[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9496-9505]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5136, NATIONAL DEFENSE 
                 AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 1404 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1404

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the State of the Union for further 
     consideration of the bill (H.R. 5136) to authorize 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2011 for military activities 
     of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel 
     strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule.
       Sec. 2. (a) It shall be in order to consider as an original 
     bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule 
     the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill. The 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived except 
     those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI.
       (b) Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment 
     to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be in order except those printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution and 
     amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution.
       (c) Each amendment printed in the report of the Committee 
     on Rules shall be considered only in the order printed in the 
     report (except as specified in section 4 of this resolution), 
     may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, 
     shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time 
     specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, 
     and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
     question.
       (d) All points of order against amendments printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules or amendments en bloc 
     described in section 3 of this resolution are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time for the chair of 
     the Committee on Armed Services or his designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     not earlier disposed of or germane modifications of any such 
     amendments. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this 
     section shall be considered as read (except that 
     modifications shall be reported), shall be debatable for 20 
     minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services or 
     their designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question. For 
     the purpose of inclusion in such amendments en bloc, an 
     amendment printed in the form of a motion to strike may be 
     modified to the form of a germane perfecting amendment to the 
     text originally proposed to be stricken. The original 
     proponent of an amendment included in such amendments en bloc 
     may insert a statement in the Congressional Record 
     immediately before the disposition of the amendments en bloc.
       Sec. 4.  The Chair of the Committee of the Whole may 
     recognize for consideration of any amendment printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     out of the order printed, but not sooner than 30 minutes 
     after the chair of the Committee on Armed Services or his 
     designee announces from the floor a request to that effect.
       Sec. 5.  At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 6.  The Chair may entertain a motion that the 
     Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee 
     on Armed Services or his designee. The Chair may not 
     entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the 
     bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII).
       Sec. 7.  In the engrossment of H.R. 5136, the Clerk shall--
        (a) add the text of H.R. 5013, as passed by the House, as 
     new matter at the end of H.R. 5136;
       (b) assign appropriate designations to provisions within 
     the engrossment; and
       (c) conform provisions for short titles within the 
     engrossment.
       Sec. 8.  The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
     two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on 
     Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived 
     with respect to any resolution reported through the 
     legislative day of June 1, 2010.
       Sec. 9.  It shall be in order at any time through the 
     calendar day of May 30, 2010, for the Speaker to entertain 
     motions that the House suspend the rules. The Speaker or her 
     designee shall consult with the Minority Leader or his 
     designee on the designation of any matter for consideration 
     pursuant to this section.

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


                             General Leave

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to 
insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Maine?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1404 provides for consideration of H.R. 
5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, 
under a structured rule.
  The rule makes in order 82 amendments and provides 1 hour of debate 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Armed Services.
  The rule provides that the chair of the Committee on Armed Services 
or his designee may offer amendments en bloc, debatable for 20 minutes, 
and may offer germane modifications of amendments. The rule allows the 
Chair to recognize for consideration amendments out of order printed in 
the Rules Committee report if 30-minutes' notice is given by the chair 
of the Committee on Armed Services or his designee.
  The rule provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions, provides that the Chair may entertain a motion that the 
Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee on Armed 
Services or his designee, and provides that the Chair may not entertain 
a motion to strike out the enacting words of the bill.
  The rule provides that, in engrossment, the text of H.R. 5013, the 
IMPROVE Act, as passed by the House, will be added as new matter at the 
end of H.R. 5136.
  The rule waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII, requiring a two-thirds vote 
to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules 
Committee, against rules reported from the Rules Committee through June 
1, 2010.
  Finally, the rule provides that measures may be considered under 
suspension of the rules at any time through May 30, 2010, and that the 
Speaker or her designee will consult with the minority leader or his 
designee on the designation of any matter for consideration under 
suspension of the rules.
  Mr. Speaker, last week, the House Armed Services Committee reported 
H.R. 5136 favorably to the House, by a unanimous vote, after nearly 13 
hours of debate. As a member of that committee, I am proud of our work, 
but I can say firsthand that crafting this bill was not easy.
  The needs of our country are endless and challenging; the threats to 
our security are numerous and always changing, and the resources we can 
devote to these problems are precious and limited.

