[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 22118-22141]
[From the U.S. 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.''.

     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;

[[Page 22119]]

       ``(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

       (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

[[Page 22120]]

     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--
       ``(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.''.

[[Page 22121]]



     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 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

[[Page 22122]]

     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;

       ``(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 described in subsection 
     (u)(3); and
       ``(B) a justification statement from the agency, if an 
     awardee receives an award in an amount that is more than the 
     award guidelines under this section;''; and
       (4) in paragraph (10), as so redesignated, by adding 
     ``and'' at the end.

     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--

       ``(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;

       ``(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

[[Page 22123]]

     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 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

[[Page 22124]]

       ``(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 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

[[Page 22125]]

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 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.

[[Page 22126]]


  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 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

[[Page 22127]]

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. 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 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.

[[Page 22128]]

  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).

                              {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 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

[[Page 22129]]

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 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,

[[Page 22130]]

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

[[Page 22131]]

openly, I will finish ROTC and be commissioned as an officer in the 
U.S. Army. And there are many others like me--I've met them.''
  He concluded, ``So please, do whatever you can to repeal Don't Ask, 
Don't Tell.''
  Ladies and gentlemen, we have an opportunity to accept those who are 
willing, those who are able, those who want to serve their country, 
yes, in harm's way. Let us take this action. It 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. 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.

[[Page 22132]]

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 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. 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

[[Page 22133]]

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.
  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

[[Page 22134]]

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.
  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. 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.

[[Page 22135]]

  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 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.

[[Page 22136]]

  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 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

[[Page 22137]]

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, 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

[[Page 22138]]

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 
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.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation to repeal the discriminatory ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' 
Policy.
  Enacted in 1993, DADT was billed as a compromise that would allow gay 
and lesbian Americans to serve their country in the Armed Forces 
without harming military effectiveness or violating privacy rights. 
After over 15 years of experience, it is clear this policy is a 
failure.
  Over 14,000 service members have been discharged under DADT, 
including more than 800 mission-critical troops and dozens of Arabic 
and Farsi linguists. A Government Accountability Office report and 
independent studies have estimated the cost of this policy, in lost 
recruitment and training costs, at over $350 million. Yet, from 2003-
2007, the military lowered medical, conduct, and education standards 
significantly in order to meet recruitment goals. Serious misdemeanors 
and felony conviction waivers increased from 5,000 to over 10,000, 
including 3 soldiers who had been convicted of manslaughter, 11 
convicted of arson, 142 convicted of burglary, and 7 convicted of rape 
or sexual assault. Discharging qualified gay soldiers while 
simultaneously lowering the enlistment standards for others weakens our 
military.
  DADT also offends the values of our country, discriminating against 
some individuals based upon an innate characteristic that has no 
bearing on the ability to serve honorably in the military. Currently, 
24 other nations allow openly gay service, including Australia, Israel, 
Great Britain and Canada. Numerous studies have found no adverse effect 
on enrollment or retention in any of these countries. On the other 
hand, nations like Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran all ban gay 
service. I believe the interests of the U.S. are best served by 
following the lead of other democratic nations, our allies, rather than 
the policies of the most oppressive regimes in the world.
  Study after study has shown that open service does not affect 
military readiness or unit cohesion. In the recently released 
Department of Defense review, 70 percent of service members responded 
that repeal would not have a negative effect on the military. Of those 
who had actually served alongside someone who they thought to be gay. 
92 percent of respondents said that it did not have an impact on unit 
cohesion. Repeal is also strongly supported by the American public, 
with a recent Washington Post poll showing 77 percent of the public 
supports open military service. It is clear our Nation and our military 
is ready for this change.
  The most urgent reason for repeal, however, is that DADT places 
honorable young men and women in the decidedly dishonorable position of 
lying about who they are in order to serve. It is unconscionable that 
we would continue to make the lives of soldiers, many of whom face 
daily threats to their lives, more difficult by placing upon them the 
burden of lying about their sexual orientation.
  Earlier this year, I read into the Congressional Record an email from 
a current service member who happens to be gay. He shared how he and 
his partner of 10 years managed the stress and hardship that comes with 
3 deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Despite their shared sacrifices, 
his partner receives no official support from the military. would not 
be the first to be informed of his death, and cannot make emergency 
decisions. While serving in active duty, he was aware of several other 
soldiers who were gay. In one case, he didn't know a friend was gay 
until after he died of wounds from an IED and received a letter from 
the deceased soldier's partner expressing how much he had loved the 
Army and the sense of family he felt among his fellow soldiers. These 
are the real victims of DADT.
  No one should have to lie in order to serve, but that is what current 
policy requires for the estimated 65,000 gay and lesbian Americans 
currently in the military. The time for debate, and procrastination, 
and procedural stalling tactics is over. The choice today is clear: 
continue to stand beside a harmful and discriminatory policy that the 
American public and our Nation's military leaders do not support or 
vote to repeal it.
  I encourage my colleagues to do the right thing--support this 
legislation, and finally put an end to the era of ``Don't Ask, Don't 
Tell.''

