women serving in harm's way. Where are the Democrat
priorities? Certainly not with overall national security.

{time} 1530

So now we are here to consider the bill by Representative Murphy. It
comes to the floor without the committee of jurisdiction being able to
formally examine the issues raised by the recent DOD report and without
the ability to question witnesses who would have to implement the
repeal. Essentially, the high-handed actions of the Speaker forcing
this bill to the floor deny the House an ability to assess the
conflicting testimony and conclusions that have been rendered by the
report.
So I rise in strong opposition to Mr. Murphy's bill. He and the House
leadership behind him bring it to the floor in complete disregard for
the testimony of three of the four service chiefs and their warning
that implementing repeal now will have a negative impact on combat
readiness.
Let me repeat that: three of the four service chiefs warn that
implementing repeal now will have a negative impact on combat
readiness. This is something we all ought to pay serious attention to
when we are fighting two wars.
Beyond that, Mr. Murphy brings this bill to the floor in complete
disregard for the concerns of those actually in the combat arms. As we
now know: ``The percentage of the overall U.S. military that predicts
negative or very negative effects on their units' ability to `work
together to get the job done' is 30 percent; the percentage for the
Marine Corps is 43 percent, 48 percent within Army combat units, and 58
percent within Marine combat units.''
If there is any doubt about where the service chiefs stand, here is
what they told the other body.
General Casey, the Army Chief of Staff said, ``I think it's important
that we're clear about the military risks. Implementation of the repeal
of Don't Ask, Don't Tell would be a major cultural and policy change in
the middle of a war. It would be implemented by a force and leaders
that are already stretched by the cumulative effects of almost a decade
of war and by a force in which substantial numbers of soldiers perceive
that repeal will have a negative impact on unit effectiveness and
morale, and that implementation will be difficult.
``I believe that the implementation of repeal in the near term will:
one, add another level of stress to an already stretched force; two, be
more difficult in our combat arms units; and, three, be more difficult
for the Army than the report suggests.
``My recommendation would be that implementation begins when our
singular focus is no longer on combat operations or preparing units for
combat. I would not recommend going forward at this time given
everything that the Army has on its plate.''
The commandant of the Marine Corps, General James Amos, said, ``If
the law is changed, it has strong potential for disruption at the small
unit level as it will no doubt divert leadership attention away from an
almost singular focus on preparing units for combat.
``Based on what I know about the very tough fight in Afghanistan, the
almost singular focus of our combat forces as they train up and deploy
to the theater, the necessary tightly woven culture of those combat
forces that we are asking so much of at this time and, finally, the
direct feedback from the survey, my recommendation is that we should
not implement repeal at this time.
``What I would want to have with regards to implementation would be a
period of time where our marines are no longer focused primarily on
combat. All I am asking is for the opportunity to implement repeal at a
time and choosing when my marines are not singularly, tightly focused
on what they're doing in a very deadly environment.''
Just yesterday, General Amos made clear just how strongly he feels
about the threat that repeal poses to marines

[[Page H8398]]

in combat, warning ``that a change in current policy could pose a
deadly distraction on the Afghanistan battlefield. I don't want to lose
any marines to a distraction,'' Amos said in a roundtable discussion
with journalists at the Pentagon.
Air Force Chief of Staff, General Norman Schwartz, said, ``I do not
agree with the study assessment that the short-term risk to military
effectiveness is low. Our officer and NCO leaders in Afghanistan in
particular are carrying a heavy load. I remain concerned with the study
assessment that the risk of repeal of military effectiveness in
Afghanistan is low. That assessment is too optimistic. I suggested that
perhaps full implementation could occur in 2012, but I do not think it
prudent to seek full implementation in the near term. I think that is
too risky.''
These are three of our four Chiefs of Staff.
I strongly believe that we ought to listen closely to the concerns of
the service chiefs if for no other reason than they are closer to the
sense and pulse of their services than are the Secretary of Defense or
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Moreover, I also believe that we
should do nothing at this time to threaten the readiness of the
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who are at the tip of the spear,
fighting America's two wars. So I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on
the Murphy bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. I just want to remind my colleague that it
is not until the Secretary, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the
President actually certify that the military is prepared to move
forward. There is no defined timeline that this, in fact, would go
forward.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the
distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives, the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlelady from California, the distinguished
chair of the subcommittee on this important issue, for her leadership
on ending discrimination in how we defend our country.
I want to salute Steny Hoyer, our distinguished Democratic leader,
for bringing this bill to the floor expeditiously. It has been a long
time in coming, but now is the time for us to act.
I want to thank Barney Frank, Jared Polis and Tammy Baldwin for their
leadership, and I particularly want to acknowledge Patrick Murphy.
Before Congressman Murphy came to the House, he was a captain in the
82nd Airborne Division and served as a paratrooper in the Iraq war. He
understands the issues of military readiness and has demonstrated
tremendous leadership on the battlefield and on repealing a policy that
does not contribute to our national security.
Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to vote once again to close
the door on a fundamental unfairness in our Nation. Repealing the
discriminatory Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy will honor the service and
sacrifices of all who have dedicated their lives to protecting the
American people.
We know that our first responsibility as elected officials is to take
an oath of office to protect and defend. Our first responsibility is to
protect the American people, to keep them safe; and we should honor the
service of all who want to contribute to that security.
As Admiral Mullen, the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said on
this issue of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, ``It is my personal belief that
allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to
do. 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. For me,
personally,'' he said, ``it comes down to integrity--theirs as
individuals and ours as institutions.''
Seventeen years ago, in 1993, many of us were on the floor of the
House. I had the privilege of speaking, calling on the President to act
definitively to lift the ban that keeps patriotic Americans from
serving in the U.S. Armed Forces because of their sexual orientation.
Instead, we enacted the unfortunate Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy that
has resulted in more than 13,000 men and women in uniform being
discharged from the military. Thousands more have decided not to
reenlist. Fighter pilots, infantry officers, Arabic translators, and
other specialists have been discharged at a time when our Nation is
fighting two wars.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell doesn't contribute to our national security,
and it contravenes our American values. That is why the support for its
repeal has come from every corner of our country.
Just today, ABC News and The Washington Post released a poll showing
that eight in 10 Americans say gays and lesbians who do publicly
disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the
military.

{time} 1540

Recently, the Department of Defense issued its report about the
impact of repealing the discriminatory policy, and as the gentlelady
from California, Congresswoman Davis, has said, the action that we took
earlier on the DOD bill was an action predicated on what that report
would say, and that report reached the same conclusions that a majority
of men and women in uniform and a majority of Americans have reached:
repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell makes for good public policy--and a
stronger America, I add.
But to do so, to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Congress must act
quickly. Since courts are now reviewing the Don't Ask, Don't Tell
policy, both Secretary Gates, the Secretary of Defense, and Chairman
Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, have called for Congress to act
on the repeal with urgency so that they can begin to carry out the
repeal in a consistent manner.
In May, with an over 40-vote majority, this House of Representatives
passed legislation to end this discriminatory policy. It was a proud
day for so many of us in the House, and today, by acting again, it is
my hope that we will encourage the Senate to take long overdue action.
America has always been the land of the free and the home of the
brave. We are so because our brave men and women in uniform protect us.
Let us honor their sacrifice, their service, their patriotism by
recommitting to the values that they fight for on the battlefield.
I urge my colleagues to end discrimination wherever it exists in our
country. I urge them to end discrimination in the military, to make
America safer.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), the ranking member on the Military
Personnel Subcommittee.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, first off, in the final
days of the lame duck Congress, I'm grateful to join with Ranking
Member Buck McKeon of California to be concerned that this outgoing
majority has placed a higher priority on repealing Don't Ask, Don't
Tell than actually passing the National Defense Authorization Act for
fiscal year 2011. The Defense authorization bill is crucial for our
national security concerns and the welfare of our troops and their
families and our veterans, and has passed for 48 consecutive years in
some form.
Secondly, as the son of a World War II veteran and as a 31-year
veteran of the Army myself, and as the proud father of four sons
currently serving in the military, I oppose attempts to repeal Don't
Ask, Don't Tell in the waning days of this lame duck Congress. The
service chiefs have urged caution because of the strenuous demands
placed on our forces by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In fact, the Army Chief of Staff General George Casey, who I trained
with at Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania, said the following: I would not
recommend going forward at this time given everything that the Army has
on its plate. I believe that it would increase the risk to our
soldiers, particularly on our soldiers that are deployed in combat.
Commandant of the Marine Corps General James Amos had this to say: If
the law is changed, it has strong potential for disruption at the small
unit level. My recommendation is that we should not implement repeal at
this time.
Air Force Chief of Staff General Norman Schwartz: I do not think it
prudent to seek full implementation in the near term. I think that is
too risky.
Mr. Speaker, the committees of jurisdiction must have time to examine
the 370-page Pentagon report on the impact a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't
Tell has on military readiness, recruitment, and morale. This attempt
to hastily repeal in the final days of the defeated 111th

[[Page H8399]]