[[Page 9497]]

  In the end, the bill that we will vote on later today will strengthen 
our national defense, will give our troops the equipment they need to 
do their jobs and will take care of them and their families. The bill 
also invests in military infrastructure and technology, which will 
create jobs here in the United States and will stimulate growth 
throughout the economy.
  Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more important in this bill than the 
provisions that address men and women in uniform. They deserve the best 
care and the best benefits, and this bill meets both of those 
requirements.
  The bill provides a 1.9 percent pay increase for active duty 
soldiers, increases the family separation allowance for servicemembers 
who are deployed away from their families, increases hostile fire and 
imminent danger pay for the first time since 2004, and expands college 
loan repayment benefits.
  Earlier this year, we passed historic health care reform legislation, 
which included a provision requiring private insurance policies to 
cover adult children until age 26 on their parents' policies.
  I am very pleased to see that this bill incorporates those changes 
for TRICARE and CHAMPVA beneficiaries and that it will give retirees 
and veterans the option to extend coverage to their adult children 
until age 26.
  I am also proud that this bill contains a provision I wrote, which 
will guarantee that retiring National Guard and Reserve personnel will 
get a full explanation of the benefits due to them. This provision will 
require the Department of Defense to brief retiring personnel on 
benefits like VA health care and TRICARE.
  Too often, members of the Guard and Reserve leave the service without 
a clear picture of the benefits that are owed them. Given all that we 
ask of them, that's not right. They have made great sacrifices, and I 
believe that Congress has a moral obligation to educate those heroes on 
the benefits they have earned. This is just one way we can begin to 
repay them for all they have done to protect this country.
  I am very encouraged and pleased by the fact that this rule allows 
for an amendment to be made in order by Mr. Murphy from Pennsylvania, 
which, if passed, will finally put the military on the path to 
repealing the misguided and outdated Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. I am 
looking forward to voting for the amendment and to seeing the end of 
this discriminatory policy once and for all.
  Though, while there is much in this bill that I support, there are 
also parts of it I strongly disagree with.
  I am extremely disappointed that this bill contains an authorization 
for an additional $33.1 billion for the President's fiscal year 2010 
budget request for the surge in Afghanistan as well as $159.3 billion 
for fiscal year 2011 for overseas contingency operations, the majority 
of which will, no doubt, be spent in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  We are pursuing a misguided strategy at a tremendous cost to the 
American people. The loss of one American service man or woman is 
simply too high a cost for a mission that does not strengthen our 
national security.
  An astonishing half billion dollars is included in this bill for an 
alternate extra engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. In 1996, the 
Department of Defense conducted a competition to choose the engine for 
this plane, and Pratt & Whitney won it. The engine they make meets the 
program requirements, and it is perfectly adequate. Unfortunately, a 
major defense contractor, who by 2012 would have had 90 percent of the 
military engine industrial base, lost the competition, doesn't want to 
take ``no'' for an answer, and has been lobbying hard to keep a program 
for a second engine funded.
  The Bush administration opposed the funding for this extra engine, 
and the Obama administration opposes it. Secretary Gates has said that 
the funding for the extra engine will be detrimental to the overall 
Joint Strike Fighter program. If Congress decides to ignore those in 
the Defense Department and those in the administration on this, 
estimates show that we will be forced to purchase 50-80 fewer planes, 
which will definitely affect our national security.
  Let there be no mistake. Spending half a billion dollars to build an 
engine that isn't needed and that the Pentagon doesn't want is a 
colossal waste of money. This rule makes in order an amendment, which I 
have sponsored, to strip the authorization for this program, which I 
believe is the right thing to do.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I would like to thank my friend, 
the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree), for the time, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, our 
Armed Forces have been deployed in two major theaters of operation--
Afghanistan and Iraq. Like their forefathers of long-ago wars, too many 
of these noble servicemembers have paid with what Abraham Lincoln 
called the ``last full measure of devotion to the Nation.'' Many more 
brave men and women bear the physical and mental scars of battle, which 
will last their lifetimes.
  Just this past week, two of my constituents were killed in the line 
of duty. Marine Lance Corporal Patrick Xavier, Jr., of Pembroke Pines, 
fell during a firefight in Afghanistan; and Army Staff Sergeant Amilcar 
Gonzalez, of Miami, who signed up 1 week after the cowardly attacks of 
September 11, 2001, passed away in Iraq when insurgents attacked his 
unit.