[[Page 22139]]

  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of 
concurring in a Senate amendment to H.R. 2965 with an amendment that is 
known as the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010. I commend 
Congressman Murphy and Leader Hoyer for their efforts on this 
legislation, and applaud Speaker Pelosi for bringing it to the floor.
  The ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy has been ill-conceived policy 
from the start--it is discriminatory on its face, and harmful to the 
gay and lesbian uniformed servicemembers that are forced to keep their 
sexual orientation from their friends, their coworkers, and their 
superior officers. Further, these military members are currently 
subject to discharge from the military if it is uncovered that they 
have participated in any activity that may be perceived to be 
associated with homosexuality.
  Put simply, any policy that would go this far to discriminate against 
a particular group is just wrong. To date, thousands of brave 
servicemembers--including individuals who have risked their lives in 
Afghanistan and Iraq--have been discharged simply because of their 
sexual orientation.
  In recent months, members of Congress have researched this issue in-
depth--a Department of Defense survey was requested, and both the House 
and the Senate have held hearings on the issue. In a Senate Armed 
Service Committee hearing in February of this year, Defense Secretary 
Gates, and Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
spoke out against the policy. Secretary Gates has remained steadfast in 
urging that Congress act to repeal this policy in an orderly manner.
  Further evidence supporting repeal came on November 30th, when the 
results of a Department of Defense survey on ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' 
were released. The study showed that 70 percent--an overwhelming 
majority--of servicemembers believe that a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't 
Tell would be positive, mixed, or of no consequence.
  Because Congress has been slow to act on this matter, the courts have 
become involved, and now stand to potentially declare ``Don't Ask, 
Don't Tell'' unconstitutional if we do not act. Secretary Gates has 
warned that judicial repeal will put an administrative burden on the 
Department of Defense, and has asserted that Congressional action is 
most favorable.
  I believe that the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy poses an 
unnecessary threat to our national security and that the time has come 
for this policy to end.
  I urge my fellow members of Congress to join me to repeal this 
harmful and discriminatory policy.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
  Once again, the House of Representatives has acted to lift the ban on 
gay and lesbian Americans serving openly in the military by passing 
H.R. 2965, the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010'', by a vote 
of 250-175. Earlier this year, the House also passed national defense 
authorization along with a repeal provision. I applaud Majority Leader 
Hoyer and Congressman Murphy for their leadership in this effort.
  Strong leadership has been, and remains, the key to successfully 
repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell and replacing it with a policy of 
inclusion and non-discrimination. It is now up to the Senate to seal 
the deal. I urge the Senate in the strongest possible terms to act as 
soon as possible to pass the legislation necessary to repeal Don't Ask, 
Don't Tell before the end of the year.
  I stand with President Obama, Defense Secretary Gates, Admiral 
Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the majority of 
servicemembers and Americans on this matter. It is clear from the 
Pentagon's recently concluded study that the 1993 Don't Ask, Don't Tell 
law runs counter to the values that our Armed Forces embody and, 
indeed, our brave men and women in uniform.
  Furthermore, it dispels the argument that Don't Ask, Don't Tell 
repeal would harm military readiness and unit cohesion. In fact, 
approximately 70 percent of servicemembers, including their families, 
support open service by gay and lesbian Americans and that Don't Ask, 
Don't Tell repeal would have no negative effects on their units' 
ability to ``work together to get the job done.''
  There is no doubt in my mind that the Pentagon will be able to move 
forward with repeal in a manner that ensures our military's readiness 
and our national security while meeting the needs of our servicemembers 
and their families.
  Despite everything that has already been said, however, there are 
those who will vote to preserve Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I can think of 
only one reason why anyone would vote to condone such a farce of a 
policy rather than support our troops, and that, Mr. Speaker, is 
prejudice.
  At this moment, we stand closer to repeal than ever before. I could 
go on and reiterate all the reasons why we should repeal Don't Ask, 