Congress undermines that process, and I urge my colleagues to oppose
this legislation in favor of hearings next year on this important
issue.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arkansas, Dr. Snyder.
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, my 4-year-old, Penn, and his three 2-year-
old brothers, Aubrey, Wyatt and Sullivan, like all babies came into a
changing world and a changing America, and yet, in many ways, when it
comes to issues regarding gays and lesbians, America has already
changed.
Their first home church would not have thrived without the labor and
dedication of numerous gay and lesbian members. My babies' child care
benefited from several loving lesbian couples who have given their time
to help my wife and I raise them. And America benefits from gay and
lesbian pilots, doctors, scientists, diplomats, teachers, police,
firemen, EMTs, construction workers, many other professions, somehow
all without distracting each other.
Implementation by repeal, not by court case, allows the military to
catch up with the rest of America, and my boys and all American
children will be the better for it.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes at this time to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), the ranking member on the Air
and Land Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee.
Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you for yielding.
You know, one might wonder at our priorities. For the first time in
many, many years we don't have time to pass the defense authorization
bill, but we do have time to pull out a very controversial part of
that, whose passage no one will argue will be particularly helpful; it
just not might be too hurtful. Maybe that's just one more reason that
our favorable ratings are somewhere between used car salesmen and
embezzlers.
There's an old adage that says he who frames the question determines
the answer. I've had a graduate course in statistics, and I would
certainly not have reached the conclusion that was reached from these
studies. Thirty percent, almost twice that in the marines, said this
would be a bad idea. Fifteen to 20 percent said it would be a good
idea. You can't take that 50, 55 percent that didn't have an opinion
and say that it is a good idea. If I was a statistician, I would have
reached exactly the opposite conclusion. Thirty percent is a huge
number.
You know, no matter what my sexual orientation was, I couldn't be
supportive of this. We are now fighting two wars. Three of the Joint
Chiefs have said this would be very disruptive. There are a lot of
prejudices out there. I might regret those prejudices, but I can't
change the fact that they are out there. This will not be conducive to
good order and discipline. This is not the time to do it. There may
come a time when we can do this in the military. This is not that time.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
this legislation to repeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, and just
want to make four quick arguments on that.
First of all to process. This policy was implemented 17 years ago. We
have studied it and argued about it ever since, particularly in the
last 4 years. Under Mrs. Davis' leadership, we have had hearings and
discussions and reports. To argue that we are rushing this and haven't
thought about it completely misses the point. Argue against the bill if
you want, but don't hide behind process. We have studied this to death.
It is time to act. That's number one.
Number two, gays and lesbians serve in the military right now. I
doubt you could find a member of the military who doesn't know a gay or
lesbian that they have served with, and yet somehow they have
functioned and functioned quite well. This is not introducing a brand
new concept.
And third, I want you to think about the basic issue that we should
always consider in the Armed Services Committee: How do the policies we
advance make us safer? How does it make it safer to drive out of the
military thousands of people who are serving and serving our country
well? It doesn't. It takes away experience, expertise, and talent at a
time when we desperately need that.
And lastly, the 55 percent of the people in the survey did not offer
no opinion. They offered the opinion that they did not think it would
matter one way or the other to repeal that law. So that 55 percent very
clearly has no problem with serving with gays and lesbians.
It is way past time to repeal this law, strengthen our military, and
allow gays and lesbians to serve our country and serve it with the
bravery that they have shown along with all others who have served in
our military.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Akin), the ranking member on the Seapower Subcommittee of
the Armed Services Committee.
Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, some years ago, actually quite a number of
years ago, I had an opportunity to witness a total solar eclipse.
That's one of those things that happens very, very rarely, and it was
quite interesting.
Today, we are looking at another eclipse of reason that happens very
rarely. For the first time in 48 or 50 years, the Congress has not
passed a defense bill. Now, that's pretty serious. First time in 48
years, no defense bill passed by Congress? And what are we here today
debating? Well, we're debating the idea of an imposition of somebody's
social agenda that they want to impose on the military.

{time} 1550

Now, it would seem to me that, at a minimum, we would want to get
down a defense bill before we got into this particular topic. But no.
No. Instead, we are going to try to impose something when we are
fighting two wars.
Now, the fact of the matter is that, in spite of a survey that tried
to be biased, you have got the leadership of the Air Force under
General Schwartz, leadership of the Army under General Casey, and the
Marine Corps leadership under General Amos all opposing making these
changes on this instantaneous basis, imposing this social agenda. So we
are kind of experiencing something like a solar eclipse, except it's an
eclipse of reason, an eclipse of common sense.
I have three sons that have served in the Marine Corps, two who are
currently in the Marines. Let me tell you, even with the somewhat
biased survey, 60 percent of the marines said, This is a lousy idea. So
why are we, at the end of the year, when we have no defense bill at
all, going to get into some of these social agendas? I don't think this
is what the American public expects Congress to be doing. I don't think
we need an eclipse of reason.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, in considering their position on this bill,
Members should listen to echoes of the past, leaders of the present,
and consider some of the voices that have been silenced.
In the past, we heard: If we should end this policy, it would be a
tragedy of great proportion. I fear such a step, if it were carried
out, would remove our armed establishments from the ranks of history's
greatest.
Those are the words of a Senator in 1948 talking about the racial
integration of the Armed Forces. They have thrived and prospered since
that just and correct decision.
Listen to this voice: In the almost 17 years since Don't Ask, Don't
Tell was passed, attitudes and circumstances have changed. I fully
support the approach presented by Secretary of Defense Gates and
Admiral Mullen.
That is the voice of Colin Powell, retired Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, someone who experienced all of the unit leadership
that is being talked about on the floor this afternoon.
But I would invite the Members to think about the silenced voices,
the men and women who lay maimed in military hospitals who are gays and
lesbians who serve their country and have been injured in the process,
who cannot have a visit from the person they love most in the world
because they have had to hide their sexual orientation. And I would
urge the Members to consider the silenced voices who lay beneath white
crosses in Arlington Cemetery and other places of

[[Page H8400]]

honor around the world who are gays and lesbians who have been
dishonored by a practice that says they cannot say who they really are,
even though they love their country so very much.
This is an act of basic decency and justice. It is long overdue. For
those who quarrel with time, I agree with their quarrel. This should
have been done a long time ago. Today is the day to get it done. Vote
``yes.''
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), a member of the House Armed Services Committee.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I, too, am concerned that repealing Don't
Ask, Don't Tell would have a profoundly negative impact on the
readiness and effectiveness of our military, particularly among our
front line combat forces.
The survey on repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell was fundamentally and
fatally flawed. Rather than asking the question, ``Should the law be
repealed?'' the survey presumed the law would be repealed and asked how
our Armed Forces would implement the presumed change.
Additionally, the survey itself did reveal widespread concern about
overturning the current law, but it was largely ignored in the
mainstream press coverage. For example, among personnel who said they
have served with a leader they believed to be gay or lesbian, 91
percent of those who believe that this affected unit morale say that
that impact was mostly negative or mixed. And 67 percent of our
frontline marines in combat arms units predict working alongside a gay
man or lesbian will have a negative effect on their unit's
effectiveness. We must not ignore the concerns of our combat troops.
It is irresponsible for Congress to fail to pass a defense
authorization bill for the first time in almost 50 years and at the
last minute attempt to pass a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell to
placate some within the Democrat liberal base. The United States
military is not the place for social experiments. Congress should be
focused on ensuring that our brave men and women have the resources
they need to protect this great Nation instead of playing partisan
games.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman
for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I have just two words for you, my colleagues: Vote
``yes.'' Vote ``yes'' to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Vote ``yes'' for
equality. Vote ``yes'' because discrimination is wrong. Vote ``yes''
because you believe in the beloved community. Vote ``yes'' because
every American deserves the right to serve their country. Vote ``yes''
because the survey results are in, and the military leaders say the
troops are ready. Vote ``yes'' because, on the battlefield, it does not
matter who you love only the flag that you serve. Whatever your reason,
I urge you, each of you, each of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' today,
to stand up and vote ``yes.'' Vote ``yes'' because it is the right
thing to do.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Franks), a member of the House Armed Services Committee.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I believe all of us in this room would agree that we
have the greatest people in our military forces in the world. They are
the most noble human beings in our society. Of all of the things that
people do for their fellow human beings, putting themselves at risk for
the freedom and the happiness and the hope of others is the most
profound gift that they can give to humanity. And I believe that our
first purpose here in this place is to make sure that those who protect
freedom for the rest of us are the most well equipped, have the most
important materials and weapons and capability that we can possibly
give them.
Now, I know that there are some major disagreements on this policy,
but the leaders of our military have only asked us one thing, and that
is to give them time to study and to deal with this in their own way,
in a way that will not be forcing this policy upon them in a time of
war. And, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that we owe them that courtesy.
They do not fight because they hate the enemy. They fight because they
love all of us. And if we cannot give them the simple courtesy of
giving them the opportunity to deal with this policy in the way that
they have asked, then I really feel like we have failed them.
Mr. Speaker, I would also say that the military leaders, most of the
commanding generals have said that this will weaken our military, that
it will reduce the chances of them being able to fight and win wars
with the least casualties on both sides. I believe that they are in a
position to know whether that's true or not, Mr. Speaker. And I would
just urge this body to give those who give it all for us the chance to
deal with this in their own way and vote ``no'' on this repeal.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)

{time} 1600

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010. At no time, and certainly not
at this critical juncture, should we be discharging qualified,
dedicated servicemembers who are willing to defend, serve and sacrifice
for our Nation.
The Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is clearly costly, it is
ineffective, and it is unnecessary. And to repeal clearly makes a major
step toward ending discrimination.
The Department of Defense's own internal survey has contradicted the
claim that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would somehow
hamper military readiness. It would not. And my own sense of morality
clearly contradicts the idea that there's anything justifiable about
forcing these men and women to live in the shadows or to live a lie
just to serve.
At a time when our Nation's military needs dedicated Americans to
serve, with great professionalism, with all the years of training that
has been invested in them, clearly this is the time now where we should
repeal this policy.
I want to thank Congressman Murphy for bringing this critical issue
to the floor and urge my fellow Members to support our national
security by repealing this outdated and damaging policy.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter), a gentleman who joined the Marine Corps right
after
9/11, had two deployments to Iraq, one in Afghanistan in combat
situations. We are very proud of this young man.
Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman from California and the ranking
member of the Armed Services Committee.
Let me start out by just quoting General Amos a couple of days ago,
who's the commandant of the United States Marine Corps on this issue.
He said, I don't want to lose any marines to distraction. I don't want
any marines that I'm visiting at Bethesda Naval Medical Center with no
legs to be the result of any type of distraction. Mistakes and
distractions cost marine lives. So there's that quote from the
commandant of the United States Marine Corps.
The marines are in part of the heaviest fight in Afghanistan right
now, and they were part of the heaviest fight in Iraq between 2004 and
2007.
This is not about race. Let me quote somebody else that we've been
quoting, General Colin Powell. General Colin Powell said, skin color is
a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps
the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of
the two is a convenient, but invalid, argument.
It sounds good to make that comparison, that this is like the civil
rights movement. The problem is the United States military is not the
YMCA. It's something special. And the reason that we have the greatest
military in the world is because of the way that it is right now. We
are not Great Britain. We are not France; we are not Germany. And the
Marine Corps is not the place, nor is the Army, the Navy, or the Air
Force the place to have a liberal crusade to create a utopia of a
liberal agenda and experiment during wartime while men and women are
risking their lives.
And probably the biggest problem that I have with this repeal is
this: the