                              {time}  1045

  I know I speak on behalf of the entire Congress and a grateful Nation 
to express our deepest condolences to Patrick and Amilcar's families 
and pray for God's mercies upon them as they cope with their sorrow.
  After learning of his son's death, Corporal Patrick Xavier's father 
said, He went out there to do what he wanted to do. He wanted to defend 
this Nation. Although I feel the loss, I am proud of how he conducted 
himself.
  His father's words remind us about the solemn sacrifices that our 
veterans and family forces continue to make for us. The freedom we have 
is made possible by men and women like Lance Corporal Patrick Xavier 
and Staff Sergeant Amilcar Gonzalez. Each have stood ready in defense 
of the Nation. Our Nation owes them an immeasurable debt of gratitude. 
We have our freedoms because of their valor.
  As a Congress, we are committed to ensuring our veterans and their 
families receive all the benefits and assistance they require and they 
certainly deserve. It is wholly appropriate, therefore, that we bring 
up this legislation, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2011, on the eve of the Memorial Day weekend.
  Among its provisions, the bill provides our military personnel a 1.9 
percent pay raise, versus the 1.4 percent proposed by the Obama 
administration.
  It increases the family separation allowance for service members who 
are deployed away from their families from $250 to $285 a month.
  It increases hostile fire and imminent danger pay from $250 to $260 
per month.
  For the purpose of the Federal student loan cancellation program, it 
defines a year of service as 6 months or longer of deployment in 
hostile fire or imminent danger zones.
  Recognizing the critical role military families play and the 
sacrifices they make, the bill also establishes a career development 
pilot program for military spouses.
  To address the physical and mental scars borne from combat, the 
legislation allows for an exemption for military medical providers 
older than 42 years to be considered for recruitment.
  It also increases incentives for students in health care education 
programs to pursue military careers by allowing Health Professions 
Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program participants to also 
receive payments from the Active Duty Health Professions Loan Repayment 
Program.
  It also requires the services to increase the number of authorized 
mental health providers by 25 percent.

[[Page 9498]]

  The legislation authorizes $567 billion in budget authority for the 
Department of Defense and the national security programs within the 
Department of Energy.
  The bill also authorizes $159 billion to support overseas contingency 
operations and $34 billion for the military operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, as well as disaster assistance for the victims of the 
Haiti earthquake.
  Later today, we are expected to consider an amendment by Mr. Murphy 
of Pennsylvania on the repeal of the so-called Don't Ask, Don't Tell 
policy. I am not interested in whatever legal activities adults engage 
in after-hours, off-base, out of uniform. Sexual preference should not 
even be a point of reference when judging individuals.
  I also believe that when the President announced his decision to 
repeal the current policy and the military service chiefs and the 
Secretary of Defense requested the opportunity to carry out the 
President's directive in an orderly manner that would assure the 
maintenance of discipline and morale in the Armed Forces, and it was 
agreed to by all, including the President, that a survey would be sent 
to all the troops so that their input would be taken into account 
regarding how best to implement the new policy, and that a report with 
such recommendations as to how to best implement the new policy would 
be issued this December, before any legislative action was taken, it is 
my view that that process, which was agreed to by the President 
pursuant to the request of the service chiefs and the Secretary of 
Defense, should be followed.
  So, breaking the agreement now by having this vote today is most 
unfortunate, and I strongly disagree with the decision of the 
President, the Speaker, and the majority leadership to do so, to break 
that agreement today.
  I wish to thank Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon for their 
hard work on the underlying legislation and their commitment to 
producing a bipartisan bill that enjoys widespread support. Through the 
process, members on both sides of the aisle on the Armed Services 
Committee worked to produce a bipartisan bill, but as the bill made it 
up to the Rules Committee, that bipartisan spirit did not survive.
  The rule brought forth by the majority today allows the House to 
debate a total of 82 amendments. Eleven of those amendments are 
bipartisan ones, while 64 are majority amendments and 7 are minority 
amendments.
  So the majority has decided that on this always bipartisan bill, the 
bill that authorizes our military programs, they will allow nine 
majority amendments for every one minority amendment. That is some 