Don't Tell, but the time for talk is over. After 17 years of 
discussion, the only thing left remaining to do is to repeal it. It is 
the right thing to do for our troops, the American people, and our 
nation as a whole.
  Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, on March 2, 2010, Secretary of Defense 
Robert Gates announced that the U.S. Department of Defense, DOD, would 
conduct a thorough review of the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy 
prohibiting openly gay men and women from serving in the military. The 
review was to examine the impact that repeal of the ``Don't Ask, Don't 
Tell'' policy would have on military readiness and effectiveness, unit 
cohesion, recruiting, retention, and family readiness.
  The review solicited feedback from more than 500,000 active duty and 
reserve component Service members and spouses, with more than 200,000 
responses ultimately being received. The Working Group that conducted 
the review was composed of 49 military personnel, officer and enlisted, 
and 19 civilian personnel from across the Department of Defense and the 
Military Services. The Group was Co-Chaired by General Carter F. Ham, 
U.S. Army, and the Honorable Jeb C. Johnson, Department of Defense 
General Counsel.
  In May of this year, while DOD's review was still underway, the U.S. 
House of Representatives voted on an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2011 
National Defense Authorization Act that would have effectively repealed 
the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy. I voted against this amendment 
because I felt it was disrespectful to the men and women in uniform and 
their families for Congress to vote on a repeal of this policy without 
first considering their vital input.
  The Department of Defense's nine-month review of the impact of 
repealing the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy was completed last 
month. The review's findings include an understandably broad range of 
opinions about the likely impact of said repeal. Ultimately, however, 
the review concludes that repeal of the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' 
policy can be implemented in a manner that minimizes the risks 
associated with military readiness and effectiveness, unit cohesion, 
recruiting, retention, and family readiness. I agree.
  It is important to note that House of Representatives Bill 2965, H.R. 
2965, does not repeal the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy immediately. 
Rather, repeal is made contingent upon the President, the Secretary of 
Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certifying to 
Congress that the Department of Defense has prepared the necessary 
policies and regulations to implement the repeal in a manner that is 
``consistent with the standards of military readiness, military 
effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed 
Forces.'' Such a deliberate and orderly implementation of the repeal 
will be critical to its success and is consistent with the 
recommendations of the Department of Defense review.
  In addition to my consideration of the Department of Defense's 
review, I received and thoughtfully considered the input of many 
currently serving military personnel and veterans in the 19th District, 
as well as numerous other 19th District residents. Similar to the 
findings of the DOD review, the input I received from my constituents 
included passionate appeals for and against repeal of the ``Don't Ask, 
Don't Tell'' policy.
  Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have had the privilege to 
interact with thousands of our nation's armed service members--here at 
home and overseas in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, and elsewhere. Each of 
these interactions has been truly inspiring and humbling. Our men and 
women in uniform, along with their loved ones, are the true heroes of 
our nation. But for their selfless service, the freedoms that all of us 
fellow Americans enjoy everyday would not be. Given that these proud 
Americans have answered the call to serve and stand ready to make the 
ultimate sacrifice on behalf of their fellow citizens, each and every 
one of them has earned my highest respect and heartfelt gratitude.
  In light of the tremendous number of troops that I have interacted 
with over the last 10 years, it is safe to say that I have visited and 
thanked a significant number of gay or lesbian soldiers, marines, 
airmen, sailors, and coast guardsmen for their courageous and dedicated 
service in defense of all that is good about our great country. In 
light of the findings of the Department of Defense review, to oppose a 
repeal of the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy would contradict the 
respect and gratitude that I feel for all who serve--regardless of 
their sexual orientation. As such, I support an orderly repeal of the 
policy along the lines contemplated in the DOD report and contained in 
H.R. 2965.