[[Page H8401]]

Armed Services Committee, in the 2 years that I've been in Congress--my
last tour was in Afghanistan in 2007. Since I've been in Congress we
have not had one full committee hearing on IEDs, on roadside bombs, the
number one casualty in Afghanistan.
This is a distraction. This is a waste of time, and every second I
think that we spend on this and that Secretary Gates spends on this and
that our commanding generals spend on this issue means that we're not
focusing on what's important, that is, winning the mission in
Afghanistan and bringing our men and women home safely. This does
neither.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Serrano). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. McKEON. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. HUNTER. This does not help us win the mission in Afghanistan.
This does not bring our men and women home any faster. It doesn't keep
them safer. It doesn't build better weapons. It doesn't train them any
better. It's nothing but a distraction right now so we don't focus on
the real issue at hand, which is winning in Iraq and Afghanistan and
bringing our men and women home. That's what's important.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), who is the sponsor of the
bill.
Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, today we have a
chance to do what is right, not just for gay and lesbian troops serving
in our military, but what is right for national security.
When I deployed to Iraq as a captain with the 82nd Airborne Division,
my team and I didn't care about someone else's sexual orientation. We
cared whether everyone could do their job so we could all come home
alive.
Already, dozens of other nations allow their troops to serve openly,
including our greatest military allies, Great Britain and Israel, with
no detrimental impact on their units' cohesion.
It's an insult to the troops I served with and to all our
servicemembers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan to say that they are
somehow less professional or as mission capable as the members of these
foreign militaries.
Now, we have heard every excuse under the sun. First it was, well, we
need to study the issue. Well, the Pentagon finished their study and
learned what we've known all along: repeal will not harm our military's
operation.
Then it was we need to hear from our military leaders and our troops.
They have spoken. The Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, the Commander in Chief, and the majority of our troops
believe this policy should go.
Enough. Enough of the games. Enough of the politics. Our troops are
the best of the best, and they deserve a Congress that puts their
safety and our collective national security over rigid partisan
interests and a closed-minded ideology.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen
testified that this issue comes down to integrity, the integrity of our
troops and the military as an institution.
Well, this is also about the integrity of this institution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. I yield the gentleman an additional 10
seconds.
Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. This is also about the
integrity of this institution. This vote is about whether we're going
to continue telling people willing to die for our freedoms that they
need to lie in order to do so.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on repeal.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Fleming), a member of the House Armed Services
Committee.
Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the repeal of Don't
Ask, Don't Tell. This has been the policy of the military. It's worked
very well for many years. There's been a paucity of study of this, and
finally, when we approach the period in which it was going to be once
again brought up in Congress, there was a study commissioned which
asked questions of many, many people. However, the study was flawed
from the get-go. First of all, it did not ask whether this policy
should be implemented. It asked the question how should it be
implemented.
I am a physician. I come from a medical background. If ever we try to
determine what the effective way of treating a disease is, we would
never start with the presupposition that this treatment is already the
accepted treatment of that. No, in fact we go and study that. This was
not done.
But let's talk about the questions a little bit in the study, the
study that came out on November 30, really only a few days ago. The
question is actually asked in the survey, it asks active duty members
to actually divine what they thought was going to happen as a result of
this policy. That's an impossibility.
It also sets the stage for social experimentation, a time in which
we're at war, when we have all of the logistical problems that go on,
and yet here we are dropping in the middle of it this bomb of social
experimentation.
Even in times of peace, when we have a major deployment, we actually
have a mortality rate. People die even when we have peaceful exercises.
But in a day when you're actually at war, just think of the additional
headaches of all of the logistical problems that go along with
implementing such a policy.
Then there's a question of constitutionality. Gee, how can we do
something with the military that we don't do with people at large?
And the Supreme Court has spoken out on this, and they've said that
the military is a unique organization.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McKEON. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. FLEMING. The military is indeed a unique organization, and that
such restrictions, such policies can indeed go forward.
I would just like to say, in wrapping up, a couple of important
statistics that I think should be mentioned, and that is that 60 to 67
percent of Army and Marine combat members said that this would be a
major disruption if this were implemented.
Seventeen percent of the spouses said they would urge their active
duty member to get out. And that certainly negates the argument that
somehow we would not lose too many soldiers in this.
So I urge my colleagues today to vote against this.

{time} 1610

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will note that the gentleman from
California has 9 minutes remaining; the gentlewoman from California has
13\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. I yield 1 minute, Mr. Speaker, to the
majority leader of the House of Representatives, the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I rise in strong
support of this amendment.
It is never too late to do the right thing. And that is the
proposition that is before this House, the proposition that we are
going to, as Barry Goldwater said, worry about whether people can shoot
straight, not whether they are straight.
What he meant by that is: Are they competent? Are they committed? Are
they patriotic? Are they willing to fight? Have they trained well? Are
they prepared to defend our country? That is the litmus test.
Now, that wasn't always the litmus test. There were some times when
that group over there could fight over there and the other group over
here could fight over here because, after all, if we mixed those
groups, it would be damaging to the national security. That proposition
was wrong then and it is wrong now.
We passed, some time ago, a defense bill. We passed a defense bill
through this House. We adopted an amendment to that bill. That bill is
still in the Senate. It is still in the Senate, very frankly, because
the minority party has not allowed it to move. It has the votes to
move; it simply doesn't have almost two-thirds to move.
This May, the House approved the repeal of our Armed Forces' policy
on Don't Ask, Don't Tell adopted some 17 years ago by a vote of 234-
194. We voted to end the outdated policy that, frankly, undermines our
national security, pending a comprehensive Defense Department report
that would review the issues associated with implementing

[[Page H8402]]

repeal and study our troops' attitudes towards open service. That study
was undertaken. That study has been reported. That study showed that
some 70 percent of the members surveyed said, No problem. Not an issue.
Again, I am worried about somebody who can shoot straight, who has the
courage and willingness and the commitment to defend our country. That,
from their perspective, is the criteria.
That report was released on November 30, as I said, and included an
exhaustive survey of the views of more than 115,000 people.
When we take a poll, you are talking about 500, maybe 1,000, if it is
a big poll, and you rely on that and you make some pretty important
decisions based upon those polls. You spend money based upon those
polls. You decide to run based upon those polls. You decide to
emphasize issue A or issue B based upon those polls. And, frankly, in
some respects, your career depends upon that. So you rely on those
surveys.
This survey, 70 percent came to an unambiguous conclusion, quote,
``The risk of repeal to overall military effectiveness is low.''
Now, I have heard Members on the other side of the aisle who have
debated this issue say, Oh, no, that is not right; and, very frankly, I
have heard generals quoted. But this is, after all, who the generals
are concerned about, the people in the field, the men and women who are
actually in the battle. And they come back and say, No problem.
Our troops stand with our military leaders and the vast majority of
Americans in calling for repeal. The majority of them would be baffled
by the fear with which some of my colleagues tar them every time Don't
Ask, Don't Tell is discussed.
Some say that our troops are unwilling or apprehensive about serving
with gays in the military; yet 92 percent of them who have done so have
called that experience very good, good, or neutral.
Now, let me say to my friends on both sides of the aisle, you are
serving with gays in this body. You are interfacing with gays every day
in the staffs on both sides of this Capitol. You may know or you may
not know, but disabuse yourself of the theory that somehow you are
bothered by that, because you are not. They serve here with
distinction, they serve here with dedication, and they serve here at no
risk to any one of us or their colleagues either as employees, as
Members, or as visitors to this Capitol. There are surely countless
stories that prove that point.
``We have gay men and women,'' one fighter said, ``in my unit. He is
big, he is mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared he was
gay.'' Why? Because what they focused on was whether or not he did the
job, whether he was patriotic, committed, and effective. That is the
test. That ought to be the test for every American: the test of
character, the test of performance, the test of compliance with the
rules and regulations and the laws. That ought to be our test. That
certainly is what we expect, I think, of others in judging us.
Despite all of this, the Senate has failed to pass the defense
authorization bill. As I said, we passed one last June, I think.
Above all, we must pass this bill because our choice is between a
thoughtful, responsible repeal plan developed over months of study or a
sudden disruptive review imposed by the courts. Our military leaders
understand that the courts are likely to overturn Don't Ask, Don't
Tell, and that is exactly why they are urging Congress to pass a
legislative solution instead.
I tell my friends, I talked to Secretary Gates earlier this week, and
he said, Pass this bill. And he said, Pass this bill because we need a
legislative, not a court-imposed, solution.
Admiral Mike Mullen, who supports repeal, wants it to come, and I
quote, ``through the same process with which the law was enacted rather
than precipitously through the courts.''
So I tell my friends that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the
Secretary of Defense, who, by the way, as we all know, is not of my
party, but he is not a partisan. He is a promoter of the military
security and welfare of the troops. And I refer to Bob Gates, for whom
I think we all have a great deal of respect and confidence.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his well
thought-out arguments on this issue.
What does the gentleman think about the actual service chiefs, the
Marine Corps Commandant, the Army Chief of Staff, the actual generals
who lead the military men and women that we speak about, being against
the repeal, especially now?
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I will tell you what I think about
that.
Their concern seems to be for the morale of the troops, of the
performance of the troops, which is exactly why we said, and I tell my
friend, in May, Let's ask the troops. And that is why we surveyed
115,000 of the troops and said, Is this a problem? And they responded,
overwhelmingly, it is not a problem.
There are some who apparently do not accept that. I understand the
gentleman. I am not necessarily surprised by that. My friend and my
colleague, I don't know exactly your age. You are much younger than I
am. This is not a new phenomenon, I tell my young friend.