bipartisanship. But, again, it is typical of this majority to claim 
that they want to work with the minority, but even on bills that have 
overwhelming bipartisan support, they just can't seem to loosen their 
overwhelming urge to stifle debate, stifle debate, and block minority 
participation in the legislative process.
  So, while I am disappointed by the majority's decision to allow such 
a disproportionate share of majority amendments compared to minority 
amendments, I have become quite accustomed to their behavior.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the chair of the Committee 
on Rules.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ms. Pingree for yielding.
  I want to take just a second to respond to my good friend Mr. Diaz-
Balart, and he is.
  We had many, many fewer Republican amendments even offered. I think 
there were less than a quarter. The number of Democratic amendments was 
overwhelming. Almost every Republican amendment that was germane was 
made in order. We do believe in a spirit of bipartisanism.
  But today I want to rise in support of the National Defense 
Authorization Act of 2011. After spending nearly a decade working to 
combat sexual assault in the military services, with my colleagues 
Susan Davis and Jane Harman, I am thrilled with the most comprehensive 
overhaul of the Department of Defense sexual assault policy ever.
  Last week, we introduced legislation to ensure better training for 
JAG officers and victim advocates who handle sexual assault cases, 
create confidentiality protocols, to protect the victims' rights and 
raise the likelihood of victim reporting, and to ensure that victims 
are afforded expeditious state-based transfers to spare them from their 
alleged offenders.
  I am pleased to see that this year's Authorization Act includes 28 
new sections to amend the sexual assault policy within DOD, and that 5 
of the 6 provisions that Representative Harman and I introduced are 
included.
  While I believe the National Defense Authorization Act is critical to 
our efforts to overcome the problem of sexual assault in the Armed 
Forces, the task force's recommendation to ensure the ease of base or 
organization transfer for victims is absent from the bill that came 
from the Rules Committee.
  See, I didn't get what I wanted either, Mr. Diaz-Balart.
  I worked in conjunction with Representative Harman to draft an 
amendment to NDAA, and I am proud to ask for this Congress to support 
it.
  The Harman-Slaughter amendment calls for an expedited priority 
consideration of an application for permanent change of base or unit 
transfer for victims of sexual assault to reduce the possibility of 
retaliation against the victim. DOD reports that an estimated 90 
percent of the cases of sexual assault go unreported in the military, 
and half of the women who do not report rape or sexual assault do so 
because of fear of retaliation.
  We too often hear that the reporting process is more traumatic for 
the victim than the attack itself, and this provision is critical to 
help address the fear of retaliation that victims face.
  The report estimates that 90 percent of sexual assault cases in the 
military go unreported. That is an extraordinarily high number. 
According to the DOD, half the women who don't report rape or sexual 
assault are scared, as I said before.
  Furthermore, in half of all sexual assault cases in 2008, the 
commander took no action, and only 13 percent of reported cases were 
prosecuted and referred to courts marshal. These figures are far below 
the civilian prosecution rate. In fact, some women have told us that 
when they reported sexual assault or rape, they were told by the 
commander, ``You don't want to ruin that young man's career, do you?''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I am glad to yield another minute to the 
gentlewoman.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. These disturbing findings indicate the need for 
policies to protect the rights and the welfare of the accuser.
  I want to share a story by a young woman, a lieutenant in the Air 
Force, who was allegedly sexually assaulted by a fellow officer. 
According to her testimony, military criminal investigators and JAG 
officers told her, If I were a defense attorney, I would tell you that 
you gave the offender mixed signals and that ``no'' was not enough. She 
recalls she did not just say ``no''; she physically held onto her 
underwear.
  But even after she reported the rape, she was forced to salute her 
rapist every day. She trained for over a year for a highly classified 
mission, but since then has lost her security clearance. She concluded 
her testimony with, I feel like I am being punished for a rape that 
happened to me.
  It is a very serious problem, and getting more serious. I thank the 
military for the work it is doing to try to control this, but surely 
when our young women and young men go off to protect the United States 
of America, they should be free from assaults from their fellow 
soldiers.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege 
to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
this rule.
  Yesterday I testified in front of the Rules Committee on five 
amendments I