[[Page 22140]]

  In conclusion, I share the sentiments expressed by the co-chairs of 
the Department of Defense review, General Ham and Mr. Johnson, when 
they stated: ``We are both convinced that our military can do this, 
even during this time of war. We do not underestimate the challenges in 
implementing a change in the law, but neither should we underestimate 
the ability of our extraordinarily dedicated Service men and women to 
adapt to such change and continue to provide our Nation with the 
military capability to accomplish any mission.''
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker I rise in support of H.R. 2965, 
Repealing ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell''. This bill will allow thousands of 
Americans who have wanted the chance to serve their country openly and 
freely an opportunity to do so. The repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is 
the right thing to do morally as a country. Military personnel, who 
risk their lives on a daily basis so that we can enjoy all the freedoms 
America has to offer, should not be denied the ability to serve based 
upon their sexual orientation. Equality is not a privilege, it is a 
right and repealing this law is a huge step in that direction.
  At a time when our country is fighting two wars we should support 
those Americans whom fight for our liberties and freedoms. 
Unfortunately, DADT prevents thousands from doing so which makes no 
sense at all. The Pentagon's report from last month indicated a 
majority of our military soldiers and leaders support a repeal of DADT 
and I believe we should listen to them and honor what our country 
really stands for which is freedom, liberty, and justice for all.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
2965, the Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010. This will be the 
second time this year that the House votes to repeal the military's 
``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy, and I urge my colleagues to support 
it.
  Opponents of repeal are out of touch with the American people, out of 
touch with the American military, and out of excuses. For years, 
Republicans in the House and Senate have claimed that allowing gays and 
lesbians to serve openly would threaten unit cohesion. America's troops 
and military leaders disagree. In the Pentagon's comprehensive review 
of this issue, 70 percent of service members surveyed believed that 
repealing ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' would have no negative effect on 
the performance of their units. The military's top leaders, Secretary 
of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
Admiral Mike Mullen--both appointed by President Bush--have strongly 
advocated for repealing ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell.''
  At a time when our military is fighting two wars, ``Don't Ask, Don't 
Tell'' is hampering our Armed Forces, and harming our national 
security. According to a GAO report, the military had discharged over 
750 mission-critical service members by 2003 because of ``Don't Ask, 
Don't Tell,'' including over 320 service members with language skills--
such as Arabic and Pashto--that are critical to our success in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. As reported by the Washington Post, there are an estimated 
66,000 gay Americans currently serving in the military; that's 66,000 
American troops who could be discharged tomorrow simply because they 
are gay.
  Mr. Speaker, today I will vote to end a policy of open discrimination 
against a group of courageous Americans--men and women who proudly 
serve in the Armed Forces and put their lives on the line to defend our 
country. For thousands of gay and lesbian veterans who have been 
discharged from the military over the years, Congress has acted too 
late. Nonetheless, it is time to honor their service by providing a new 
generation of patriotic gay and lesbian Americans the opportunity to 
serve our country proudly and openly.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in passing H.R. 2965, and I call upon 
Members of the Senate to do the right thing by repealing this 
destructive policy once and for all.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Senate 
Amendment to H.R. 2965 and do so proudly. I support the Senate 
Amendment because I stand on the side of our military and all who have 
sacrificed for our freedom, and that is why I support the repeal of the 
``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'', DADT, policy which, since 1993 has resulted 
in the discharge of over 13,000 American servicemen and women and cost 
our taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in wasted funds. DADT 
denies equality to thousands of our soldiers and dissuades thousands 
more from enlisting in the defense of our country.
  I believe that all Americans willing to risk their lives in the 
defense of our country and obey its laws should be allowed to do so. 
Both our military and civilian leaders support the repeal of DADT. It 
is our responsibility to ensure that this change is initiated at a 
gradual, manageable pace so as to avoid any unnecessary disruption.
  Defense Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, understand that an orderly transition is critical to 
minimizing disruption in the ranks, ensuring we maintain our strength 
level and not compromise national security. I applaud Secretary Gates' 
leadership and initiative, beginning with the landmark report he 
commissioned in March 2010 which included a survey of over 115,000 
enlisted personnel and 44,000 military family members. In conjunction 
with this report, the Department of Defense prepared an implementation 
plan that will provide a smooth transition with minimal dislocation. 
The Pentagon stands ready to implement this plan, and I am proud that 
Congress is acting to move it forward.
  In the 17 years since DADT was adopted, there has been a remarkable 
change in public opinion regarding the acceptance of gays and lesbians 
serving in the armed forces. This change has been so dramatic that the 
repeal of DADT no longer represents a subject of controversy for the 
large majority of Americans. Indeed, repealing DADT brings public 
policy in line with informed popular sentiment, which is nearly always 
a positive good.
  The Pentagon's report documents one of the largest surveys of the 
attitudes of military personnel ever conducted. Its key finding is that 
the sexual orientation of their peers is not a matter of concern to 
most service members. Nearly 7 in 10, 69 percent, of respondents 
believed that they had already served with a gay or lesbian in their 
unit, and it did not undermine morale or military readiness. The report 
also finds that, if properly implemented, the repeal of DADT will have 
no adverse affect on unit cohesion or morale. These attitudes are in 
line with those of most Americans, who recognize that the military 
needs every patriotic, able-bodied recruit during a time of war.
  Mr. Speaker, opponents of the measure still claim that repealing DADT 
is ``social engineering'' that will undermine morale and erode the 
fighting force of our nation's military. Their claim is refuted by the 
empirical study conducted by the Pentagon. It is also interesting to 
note that similar arguments were raised in opposition to racial 
integration and the enlistment of women in the armed services. The 
critics were wrong then and they are wrong now. The action we take 
today also brings us in line with the long-standing practice of our 
NATO allies as well as that of Israel, a nation rooted in faith that 
would do nothing to compromise the security of its people.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this legislation and urge all my 
colleagues to do likewise. I look forward to the moment when President 
Obama signs this bill into law, which will at once strengthen our armed 
forces and ensure that all those who want to defend our freedom are 
given the opportunity.
  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

[[Page 22141]]


     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.

                          ____________________