{time} 1620

When we have made changes in the service sector in the past, there
had been voices who said this would undermine morale and performance. I
suggest to my friend, it did not. And I tell my friend, for those who
believe it will, I believe this survey indicates the contrary, and I
believe the contrary, based upon experience, based upon observation,
and based upon history.
It is a hard choice, it seems to me, to reject--to reject--a
considered, thoughtful, planned approach to implementing a policy that
Secretary Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mullen believes is
going to happen. And I will tell my friends in this body, my
conversations with Members of the Senate indicate that there are
sufficient numbers in the Senate to pass this policy.
More than that, Mr. Speaker, it is time to end a policy of official
discrimination that has cost America the service of some 13,500 men and
women who wore our uniform with honor. They were not discharged because
they did not perform their duties or because they were not honorable in
their service; they were discharged simply because they were gay.
One of those young men who deserves better is a constituent named Ian
Goldin. Actually, he was not dismissed, but I will tell you his story.
He wrote to me a compelling letter, and I want to close with his words:
``Congressman Hoyer, I joined the Army Reserve Officers' Training
Corps last year after President Obama reaffirmed his campaign pledge to
end Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I have always known that I wanted to serve
my country in the Armed Forces, but one thing was always holding me
back: I'm gay.
``I've been open about that part of my life since high school, and I
was not willing to go back into the closet. But after the President
promised to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell, I decided to finally join ROTC,
hopeful that I would not have to hide my sexuality for long. I quickly
realized that I had made the right choice. Although I was a new
recruit, I was already in the top of my class of cadet privates first
class in land navigation.
``But it became increasingly difficult to hide such an important part
of who I am.'' Because, of course, the policy that we have in place
asks people to lie. Honor, duty, country. Lying is not a component part
of that philosophy. But that is what we expect people, if they want to
serve their country in the Armed Forces of the United States, to do.
``After learning about the continual delays in Congress, I decided I
needed to quit ROTC until the ban was repealed.
``I have spent this past semester studying abroad, and I will spend
next semester in Cairo. I have invaluable experience abroad. I'm an
advanced Arabic speaker. I'm an ``A'' student at a top national
university.
``Most importantly,'' he says, ``I want to serve my country. When I
can serve openly, I will finish ROTC and be commissioned as an officer
in the U.S. Army. And there are many others like me--I've met them.''

[[Page H8403]]

He concluded, ``So please, do whatever you can to repeal Don't Ask,
Don't Tell.''
Ladies and gentlemen, we have an opportunity to accept those who are
willing, those who are able, those who want to serve their country,
yes, in harm's way. Let us take this action. It is the right thing to
do and the right time.
In closing, let me say to my friend Mr. McKeon: Mr. McKeon, when I
ended my debate, when we passed this in May, you will recall you
mentioned General Colin Powell. I did not respond. But as you know,
General Colin Powell over these 17 years has changed his perspective. I
didn't respond at that time to that fact, but he has done so because he
has come to the conclusion that now is the time to act--for our
country, for our principles, and for our men and women in the service.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, we have had a number of questions asked.
One question that we did not just hear that was expressed as important
is, is a person an impediment to the good order and discipline of the
military or the military's mission? That is important.
I heard the Speaker say earlier, in essence, we need to allow or
honor the service of all those who want to serve. That is not true.
Every day people who want to serve are not allowed to serve because
they will be an impediment.
We heard the leader talk about how we can work together in this body,
even though there are homosexuals in this body. That is right. This
isn't the military, and I can promise you, if people did some of the
things that have been done by Members of this body, they would never
have been allowed and would not be allowed to continue serving in the
military. We have that margin to work with here. In the military there
is the military mission. There is not that margin to work with. We are
talking life and death.
Now, we have heard, how does it make us safer to lose thousands from
the military? A good question, because the hundreds I have heard from
that I didn't bring their quotes down here have said, you pass this,
and I will tell you personally, but I will not say it in the presence
of my commander, you pass this, I will not reenlist. I won't say it
publicly because it may affect my assignment after that, because we
know what this President, this Commander in Chief wants, just as does
the Secretary of Defense.
The two people that the President appoints said let's do it, because
they know the President appointed them. He is their boss. And then all
of those who do not answer directly to the President, they said this is
a terrible idea.
You want an accurate poll? Take one where military members can answer
privately, with no ability of the commanders to figure out who answered
where. And then let's find out how many thousands or tens of thousands
or hundreds of thousands we can lose with this activity. That is
important.
Now, we were told Don't Ask, Don't Tell is inconsistent with American
values.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McKEON. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. GOHMERT. I would submit the military is inconsistent with
American values. It does not have freedom of speech, it does not have
freedom of assembly, it does not have the freedom to express its love
to those in the military the way you can out here, because it is an
impediment to the military mission. You can't do that. Can you imagine
military members being able to tell their commander what they think of
him, using freedom of speech, or assembling where they wish? It doesn't
work.
So this is one of those issues that is so personal to the military,
we need to have an accurate poll. And to my friend who said history
will judge us poorly, I would submit if you will look thoroughly at
history, and I am not saying it is cause and effect, but when
militaries throughout history of the greatest nations in the world have
adopted the policy that it is fine for homosexuality to be overt, if
you can keep it private and control your hormones, fine; if you can't,
that is fine too, they are toward the end of their existence as a great
nation.
Let's look at this more carefully before we harm our military.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Reyes).
Mr. REYES. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Repeal Act, and I do so as a proud veteran who served in Vietnam a long
time ago. I can tell you, gays served proudly in Vietnam with us, just
as gays are serving in today's military. But what we are arguing about
here is the inconsistency of forcing people to lie about who they are.
I feel strongly that all Americans that are fit and willing to serve
ought to have a fair and equal chance to volunteer for military
service. Lifting the ban to allow our troops to serve openly is
consistent with the American values which the previous speaker spoke
about that our military members risk their lives to defend.
I can attest to the fact. I represent a large military facility in my
district, so I have the opportunity to ask the troops for their opinion
on this particular issue.

{time} 1630

Their opinions track with the study that was done. They don't care
what sexual preference their buddy might be. They only care that he or
she performs when they are in combat--when they have to have their back
and they have to depend on them having their back. It is as simple as
that.
This is an idea whose time has expired, like my time is about to
expire. I urge Members to vote for repeal of this act.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire of the time left on both
sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 6 minutes remaining. The
gentlewoman has 10\3/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. McKEON. Maybe we can even the time out.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Chu) for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request.
(Ms. CHU asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. CHU. I rise in strong support of this bill to repeal the flawed
Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.
Alexander Nicholson was a bright young man who joined the Army's
Intelligence Unit. He was a great asset, speaking 5 different
languages, including Arabic.
One day, a fellow linguist discovered a letter he had written to his
boyfriend. It was in Portuguese, so he thought no one could understand
it. Well, that linguist did and outed him. Instead of being discharged,
Alexander resigned . . . 6 months after 9/11 when they needed someone
with his ability the most.
Since Don't Ask, Don't Tell, 13,000 soldiers have been discharged for
no other reason than their sexual orientation. It has cost over $360
million to replace them, an utter waste of dollars and talent. That's
why I've stopped calling this policy ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' and
instead label it what it really is: ``Doesn't Work, Never Has.''
Let's stop this misguided policy from hurting countless men and women
who serve our country. Our country should praise the men and women who
keep us safe--not persecute them.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).
Mr. SESTAK. When I arrived off Afghanistan in charge of an aircraft
carrier battle group, I knew as an admiral that a certain percentage of
that carrier battle group in combat was gay. I always wondered how one
could come home and say they don't deserve equal rights.
I respect the differing opinion. It was 5,000 sailors on that
aircraft carrier that I commanded. Their average age is 19\1/2\, and
they just don't care. I honestly believe that when those who you are
supposed to be leading are actually ahead of the leaders, leaders lose
credibility.
I joined up during Vietnam. We were having race riots on our aircraft
carriers then. We worked through that. That night off Afghanistan when
I first arrived, we had never had women pilots. I put up one woman with
seven men. She was the one that disobeyed

[[Page H8404]]