[[Page 9499]]

offered to this National Defense Authorization Act. Unfortunately, 
House Democrats refused to allow any of my commonsense amendments to be 
debated today on the floor. And I am sure they were germane, Mr. 
Speaker--things such as regarding the transfer of detainees at 
Guantanamo Bay, the use of alternative sources of fuel at DOD, 
excessive union activity on official time at the Department of Defense, 
and gun rights for the 40,000 active and reserve members of our 
military who reside in Washington, D.C.
  However, the Rules Committee did make in order an amendment with 
which I have strong reservations. Today should be about what is best 
for the defense of our Nation and what is best for our brave men and 
women in uniform. However, it is clear that today, Mr. Speaker, many in 
this body intend to use our military as a means to placate a liberal 
political constituency, rather than taking the time to weigh the input 
of 2.5 million men and women and their families who wear the uniform, 
including the family of Lieutenant Tyler Brown, who gave his life for 
his country in Iraq almost 6 years ago. Today would be his 32nd 
birthday.
  Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the 
Secretary of Defense have asked Congress to delay voting on Don't Ask, 
Don't Tell repeal until the completion of a study on the impact of the 
repeal and the best ways to implement it. Simply put, we must know what 
impact repeal of the law will have on unit cohesion, readiness, 
recruiting, and retention.
  But, unfortunately, rather than wait for the results, Mr. Speaker, 
our Democratic colleagues want to prejudge its conclusions and 
substitute their judgment for the collective findings of our military. 
This is without question the wrong way to legislate, but it is what the 
American people have come to expect from this Democratic majority.
  It wasn't long ago that Speaker Pelosi told the American people that 
they would learn what was in the health care bill once it was passed. 
Now liberals in Congress are once again selling the American people 
this same bill of goods, Congress must act without fully knowing what 
the impact of acting will be.
  The stakes are indeed high, Mr. Speaker. By ignoring the opinion of 
the military and their families, the majority will alienate the very 
institution that is fighting on the front lines of this global war on 
terror.
  General George Casey, the Army Chief of Staff, has ``serious concerns 
about the impact of the repeal of the law on a force that is fully 
engaged in two wars and has been at war for 8\1/2\ years.'' Similar 
concerns have been noted by every other service chief, by the American 
Legion, by over 1,500 retired general flag and general staff officers, 
and countless others. Clearly the Democrats believe they know better.
  The American people want to trust their government, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentleman 30 
additional seconds.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. The American people want to trust their 
government, Mr. Speaker, but the repeated bait-and-switch tactics of 
congressional liberals is making that virtually impossible.
  So I urge my colleagues, vote against this rush to judgment.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), also a member of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the effort to 
legislatively repeal the statute of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and leave it 
up to the military to implement their own policy recommendation.
  First of all, Don't Ask, Don't Tell is the only law in the country 
that requires people to be dishonest about their personal lives or face 
the possibility of being fired. It's a law that's not only hurtful to 
the men and women who currently serve in our Armed Forces, but it's a 
law that's hurtful to our national security as Americans.
  George Washington, our Nation's first Commander in Chief, is 
enshrined in American history for telling his father, I cannot tell a 
lie. Yet more than 200 years later, this shameful law mocks 
Washington's words and makes lying required operating procedure for our 
military's rank-and-file. Today we have the opportunity to end this 
law.
  I'd like to address some of the remarks from the gentleman from 
Florida and the gentleman from Georgia. This proposal and this 
compromise have been endorsed by Admiral Mullen, as well as Secretary 
Gates. Absent this statutory change, which we are doing consistent with 
our congressional time line of the defense authorization bill, the 
military would find itself in a position to be unable to implement its 
own recommendations.
  This simple change today will remove this statutory albatross from 
around the neck of the military and allow them, the military, the 
Secretary of the Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, to 
implement the policy that best enhances military readiness and best 
allows them to improve morale and unit cohesion within the military.
  Absent an action today, their hands will be tied, and they will be 
unable to implement their own recommendations that take into full 
account the opinion of the men and women who serve the officers and the 
stakeholders within the military.
  The vast majority of Americans, including majorities of Republicans, 
independents and Democrats, recognize that on the battlefield it 
doesn't matter if a soldier is lesbian, gay, or straight. What matters 
is they get the job done for our country.
  Don't Ask, Don't Tell hurts military readiness and national security, 
while putting American servicemembers fighting overseas at risk. To 
date, it's forced out over 13,000 well-trained, at taxpayer expense, 
and able-bodied soldiers out of the military.
  It's time to repeal this law, and I applaud the leadership of my 
friend, the honorable Congressman and veteran, Patrick Murphy, in his 
efforts to do so.
  By allowing the Pentagon to conduct a careful study of the 
implementation of the repeal, this amendment is a fair balance between 
ending the discriminatory policy and respecting the opinions of our 
military leaders.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. POLIS. In 1993 the passage of Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a result 
of a political process, not a military one. Today we can rectify that 
and continue with this process under way where the military consults 
with and listens to men and women and stakeholders in the military in 
deciding how to modify this policy and removing the statutory 
requirement for this policy and allowing the military to do the right 
thing to improve military readiness and enhance the protection of our 
country.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I hope my friend, 
the gentleman from Colorado, knows that I have extraordinary respect 
for him, and that we have a legitimate disagreement with regard to our 
analysis of what I consider was an agreement that was entered into, 
including by the President, after he announced his decision to repeal 
the current policy as Commander in Chief, that this study that will 
lead to a report in December that would be conducted before legislative 
action takes place. And so I reiterate my respect to the gentleman from 
Colorado.
  And I have many friends who believe differently than I do with regard 
to the vote that I will be taking today. I studied this issue very 
thoroughly and know that it is a very serious matter. But I stand by 
what I said in my previous remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished friend from Ohio 
(Mrs. Schmidt).
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly urge my 
colleagues to reject the amendment proposing the elimination of funds 
to the Joint Strike Fighter Alternative Engine program, a amendment 
being lobbied by Pratt Whitney to eliminate their competition.
  The Joint Strike Fighter is the Department of Defense's largest 
procurement program. Plans currently call for

[[Page 9500]]

acquiring nearly 2,500 Joint Strike Fighters. Hundreds of additional F-
35s are expected to be purchased by U.S. allies. This is a major 
acquisition.
  The gentlelady from Maine is in error when she says that there was 
competition, because, in fact, in testimony just last week, both the 
Department of Defense and the GAO testified that this engine was never 
actually subject to competition.
  The fact is, providing funds for competitive alternate engines will 
ultimately drive down costs, improve product quality and contractor 
responsiveness, drive technological innovation, and ensures that 
taxpayer dollars are not wasted.
  History shows that competing engines can result in significant long-
term savings. The ``Great Engine War'' saved the F-16 program 21 
percent in overall costs, according to a 2007 GAO report. This 
represents $20 billion in savings for the lifetime of the Joint Strike 
Fighter.
  Just last year, the House and Senate unanimously voted on the Weapons 
Systems Acquisition Act, mandating competition on large military 
procurement. This is a large military procurement. Now some want to 
circumvent this law with an amendment.
  Fully funding the alternate engine is not only prudent risk 
management, but an acknowledgment of the fundamental responsibility 
that Congress has to protect and provide the most reliable equipment to 
our men and women in uniform.
  This is the right thing to do. It will save money for us in the long 
run, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment that 
will be offered later today.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today in 
support of Mr. Murphy's amendment to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. At 
its core, this is a vote against discrimination and division, a 
symbolic gesture to the country and the world that Congress' commitment 
to equality will always triumph over inequality.
  As LGBT activist David Mixner said at the inception of this 
unfortunate policy: ``They frighten our neighbors with the big lie. 
They paint pictures that only contain dark colors. They resort to the 
same bigoted arguments that have been used for centuries to deny every 
minority their freedom and equal rights.''
  Today we must rise up against these forces that conspire against 
progress and equality in every generation. Today, it is our turn to 
send a message to the Nation: Congress will never again sanction 
bigotry in our Armed Forces.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor often on the rule and 
sometimes to thank the Rules Committee for allowing an effort to strike 
earmarks from legislation. This is the first time I've ever come to the 
floor on an authorization bill or an appropriation bill where I've been 
completely shut out of the process, not able to offer any amendments 
with regard to earmarks. And it's easy to see why right now.
  In the past, I've always come to strike both Republican and 
Democratic earmarks from legislation. This time there are some 230 
earmarks in the bill and only one was a bipartisan earmark request. The 
rest were Democratic earmark requests, no Republicans because 
Republicans have adopted an earmark moratorium.
  So this looks like the start of a pattern. It was all well and good 
to challenge Republican and Democratic earmarks, but if there are only 
Democratic earmarks in a bill, then nobody is going to be allowed to 
challenge them.
  Now, what kind of process is that?
  Have we come to a point where we're simply going to shield Members 
and their earmarks from scrutiny?
  We talk about disclosure till we're blue in the face and 
transparency, and it's all a lofty term. But then when it comes down to 
it, when there's only one party earmarking in a bill, when a Member 
comes up to challenge those earmarks, he's shut out. No, you aren't 
allowed to. You can only challenge Republican earmarks, and since there 
are none there, or Republican and Democratic earmarks, if there are no 
Republican earmarks, you're not going to be allowed to challenge any.
  Now, I suppose that's what's going to happen with appropriation bills 
this year as well, and that's a shame. It's a doggone shame, because of 
all the rhetoric that's come, and some good measures that have been 
taken on both sides of the aisle with regard to transparency, this is a 
huge step backwards. We're going the wrong direction here.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean).
  Ms. BEAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 2011 National Defense 
Authorization Act, and I'm pleased that policy language that I authored 
regarding emergency medical technicians has been included in the 
committee report. With this inclusion, reciprocity between the armed 
services and States regarding certification for emergency medical 
technicians, EMTs, will be established.
  Last year, the State of Illinois passed legislation which allows 
military ``emergency medical technician'' training of an honorably 
discharged member of the Armed Forces to be considered as reciprocal 
for its licensure requirements. Working with Representatives Harman and 
Herseth Sandlin, I included such a provision into H.R. 3199, the 
Emergency Medic Training, or EMT, Act which was later incorporated into 
the House Health Insurance Reform Bill.
  Although the provision was not included in the final health reform 
legislation, the need for such direction to States has now been 
addressed. Our men and women in uniform will be able to use their real-
time training and education in the field to help those in emergencies 
here at home, if they so choose, without the cost and redundancy 
retraining upon their return.
  I thank Chairman Skelton for his support and his efforts on the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, there was an agreement with the military to 
do a study on what to do about the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. That 
was the agreement, and the study is due at the end of the year.
  What this rule says, by bringing this amendment to the floor, is, 
while we send men and women out in harm's way to lay down their lives 
for us, we don't care what you think. We don't care what word you were 
given by your leaders that we do care what you think and will 
incorporate that and will work with that. We're saying we're shoving 
this down your throat. We don't care.
  And think about the policy. Now, look, I have represented people in 
the Army who practiced homosexuality, and heterosexuality, and sexual 
assault victims. I understand this issue perhaps more than many of 
those on the floor here.
  And I'm telling you, the military is not a social experiment. We are 
sending them out there with a mission to protect this country. And if 
someone has to be overt about their sexuality, whether it's in a bunker 
where they're confined under fire, then it's a problem. And that's what 
repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell does. It says, I have to be overt. I 
don't care. I want this to be a social experiment.
  Our men and women in the military deserve better. Let's hear from 
them at the end of the year with a complete study, and then the leaders 
keep their word when we send our military out to die for this country.
  We owe them better than this. This shouldn't have been part of the 
rule. It shouldn't be part of the vote. Let's keep our word for a 
change.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I do have to disagree with the 
previous speaker for a whole variety of reasons, and I won't take up a 
lot of time. But this is not about being overt about your sexuality. 
This is about people