my orders and dove without permission and saved four Special Forces.
My point is we don't do this just for equality. We do it because we
want the best of all, whether it is race, whether it is gender, or
sexual orientation. That is why I support the repeal of Don't Ask,
Don't Tell.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, first let's strip away the
smoke screen: the argument that we are holding up the defense bill. It
passed this House over the objection of almost every Republican, and it
has twice been filibustered in the Senate when the Senate leadership
tried to bring it up. It is the Republican Party that has been holding
it up because of their opposition to a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
So let's talk about the merits. First of all, we are told it would be
a distraction to repeal it. It is a grave distraction to maintain it.
People have said, the gentleman from Texas: Well, we know there are gay
and lesbian people now serving. That's right. What they are telling us,
Mr. Speaker, is let's have people serving who are in fear of being
thrown out. How much of a distraction is that? What sense does it make
to say, okay, you come in here but we are going to watch you, and you
may get kicked out? And what about the money that is spent? What about
the good people that are lost, translators and others?
The maintenance of this policy is the distraction. The repeal of it
would not be. Why are we told repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell would be
a problem?
People keep quoting Colin Powell. Let me quote him from 20 years ago
when I asked him about this. I asked him if the problem was that gay
and lesbian and bisexual members of the military weren't good at their
jobs. He said: No, that is absolutely not the case. So let's not have
any libel of the honorable gay and lesbian and bisexual people who want
to serve their country and are being rebuffed by people on the other
side.
No one is arguing it is their fault. What we are told is that there
are other people who are so offended by their very presence. The code
of military justice will stay in place. Anybody who misbehaves sexually
is subject to being kicked out quite summarily. We are told that their
very presence will annoy people and will distract them.
What does that say about our young military? The gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Gohmert) said, well, anytime a military has allowed gay people in,
that has been the end of civilization. Tell that to the Israeli Defense
Forces. I guess he may be technically correct; they didn't change it,
they have always had that. They need every human being they can get who
is willing to serve, whether willing or not. And the Israeli Defense
Forces have suffered no deterioration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. I yield the gentleman an additional 10
seconds.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I must say, it is not that the young
members of the military who face death, who face the destruction of
their comrades, they are not the ones who are upset by this. It is our
colleagues on the other side who are reputing their unease at the
presence of gay and lesbian people to the young people in the military
who I think are better than that.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Pence), Republican Conference chair.
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the distinguished ranking member
for yielding and the passion that has been expressed on both sides of
this issue.
But let me state the obvious, if I can. We are a Nation at war. We
have soldiers that are in harm's way at this hour, forward deployed, at
Bagram and Helmand province, places I visited just a few short weeks
ago. And so this business is not taking place in a vacuum. We are a
Nation at war.
And let me say to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts who
just spoke who suggested that those of us who oppose a repeal of Don't
Ask, Don't Tell would commit some libel against Americans with whom we
differ on life-style choices, nothing could be further from the truth.
As a conservative, I have a particular world view about moral issues.
They do not bear upon this question. This is an issue exclusively that
is about recruitment, readiness, unit cohesion, and retention because
we are a Nation at war.
Now, I am not a soldier, but I am the son of a combat soldier. I
think we should listen to our soldiers as we continue this debate. In
recent key findings of the Pentagon study, overall U.S. military
predicted negative or very negative effects, 30 percent. The percentage
of the Marine Corps predicting negative effects, 43 percent; 48 percent
within the Army; 58 percent within Marine combat units.
We know that the leadership has testified before the Congress. Air
Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz said: I do not think it
prudent to seek full implementation. Too risky, he said.
Of course the most ominous of all was a suggestion by Army Chief of
Staff General George Casey who said: increase the risk on our soldiers.
Men and women, no one in this House, would desire to increase the
risk on our soldiers at a time of war. I know that.
And so I rise today simply to say let's remember the time in which we
live. Let's remember the first obligation of the national government is
to provide for the common defense. I believe the first obligation in
providing for the common defense is to provide the circumstances and
the resources for those who wear the uniform and carry the weapon and
provide the shield under which we live and our freedom survives. We are
a Nation at war. Reject this measure. Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a
successful compromise in 1993; and so that compromise should remain.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz) who happens to be the highest
ranking enlisted servicemember serving in Congress.
Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California and my
friend from Pennsylvania. The greatest privilege I have had in my life
has been serving this country in uniform for 24 years and helping to
preserve the freedoms and liberties of this country for all Americans.
I had the honor of training soldiers from all walks of life, and at
the end of the day my top priority was whether they could meet the
standards and do the job. As a career enlisted soldier, I know how
important it is to fill our military with qualified, professional,
motivated volunteers. And we are blessed in this Nation that our young
people are signing up.
I have no doubt that the brave men and women who serve our country
have the professionalism to end this discriminatory policy. I am
offended by the idea and the notion that they are not able to handle
change in policy. These men and women make up the greatest fighting
force the world has ever seen. They accept and complete missions every
day that require incredible discipline and bravery.
This discriminatory policy is hurting our military readiness and
weakening our Nation, such as releasing dozens of Arabic linguists
simply because they were homosexual.
Serving in the military, we believe in duty, honor and country.
Asking these brave people to lie goes against all of our values. Our
military heroes know that it is time to end this policy, the American
people know it is time to end this policy, and in a few moments we will
take the step to end it.

{time} 1640

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will note that the gentleman from
California has 3 minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from California has
6\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana, who just recently retired after 30 years of service as a
colonel in the Army, Mr. Buyer. He also serves as ranking member on the
House Veterans' Affairs Committee.
Mr. BUYER. I thank the gentleman. Let me also thank Ike Skelton, who
came to this compromise and led that back in 1993, when I was a
freshman right out of Desert Storm, came here to the Congress and began
to learn about compromise.

[[Page H8405]]

Something that's being thrown around here today that those of us who
have service in the military understand, combat effectiveness is
measured by small unit cohesion. It is measured by your buddy to your
left and to your right. That's the reality. This Congress is about to
dump a policy onto the services which the service chiefs have already
told us can have a detrimental impact upon our warriors in harm's way.
Why are we doing this? This is discrimination.
The Supreme Court allows Congress to discriminate on how our services
are put together--if you're too tall, if you're too heavy, if you don't
run fast enough, if you can't do the pushups, if you're color blind.
There's a whole array. Why do we do that? Because we want the very best
able and fit to do what? To go fight and defend America.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McKEON. I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.
Mr. BUYER. I end with this: Tolerance does not require a moral
equivalency. Think about it. This is a bad thing to repeal Don't Ask,
Don't Tell.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Boccieri), who is a major in the Air Force Reserves.
Mr. BOCCIERI. President John Kennedy said, ``A man may die, nations
may rise and fall, but ideas live on.'' The idea to which many of our
troops have fought to preserve and protect for our great Nation is the
idea of freedom--the freedom to live in a country where you can be
anything you want to be, the freedom to do anything you want to do, and
the freedom to go anyplace you want to go.
Today, our troops are over in Iraq and Afghanistan so that the people
of those nations can have even a little of what we take for granted.
The mark of a great country is that men and women, when called, will
leave everything behind, sacrifice everything for someone, something,
someplace they consider greater than themselves.
While the cause of such a noble idea as freedom lives on and our
troops sacrifice daily on foreign lands, we must maintain constant
vigilance for life here at home. The issue before us today is one of
which the very soldiers who fight to spread the idea of freedom to
countries that don't know it find an ever-fleeting policy that denies
them the opportunity to be who they want to be and the freedom to do
what they want to do.
As one who spent 17 years in the military, flying wounded and fallen
soldiers out of Iraq and Afghanistan, the finest men and women have
served our Nation, I find it regrettable that, for some, the freedom
that they're fighting for is not evenly applied.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. I yield the gentleman 10 additional
seconds.
Mr. BOCCIERI. As Admiral Mullen has said, it is troubling that men
and women from our country have to lie about who they are to defend the
truth and freedom of our war.
The courts have spoken. The military leadership have spoken. Our
military has spoken. It is time for Congress to speak that, when you
take an oath to die for our freedom, it matters not who you love at
home but, more importantly, that you love our country.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from
California (Ms. Sanchez).
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. I have had the opportunity, in 14
years on the Armed Services Committee, to meet a lot of our military
men and women. I do not believe that they are so fragile that having a
gay person serve next to them will kill them.
I rise today to express my strong support for the Don't Ask, Don't
Tell Repeal Act of 2010. The mission of our Armed Forces is to deter
war and to prevent and to protect the security of our country. If a
soldier is capable and willing to sacrifice his or her life to
honorably serve this country, that soldier is truly defending this
country.
If a gay soldier is capable and willing to fight for this country,
that soldier, too, is protecting the security of this country. If that
soldier is willing to fight for our country, but our government denies
him or her the right because the soldier is gay, then it is not the gay
soldier who puts our security at risk, but this government.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 1\3/4\ minutes remaining.
The gentlewoman has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlelady from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I have been listening to my colleagues on the other
side point out that this is a Nation at war. Yes, it is. It has been at
war for 9 long years, and I wish this Congress would talk about these
wars and the cost. But I want to talk today about the cost to the men
and women who are kicked out of the military, who have done nothing
wrong, have been serving the country all of this time, put their
careers on the line, put their lives on the line, and they're being
thrown out for something that they have nothing to do with.
I was a military spouse. I can't ever remember anybody getting upset
about whether people were gay or straight. And people knew. Of course
they know. But what we judged each other on was a code of behavior.
Behavior. And when we see men and women who are behaving and serving
our country honorably, it is absolutely disgraceful to throw them out.
So, if we want to talk about the military and the war, then I think
we should be talking about the military and the war and the cost, not
the people who are fighting it or the people who have served this
country so honorably.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlelady from Wisconsin, Ms. Tammy Baldwin.
Ms. BALDWIN. I rise to urge my colleagues to do the right thing and
act to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. After 17 years of this policy, we
know that it is unjust, discriminatory, and, in my opinion, un-
American. Integrity, after all, is a hallmark of military service. Yet
we have, in statute, a policy that requires some in our military to
conceal, deceive, or to lie.
Mr. Speaker, since the House voted in May to repeal Don't Ask, Don't
Tell, the Department of Defense released its comprehensive review of
the impact of repealing this unjust law. The report confirms that our
military personnel are ready to serve alongside American soldiers who
are openly gay and lesbian. The time has come to repeal Don't Ask,
Don't Tell and move further down the path to LGBT equality for all
Americans. In this land of the free and home of the brave, it is long
past time for Congress to end this policy.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), a member of the Armed Services
Committee.
Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman from California.
We have made this debate about a lot of things--gay rights, civil
rights, our courts, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the
Secretary of Defense, among other things--but all this is truly about
is our 18- and 20-year-old young men who are ordered to charge uphill
through a hail of bullets and close with and destroy the enemy through
fire and close combat. That's what this is about.
Repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell is going to cost our military
fighting men effectiveness, which is going to, in turn, possibly cost
lives. That's why I would like to object to the repeal of Don't Ask,
Don't Tell.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlelady from California (Ms. Richardson).
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, all men and women are created equal. In
America, the last time I heard, it also included life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness. I heard today, distraction. Is it a distraction
for a single woman to serve in the military? I say no. It is time we
start doing it because all men and all women are created equal.

{time} 1650

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have left?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 1\1/4\
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from California has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.