[[Page 9501]]

who have been denied the right to talk about exactly who they are.
  This is about 14,000 members of the military who have served this 
country, many with extremely vital skills, who have been asked to step 
down and leave; many people who choose not to go in the military for 
the fear of what could happen to them after they've served this 
country.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri), one of 
my good colleagues and a member of the Rules Committee.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from the great State of 
Maine for yielding me the time.
  I rise today in strong support of this rule and the underlying bill. 
However, I would like to voice my strong opposition to one of the 
amendments that will be offered later on today, and that is the 
amendment to strike the second jet fighter engine, for two reasons. One 
is I think the two things that are most critical for us in considering 
this bill is, one, obviously the security of our constituents and the 
people at home and our country; and, secondly, the cost.
  On both of these, I think it's very important to note that, one, a 
second fighter engine gives us a strong sense of security, redundancy, 
and the insurance that we will have one good engine and that we will 
have a good backup engine. Secondly, the costs in the long run clearly 
will show the price will come down if we have competition. It has been 
demonstrated in the past. It will continue to demonstrate it.
  I yield to someone who is much more familiar with that, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Driehaus).
  Mr. DRIEHAUS. I appreciate the gentleman from New York for yielding.
  This is a critical issue, and I share his concern with regard to 
stripping of the authorization for the competitive engine. Just this 
past year, the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 was passed 
by this Congress. It passed by a vote of 411-0. And I would draw 
Members' attention to section 202, the acquisition strategies to ensure 
competition throughout the lifecycle of major defense acquisition 
programs. That includes the Joint Strike Fighter and its propulsion 
system subject to its provisions.
  As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the alternative engine has been 
funded every year since 1996. The House has voted nine times to support 
the competitive engine. Already $2.9 billion has been invested in the 
alternative engine. And now that development is 75 percent complete, 
now that it has been qualified for production in 2012, now as both 
engines are approaching the starting line and are in the starting 
blocks, Pratt and the folks in Connecticut want to suggest that they 
should be declared the winners of the race before the race has even 
started.
  We believe in competition when it comes to acquisition, Mr. Speaker. 
This is a critically important program. It's critically important to 
keep competition in the engine program.
  And I will close with a quote from our former Member Jack Murtha, who 
fought for this competitive engine for years and years and years. 
``We're going to build thousands of Joint Strike Fighters. And when you 
look back at problems we've had in the past with large aircraft 
procurement programs, you realize why it's absolutely essential to 
build two different engines. An alternative engine will provide cost 
savings through competition as well as provide greater reliability down 
the road in case we have problems with one engine that could 
potentially ground our entire tactical aircraft fleet.'' That is from 
former Congressman Jack Murtha, July 16, 2009.
  I would ask my colleagues to support the competitive engine program 
and defeat the amendment.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
my friend from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, we have been lucky, lucky over 
the skies of Detroit, lucky in Times Square, but we will not be lucky 
forever. We need to be proactive in our ability to gather intelligence 
and prevent terrorist attacks before they even get started. Catching 
somebody on the plane going back to Pakistan after they have delivered 
an explosive device is not success; it's failure. Catching them when 
they are on the plane in Pakistan coming to the United States would be 
an intelligence success.
  Prevention means speed and agility. Prosecution means slow and 
methodical. Both have their place. But when we are trying to protect 
the United States of America, Mr. Speaker, we need to be quick and 
agile and move quickly and use every bit of intelligence we can get 
from a detainee before we move into the prosecution phase.
  Unfortunately, the majority did not allow that to happen. We said, 
Listen, when somebody comes into detention, every bit of actionable 
intelligence should be exhausted before they are turned over to the 
Department of Justice to have their Miranda rights read. It's a simple 
amendment. It's an honest amendment. It's an amendment that will keep 
us safe. They tell you, Well, we already have that prohibition against 
soldiers reading Miranda rights on the battlefield. So what? They don't 
read Miranda rights on the battlefield, but Federal law enforcement 
agents do. And that's what's happening.
  We are losing valuable information. And, predictably, these detainees 
are starting to say, Well, listen, if you are saying I don't have to 
talk until you provide me a lawyer, guess what, I won't. And equally 
predictably, guess what, we have had more almost successful attacks. 
And if we are counting on a t-shirt guy in Times Square to solve our 
terrorist problem, or the guy that's checking your luggage at the 
airport to catch that terrorist before they get on the plane, or the 
gate guard at a military base, we are going to lose.
  This is about common sense. We should reject this rule. It has denied 
our ability for our intelligence agencies to get the information from 
detainees that will save lives. Again, I urge the rejection of this 
rule.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. I thank the gentlelady from Maine for yielding 
and for her leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I have long opposed additional funding to support the 
ongoing occupation of Iraq and a policy of open-ended war in 
Afghanistan that continues to undermine the economic and national 
security of the United States. Estimates for the direct and indirect 
costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are now as high as a 
staggering $7 trillion.
  Unfortunately, the $726 billion authorized in this defense bill, 
including $159 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
continues an unsustainable rise in military-related expenditures that 
have nearly doubled since 2001 and which now account for nearly 60 
percent of Federal discretionary spending.
  I want to thank the chairman for accepting en bloc my amendment to 
highlight and prioritize potential cost savings at the Department of 
Defense through reductions in waste, fraud, and abuse. Also, I want to 
thank the committee and Chairman Skelton for continuing the prohibition 
on the establishment of permanent military bases in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, and for including language I offered calling for 
improvements in the budgeting of national security priorities to better 
reflect the needs of foreign engagement programs outside DOD.
  Efforts to reduce the United States military footprint abroad and 
wasteful spending at the Pentagon are small steps toward what needs to 
be done for a fundamental shift in U.S. foreign policy. In recognizing 
the economic challenges we face here at home, high rates of 
unemployment, crumbling schools and infrastructure, there is no denying 
that the long-term success and security of our Nation is at stake.
  Finally, I urge my colleagues to take this opportunity to begin to 
repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. That has unfairly denied fundamental 
human rights to highly qualified individuals