[[Page H8406]]

Mr. McKEON. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, our cab driver the other day said he served
in the last segregated African American unit during the Korean War. He
told me there were five guys in his unit who were gay, and he thought
those guys were the best because all five of those gay soldiers were on
the boxing team of his unit, and they beat the stuffing out of anybody
they fought.
That's who we need right now with those .50 calibers and on our
bridges and in our cockpits--the best fighters America can produce.
Right now, in warfare, we cannot afford the luxury of discrimination.
Put those Americans to work fighting for freedom. We need them.
Mr. McKEON. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, life has prepared me for this
vote. When you have had to sit at the back of the bus, in the balcony
of the movie and have had to stand in a line for colored only, then you
are prepared for this vote. I assure you that I don't need a survey to
tell me what is right when it comes to human rights. We cannot truly
have a first-class military with second-class soldiers. I close with
this:
I will not ask people who are willing to die for my country to live a
lie for my country.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 1\1/4\
minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from California has 30 seconds
remaining.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, today we have heard a few times from the
other side to do the right thing. I think the right thing will be in
the eye of the beholder.
I choose to feel that the right thing for me is to protect those in
uniform. I prefer to listen to what those who are leading those men
into combat have to say. Just one of the quotes out of the survey said:
In warfighting units, the ones which will be the most effective, 67
percent of marines in combat units predict working alongside a gay man
or lesbian will have a negative effect on their unit's effectiveness in
completing its mission in a field environment or out at sea.
Now, we may all have different opinions--obviously, from this debate,
we do--but these are the ones who are going to be affected. These are
the guys who are on the line right now, and they are saying it will
have a negative impact--67 percent. I don't think it is worth the risk
to put them in any further jeopardy than they are in right now.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask, I would implore our Members to reject
this Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal. Let's go back and look at it a
little more thoroughly before we move forward.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, we have the most adaptive,
professional force in the world. So let's move forward. No more
excuses. It is time to take away the barriers of people who put service
above self and who want to serve our country.
I urge an ``aye'' vote as we repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of
repealing the Department of Defense's misguided, discriminatory ``Don't
Ask, Don't Tell'' (DADT) policy.
For 16 years, ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' has placed an unthinkable and
immoral burden on gay and lesbian servicemen and women, who, under
United States law and unlike their heterosexual counterparts, must hide
their sexual orientation from the military. If our Nation is truly to
be the land of the free, home of the brave, we must continue to make
progress towards equality. Repealing ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' is a
crucial step forward.
Mr. Speaker, I was contacted by a gay soldier from Long Island who
despite serving his country for more than 20 years, despite
volunteering to serve in a combat zone to defend America's principles
of freedom from tyranny and from persecution, and despite receiving two
Bronze Stars for meritorious service to his country, is required by law
to lie about who he is or face being discharged from the military. In
his letter, he pleads for a repeal of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'' In
reality, he is asking nothing more than to be treated exactly the same
as other servicemen and women.
It is reprehensible that his Nation responds to his service by
telling him he needs to ``shut up'' about who he is. Upon disclosing
his sexual orientation, would his past 20 years of service be worth
less? Would he suddenly be of no value to the military? Is he suddenly
no longer a war hero? Is his 20 plus years of service suddenly an
embarrassment? The answer of course, is absolutely not. Yet, our
Nation's policy tells this soldier he's not desirable as is.
Mr. Speaker, it's a contradiction in the first degree. Our military,
including this soldier who contacted me, puts their lives on the line
to defend American principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness. Yet, those who defend these principles are themselves
discriminated against because of who they are.
This is also a self-defeating policy. Since ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell''
was implemented in 1994, more than 13,000 gay and lesbian service
members have been discharged for no other reason than their sexual
orientation. As the United States has fought wars in Afghanistan and in
Iraq, hundreds of mission-critical troops, including crucial Arabic,
Farsi, and other linguists, have been discharged because the Department
of Defense believed they were gay. At the same time, the military has
increasingly granted moral waivers to recruits with criminal
backgrounds.
Mr. Speaker, the case is clear. There is no sound argument for
maintaining this discriminatory policy. For the thousands of gay
servicemen and women who so bravely serve our country every day but who
live in constant fear of being discovered for who they are, for the
principles of freedom and equality upon which the United States of
America was founded, and in the interest of righting a wrong that has
persisted for far too long, I rise in strong support of the bill before
us and urge my colleagues to join me in honoring all American
servicemen and women, regardless of their sexual orientation.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2965, the
Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010. I am proud to cosponsor this
common-sense legislation, which would end this discriminatory policy in
an organized manner once and for all.
Following President Obama's call for repeal of ``Don't Ask, Don't
Tell'' as part of his State of the Union Address, the Armed Forces
engaged in a 9-month long, comprehensive review, receiving input from
more than 115,000 active-duty and reserve members and more than 44,000
spouses.
A clear and overwhelming majority of our Armed Forces believe
allowing gay and lesbian individuals to serve openly would not have a
negative impact.
Offered by Iraq War veteran Congressman Patrick Murphy, this bill
would ensure individuals wishing to serve in the Armed Forces are
permitted to do so regardless of sexual orientation.
It is insulting to our brave men and women on the ground to insinuate
that they are not professional enough to follow the orders of their
Commander-in-Chief, to defend our Nation during a time of war, or to
continue serving heroically, simply because they serve alongside gay
and lesbian service members.
This repeal has the support of the Secretary of Defense, Robert
Gates, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mike Mullen. Both
of these men have spent their careers protecting and defending this
Nation and could not be more forceful in their insistence that now is
the right time to repeal this unfair policy that benefits no one and
compromises the quality of our military. I have no doubt that if this
repeal would be harmful to our troops or to our national security, they
would speak out forcefully.
Admiral Mullen himself said during his recent testimony, ``Our people
sacrifice a lot for their country, including their lives. None of them
should have to sacrifice their integrity as well.''
Gays and lesbians who wish to defend our Nation are patriots, pure
and simple--no less so than a straight soldier, airman, seaman, or
marine--and they deserve to be treated as such.
I stand with Congressman Murphy in calling for repeal of ``Don't Ask,
Don't Tell'' and urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to cast my vote today to end
the unjust and misguided policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Our Nation faces great challenges and is currently at war. We need
highly qualified military personnel with a wide range of abilities,
including critical language skills. And yet, under Don't Ask, Don't
Tell, 14,000 service members have been discharged--not because of their
performance, but because of their identity. We cannot afford to turn
away talented and patriotic soldiers simply because they are gay.
The Pentagon's Comprehensive Review Working Group found that the
``risk of repeal

[[Page H8407]]

of Don't Ask, Don't Tell to overall military effectiveness is low.''
Our military leaders have expressed their confidence, which I share, in
the ability of service members to adapt to this change and remain
focused on their mission.
As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, has
said, our military is a meritocracy, where it is ``what you do, not who
you are'' that counts. Our Nation was also founded on that ideal. It is
time to repeal this discriminatory policy, so all service men and women
can finally live by the principles that they fight to protect.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to support H.R.
2965, the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' Repeal Act.
As an original cosponsor of the House versions of related legislation
that was introduced in the 110th (2007-2008) and 111th (2009-2010)
Congress, I strongly support this stand-alone measure, which would
repeal the ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy that discriminates against
military personnel based on their sexual orientation.
Enforcement of this policy has not only wasted millions of taxpayer
dollars but has caused irreparable harm to our military by dismissing
more than 12,000 well-trained and qualified members of the Armed
Forces. If enacted, this legislation will strengthen our military and
help protect our national security interests.
This past May, I voted for an amendment to the FY2011 defense
authorization bill that would have repealed this policy. Unfortunately,
the amendment and the underlying legislation passed the House only to
languish in the Senate. Congress must finally repeal this law and
replace it with a policy of inclusion and non-discrimination so that
justice and equality can be restored for the gay and lesbian
servicemembers fighting for our country.
Many of my constituents, including members of our military and
veterans who served in our Armed Forces, have contacted me to express
support for repealing ``don't ask, don't tell.'' I recently received an
e-mail from a constituent who has been on active duty for over 20 years
and wants this policy repealed so that his fellow soldiers can serve
openly and honestly without having to worry about ``living a lie'' and
continuing to suffer from bigotry.
This view is not only shared by nearly eight in 10 Americans but
corresponds with findings from the recently released Defense
Department's Comprehensive Review Working Group report. This report
revealed that a large majority of troops were comfortable with the
prospect of overturning longstanding restrictions on gays in uniform
and expected that it would have little to no effect on their units.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have testified before Congress in support of
this report's recommendations, urging Congress to vote to repeal the
flawed ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy.
Repealing this policy will ensure that our men and women in uniform
can serve our country with dignity and integrity and without fear of
discrimination. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I have opposed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell
policy since its inception in 1993. I voted to repeal it earlier this
year, and I hope to finally dispose of it with today's vote. This
harmful policy is an affront to the principles of our Nation and a
hindrance to our national security. For nearly two decades it has
prevented qualified men and women from openly serving their country.
The recently released Pentagon report makes clear that our men and
women in uniform, along with the vast majority of Americans, recognize
this policy as being discriminatory and want to see an end to the law.
Since the enactment of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, our Armed Forces have
discharged nearly 14,000 troops because of their sexual orientation,
including hundreds of Arabic and Farsi interpreters. These are critical
positions requiring specialized skills and we are turning qualified
people away in a time of severe troop shortages. The Army and Marine
Corps have been forced to reduce standards of eligibility just to reach
minimum recruitment levels for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This
includes issuing `moral waivers' to people with felony convictions.
Meanwhile, our men and women in uniform work side-by-side with openly
gay soldiers from thirteen coalition partners, including the United
Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, as well as U.S. officers and agents in
the CIA, NSA, and FBI.
We have the most modern military on earth, with the exception of this
harmful, discriminatory, and unnecessary policy. I'm proud to have
cosponsored the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 and I look
forward to its passage in the Senate. The bill will repeal the law,
bring our military up to date and the law in-line with the principles
of our country, and address this civil rights issue once and for all.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 2965, a bill
that would repeal the military's policy of mandatory discrimination
against openly gay and lesbian individuals in our Nation's military.
The ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy has been broken for years. We
have lost thousands of qualified soldiers, translators, and officers
because of a fundamentally bigoted policy. It is shameful that men and
women who continue to serve must continue to hide who they are.
Repeal of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' has the support of the Commander
in Chief, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff. A Pentagon study released last month found that the
military is ready for repeal and the vast majority of enlisted men and
women believe repeal will be positive or make no difference. Despite
the overwhelming evidence against them, opponents of this bill cling to
their intolerant views to support a shameful policy that has made our
country less safe.
Today's vote is an important step toward the day when LGBT Americans
enjoy true equality, including the right to marry. I urge my colleagues
to support this bill, and I hope that the Senate will pass this
legislation and end this policy now.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, since I became a Member of Congress, I have
always been unwavering in my commitment to repeal the discriminatory
Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.
At a time when our military is already stretched to the breaking
point and standards are being lowered to increase recruitment numbers,
it is outrageous that thousands of highly skilled soldiers, like Arab
linguists, have been forced out of uniform because of their sexual
orientation. These gay men and women only want to serve their country
with honor.
Changing a social institution is not easy, but President Truman
persevered and ended racial discrimination in the military in 1948.
Women were accepted into the military in the 1970s, and they now make
up 20% of our Armed Forces. Congress rescinded the female combat
exemption laws in 1996 and our military personnel, both men and women,
are universally acknowledged as the best in the world.
Mr. Speaker, our Armed Forces are resilient and adaptive and will
embrace Open Service as they have successfully embraced other social
changes it in the past. Repealing this policy is long overdue and will
finally allow gays and lesbians to serve their country honorably
without fear of being discriminated against by the very Nation they
fight to protect.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2965, the
Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010. This language, Mr. Speaker,
is identical to the language that this body passed in May as an
amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act.
Since that time, a legislative repeal of this law has become both
more necessary and more proper.
More necessary, Mr. Speaker, because the courts have made it clear
that they will not stand idly by while the United States continues to
discriminate against its servicemembers.
As Secretary Gates explained recently, a legislative repeal is the
only way to right this wrong as it allows the new policy to properly be
implemented ``in a thoughtful and careful way'' versus the immediacy of
a legislative mandate as was seen earlier this year.
Mr. Speaker, it is now, more than ever, important to remember that
now is always the right time to do what is right. As illustrated by the
Pentagon's own Working Group report, 70 percent of our military
personnel also recognize that repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell is the
right thing to do.
Additionally, Mr. Speaker, an ABC News/Washington Post poll released,
today, demonstrates that 77 percent of Americans support allowing open
service in the U.S. military. Support for repeal is both broad and
inclusive. These figures further show that now is the right time to
correct this injustice.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleagues who question the
impact of open service that our servicemembers have always lived and
served dutifully in an environment of open service. Whether in
Afghanistan, working alongside our allies--87 percent of which, experts
say, come from nations allowing open service--and contractors who also
allow open service and often work in the same environment and share the
same facilities as our servicemembers. Or, during the Gulf War, when
the U.S. suspended enforcement; yet no one questioned our successes or
results in our mission there. These instances, among others, not only
demonstrate the professionalism and adaptability of our fighting men
and women but they also dispel the misconceptions about openly
homosexual soldiers.
Mr. Speaker, I close with a statement from President George H. W.
Bush's Assistant Secretary of Defense, Lawrence Korb. In February of
this year Mr. Korb was asked ``Should Gays Serve Openly In The
Military?'' His reply, Mr. Speaker, was, ``Not only is it the right
thing to do, it will actually increase our security in the long run.''
Mr. Speaker, there is agreement on both sides of the aisle and across
the civilian and

[[Page H8408]]

military populations of our country that repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell
is the right thing to do. I, once again, urge my colleagues to join me
in supporting this bill.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support of the
Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010. I want to thank the Speaker
and Majority Leader for bringing this important legislation before the
full House.
Like the majority of the American public, I believe repealing this
discriminatory policy is long over-due. As Members of Congress, we owe
the bravest of our constituents, those who serve in the Armed Forces,
the right to serve openly while protecting our freedom.
As the Pentagon report and testimony by Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Defense Secretary Robert Gates
demonstrates, this policy does not make our military stronger or our
nation safer. In fact, it has weakened America's security by depriving
our nation of the service of thousands of gay and lesbian troops who
have served their country honorably--and forcing even larger numbers of
troops to lie about who they are.
We ask our soldiers and their families to make tremendous sacrifices,
yet deny many of them the most basic of civil rights? This is
abhorrent, and supporting an end to this policy will be one of my
proudest moments of the 111th Congress.
As debate on this issue has escalated over the years, I have been
fortunate enough to represent the Palm Center, previously located at UC
Santa Barbara. For over 10 years, this organization has been at the
forefront of research and outreach to repeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell
policy. It has been a privilege to bring its work to the attention of
Congress, and I know I speak on behalf of all who support repeal when I
thank the staff at the Palm Center for their tireless work.
Today's vote is the culmination of many years of concerted effort by
an untold number of soldiers, private citizens, advocacy groups and
public servants. As his colleague in the House, I would like to
particularly commend Congressman Patrick Murphy, the lead sponsor on
this bill. As a Veteran of the Iraq war, Mr. Murphy has an unparalleled
perspective on this issue and I thank him for his leadership.
I also want to thank the thousands of service members who have been
denied their civil rights for their valuable service to our country.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to do the right thing today and
support this important legislation to end this discriminatory and
harmful policy.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a cosponsor and strong supporter
of H.R. 2965, the Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010. I want to
thank Representative Patrick Murphy (D-PA) for his unrelenting advocacy
for repealing this discriminatory law and Majority Leader Hoyer for his
leadership on this issue.
The time is long overdue for the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell
(DADT), the current law that says a member of the Armed Forces--one
that would give his or her life defending our country--may not reveal
his or her sexual orientation nor may the military ask about it. Just
as today's Americans shake their heads at the thought of a segregated
military--and indeed society--I suspect that generations to come will
do the same at the shift we made in 1994 from the outright to tacit
discrimination of homosexuals in the military. Indeed, if military
readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting, and
retention are among the factors the military considers important to the
overall success of our Armed Forces, one can hardly argue that DADT,
which has brought about over 14,000 servicemember discharges, was and
is the right course of action. Mr. Speaker, our nation is engaged in
conflicts in multiple theatres and we are in desperate need of troops,
as well as foreign language translators, and yet because of DADT, there
is a segment of the population who want to serve openly and who, for
all intents and purposes, face a sign saying they ``need not apply.''
The debate over DADT raises an interesting question about how the
course of history might have changed had homosexuality been a factor in
allowing military service for these distinguished warriors:
The Spartans, the preeminent military leaders of Sparta, known for
military dominance; Julius Caesar, the father of the Roman Empire;
Augustus Caesar, the first Emperor of the Roman Empire who ushered in
the Pax Romana; the Emperor Hadrian; Alexander the Great, creator of
one of the largest and most influential Empires in ancient history; The
Sacred Band of Thebes, the elite force of the Theban army in the 4th
Century BC.
King Richard I, also known as Richard the Lionheart, a central
Christian commander during the Third Crusade; Frederick the Great,
credited for creating a great European power by uniting Prussia;
Herbert Kitchener, British Field Marshal renowned for his leadership
during World War I; Lieutenant Colonel, T.E. Lawrence also known as
Lawrence of Arabia, who successfully led the Arab Revolt against the
Ottoman Empire; and, Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben, who authored the
Revolutionary War Drill Manual which became an essential manual for the
Continental Army, helping to lead the United States to victory over the
British in the Revolutionary War.
Mr. Speaker, as we consider this hypothetical, let us turn to the
crux of the issue which is that any discriminatory law runs contrary to
the principles of this great nation. ``Let us hold these truths to be
self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain inalienable rights . . .'' That, Mr.
Speaker, is the preamble to the Declaration of Independence and it is
the epitome of who we are and what we stand for as a nation--we need to
strive to uphold this quintessential value. DADT is discriminatory and
we must end this harmful policy. Who knows how many of the 14,000 plus
discharged would have gone on to excel in their military careers. It is
time to allow them back in to the military to show us and prove that
we, as a society, will no longer tolerate the outrageous discrimination
that occurs. The gravestone of decorated Airman Leonard Matlovich, who
revealed his homosexuality to his commanding officer, tragically reads,
``When I was in the military, they gave me a medal for killing two men
and a discharge for loving one.'' Let us ensure we never again have
such a grave marker. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes''
on H.R. 2965.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R.
2965, legislation to repeal the discriminatory ``Don't Ask, Don't
Tell'' policy. Americans who fight and die for their country should not
have to live a lie in order to serve. And at this crucial time--with
our Armed Forces over-extended abroad and on watch here at home--we can
ill afford to lose people with critical skills needed to do these
difficult and essential jobs simply because of their sexual
orientation. The time has come to end this discriminatory policy.
Congress must now act according to the will of the people and overturn
``Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'' so that every serviceman and woman in
America will be treated equally under the law--regardless of who they
are and who they love.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, the success of the United States military
depends on the hard work, dedication, and sacrifices of our brave men
and women in uniform. And yet, under Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the talents
and contributions of our openly gay and lesbian servicemembers are
ignored. This is discrimination, plain and simple, and should not
stand. What should count is the performance and competence of a member
of our armed services, nothing else.
More than nine years after the 9/11 attacks, at a time when troops
are being withdrawn from Iraq and increased in Afghanistan, our gay and
lesbian servicemembers offer invaluable skills that enhance our
country's military competence and readiness. According to the Service
Members Legal Defense Network, more than 14,000 servicemembers have
been discharged under DADT since 1994. This number includes almost 800
mission-critical troops and nearly 60 Arabic linguists in just the last
five years. That is indefensible. And to make matters worse, the
financial cost of implementing Don't Ask, Don't Tell from Fiscal Year
1994-2008 was more than $555 million.
Mr. Speaker, Don't Ask, Don't Tell weakens our national security,
diminishes our military readiness, and violates fundamental American
principles of fairness, integrity and equality.
We must end this pernicious law, and we must end it now.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R.
2965: The Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010.
The House of Representatives voted on May 28, 2010 to repeal this
policy. I was proud to vote for the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell.
Our nation's military leaders and many, if not a majority, of our
servicemembers support repealing DADT. Both Secretary Gates and Admiral
Mullen--Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--have testified in
support of repeal as ``the right thing to do.'' Our servicemembers
already serve side by side with our allies--many of whom allow openly
gay and lesbian members. A servicemember is just that--a servicemember.
To distinguish heterosexual from homosexual is unnecessary.
The United States needs all the dedicated servicemembers it can get,
and one's sexuality does not determine one's effectiveness as a
soldier. Don't Ask Don't Tell hurts military readiness and national
security. Nearly 800 specialists with vital skills--Arabic linguists,
for example--have been fired from the U.S. military under DADT. Since
implementation of Don't Ask, Don't Tell in 1993, the military has
discharged more than 13,000 servicemembers whose only ``fault'' was
their sexual orientation.
It is estimated that American taxpayers have paid between $250
million and $1.2 billion to investigate, eliminate, and replace
qualified,

[[Page H8409]]

patriotic servicemembers who want to serve their country but can't
because expressing their sexual orientation violates DADT.
Mr. Speaker, the time to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell has long passed.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by
thanking Congressman Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania and Majority Leader
Steny Hoyer for introducing and bringing this momentous legislation to
the House. Our troops and veterans have taken the Oath of Service and
have devoted their lives to our country. I want to thank our Nation's
Armed Services for proudly and courageously serving our Nation.
In supporting our troops, I stand here today in unwavering support of
repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and I urge my colleagues to join me in
passing this legislation. The ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of
2010'' presents the Congress of the United States with an opportunity
to uphold civil and human rights in one of the most noble institutions
of the United States--our armed forces.
I believe that the Pentagon's extensive report regarding DADT's
repeal speaks for itself The report explained that the majority of the
military supported allowing gay members of the armed services to serve
openly. Furthermore, the report stated that allowing gay Americans to
serve openly would not have a substantial impact on troop morale,
readiness, or effectiveness. It is important that we realize and
recognize that we have the power to prevent the potentially disruptive
process of having the courts repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell by doing it
legislatively today.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has emphasized on numerous
occasions that it is critical that we pass this legislation and allow
the Department of Defense to implement the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't
Tell. Now it is our opportunity to serve our Nation, and to do what it
is best for our armed services.
Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has
expressed his strong support for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell as
well. Like Admiral Mullen, I too am troubled by such a policy that
forces the young men and women to lie about who they are. We should not
undermine the integrity of our Nation's institutions nor of those who
courageously protect our Nation's interests abroad. We must do right by
all of our American troops and move forward by repealing DADT.
It is time to end this lingering method of discrimination, and we
should not rest until this message is clear. Every American has the
right to stand among their peers to undertake the noble and courageous
task of defending their Nation. Our military should not have to lose
the patriotic and talented men and women who want to serve our country,
but are unable to do so because of DADT. Since 1993, DADT has forced
over 13,000 qualified and patriotic men and women to leave the service.
And that does not include the thousands more who have decided not to
re-enlist or join the military at all because of DADT.
I know firsthand that the men and women of the United States military
are courageous and have compassion for the humanity of each other; it
is the expansiveness of their humanity which leads them to sacrifice
and offer the last full measure of devotion on behalf of the American
people. We know it is distinctive, but there is a reason that Don't
Ask, Don't Tell should be eliminated, and it is that every patriotic
human being deserves the right to serve his or her country if they are
willing to take the Oath of Service.
President Lyndon Baines Johnson stated, ``We seek not just equality
as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a
result.'' America is a Nation of values; the right to equality and the
principle of non-discrimination is a fundamental tenet of our
democracy. Our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution speak
specifically to the equality of all people. Now is the time for
Congress to act and ensure that every American of good character has
the right to serve their Nation. We must respect the humanity and the
service of those troops who respect our country so much that they are
willing to sacrifice their lives for it.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell is also a costly policy. In 2009 alone, we lost
428 service members to Don't Ask, Don't Tell at the estimated cost of
over $12 million. There are an estimated 66,000 gay and lesbian service
members currently on active-duty, serving in all capacities around the
world to protect our Nation and advance our interests. We cannot allow
the strength and unity of our military to suffer from a destructive
force within. The cost is not only monetary; Don't Ask, Don't Tell
costs the United States by eroding our position on respecting human and
civil rights. In the same vein of the civil rights movement of years
past, we must not forget that the fight for civil and human rights
continues.
The research has been done, the representatives of our Armed Forces
support the repeal, and our President has expressed his support. It is
our turn to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. We must act now, to ensure
that human and civil rights are ensured and protected. I urge my
colleagues to defend the human and civil rights at home for those who
protect ours abroad.
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. I rise in strong support of
repealing the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy.
We have lived with the damaging effects of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell''
for 17 years. It harms our military readiness and reduces the
recruiting pool for our military. This is why Secretary of Defense
Gates, Admiral Mike Mullen, and a majority of service members support
its repeal.
This policy is both counterproductive and morally wrong.
At a time when our armed forces need qualified, dedicated men and
women in uniform, we shouldn't be forcing them out just because they
are gay or lesbian.
Gay and lesbian men and women have served--and currently serve--our
country with honor and distinction. They have laid to rest the ignorant
belief that a love for one's country is somehow based on who you love.
I am proud to stand with them and support the brave gay and lesbian
service members who ask for nothing more than a chance to serve their
country without hiding who they are.
I urge my colleagues to support this common-sense legislation that
strengthens our military and our country and fulfills the promise of
America as a place where all citizens, not just the politically popular
ones, have equal rights.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R
2965, the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010. I would like to
thank Congressman Murphy, Majority Leader Hoyer, and Congressman Frank
for their tireless leadership this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor of this legislation because American
men and women should not have to choose between the opportunity to
serve their country and being honest about their sexual orientation.
Yet since 1993, over 13,000 men and women have been discharged from our
military under Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
There are countless arguments in favor of ending this policy. Polls
have demonstrated that an overwhelming majority of Americans, including
those in the military, support ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Many of
our closest military allies, including Israel, the United Kingdom, and
Canada, have implemented policies of open service without negative
consequences to unit cohesion or military performance. Particularly at
a time when our armed forces are stretched thin, we cannot afford to
turn away Americans who are willing and able to serve. The GAO reports
that hundreds of men and women with unique abilities, including
critical language skills, have been discharged under this policy.
However, the most compelling reason for ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell
is that this policy is not only damaging, it is discriminatory. It is a
policy that forces young men and women to lie about their identity in
order to serve their country.
In February, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike
Mullen, told the Senate, ``No matter how I look at this 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. For me personally, it comes down to integrity--
theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.''
Last week, Secretary Gates called for legislative action, stating ``I
would hope that the Congress would act to repeal 'don't ask, don't
tell.' '' Today, we will move one step closer to finally ending this
damaging policy. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the
repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. There is no
reason to keep this misguided policy in place. It has the support of a
majority of Americans, military leaders, and members of the military.
You can only believe that allowing gays to serve in the military will
damage morale if you discount the fact that gays have served in our
military since the American Revolution. The supposed 'damaged morale'
didn't lead to our losing to the Redcoats or surrendering to the
Germans in two World Wars.
Allowing gay Americans to serve openly won't weaken morale in our
armed forces. Rather, overturning the misguided Don't Ask, Don't Tell
policy will strengthen our military and prevent the hemorrhage of
critical talent from an already-overstretched American military engaged
in two wars. President Truman was right to desegregate the Armed Forces
more than half a century ago and we are right to ensure that LGBT
soldiers finally can serve openly. I hope the Senate will soon pass
this legislation so the President can end Don't Ask, Don't Tell by
year's end.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, it is time to repeal the ``Don't Ask,
Don't Tell, Don't Pursue'' policy in the U.S. military once and for

[[Page H8410]]

all. The study recently released by the Pentagon confirms what so many
of us have known all along: there is no compelling state interest in
barring lesbian, gay and bisexual persons from serving openly in our
armed forces.
From the initial introduction of this profoundly misguided policy in
1993, I have never wavered in my belief that our nation's armed forces
should not discriminate against otherwise qualified citizens on the
basis of their sexual orientation--or their desire not to maintain such
orientation under a stifling cloak of secrecy that encourages and even
forces them to hide, or even worse, to lie about who they are. Today,
at a time when our nation is engaged in a difficult military conflict
in Afghanistan, the extent to which the so-called compromise ``Don't
Ask, Don't Tell'' policy has damaged America's military readiness has
become even more apparent than it was seventeen years ago.
The policy against allowing lesbian, gay, and bisexual servicemembers
to serve openly has resulted in depriving our armed forces of the
abilities, experience and dedication of thousands of qualified active
duty personnel. This institutionalized discrimination is completely
illogical and counter-productive as we grapple with an increasingly
dangerous world wracked by the threat of international terrorism, with
our servicemembers in harm's way all over the world.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has documented the
cost to our nation. In 2005, the GAO estimated the cost of
discriminating against servicemembers on the basis of their sexual
orientation at nearly $200 million over the course of just the last
decade. This estimate may, in fact, be too low, as the GAO itself
acknowledged and as other studies conducted by reputable academic
institutions like the Michael Palm Center at the University of
California have documented.
Advocates for maintaining ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' continue
stubbornly to cite elusive, unquantifiable factors to justify the
policy's inherent institutionalized discrimination. The most common
argument is the specious insistence that ``unit cohesion'' among the
armed forces will suffer if lesbians, gay men, and bisexual persons are
allowed to serve openly--an argument that even Richard Cheney, while
serving as the Secretary of Defense during the presidency of George H.
W. Bush, acknowledged in congressional testimony was ``a bit of an old
chestnut.'' Then-Secretary Cheney was right--and it's high time we
roasted that old chestnut on an open fire, and consigned it forever to
the ashbin of history.
The fact is that many other nations--including trusted allies whose
armed forces are respected around the world such as Great Britain,
Israel, Australia, and Canada--have allowed their citizens to serve in
their armed forces regardless of their disclosure of their sexual
orientation. It is high time that the United States of America, which
prides itself as a beacon of liberty and equality, joins their ranks.
I urge the members of this House to vote to repeal this misguided and
counter-productive and un-American policy.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1764, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the motion by the gentlewoman from California
(Mrs. Davis).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 250,
nays 175, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 638]

YEAS--250

Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Bono Mack
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Campbell
Cao
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Dicks
Dingell
Djou
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
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)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McMahon
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
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
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--175

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Critz
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Diaz-Balart, M.
Duncan
Emerson
Fallin
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
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
Ortiz
Paulsen
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Tanner
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--9

Baird
Berry
Cardoza
Granger
Marchant
McCarthy (NY)
McMorris Rodgers
Wamp
Woolsey

{time} 1724

So the motion was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________