[[Page 9502]]

who wish to serve our country. I believe this country is ready to 
immediately end this inequitable policy. Setting this process into 
motion today is a historic step on behalf of all those who have been 
discriminated against. Discrimination is un-American. It's un-American. 
Now is the time to end it in the military.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
my friend from Texas (Mr. Olson).
  Mr. OLSON. Yesterday, the Rules Committee rejected two amendments to 
the defense authorization bill I offered to strengthen national 
security and provide clarity to an area of law that badly needs it.
  My first amendment would have prohibited Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or 
any other Gitmo detainee from enjoying the U.S. constitutional benefits 
of a civilian criminal trial. Supporters of the administration's plan 
will reference Richard Reid, Najibullah Zazi, and the most recent 
attempt carried out by Faisal Shahzad as examples of why KSM should be 
tried here. But these individuals were either U.S. citizens, reside 
here, or were arrested here. Congress must understand the difference.
  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is not an American citizen. He is an enemy 
combatant captured in a battle zone. The same can be said of every 
other Gitmo detainee. These individuals are not criminal defendants, 
and this Congress should recognize the difference.
  My other amendment would have allowed Congress to make clear that 
enemy combatants at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan do not have the same 
right to access our court system that U.S. citizens enjoy. Last week, 
the DC Court of Appeals ruled that three Bagram detainees lack access 
to rights in U.S. Federal courts. And while this ruling is helpful, my 
amendment would have sent a clear legislative message that enemy 
combatants detained in an active war zone do not have special rights.
  The administration is oddly obsessed with giving foreign enemies of 
the United States the same rights American citizens enjoy. Enough. 
Respect the Constitution.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentlelady from California and 
I thank the Rules Committee for allowing amendments in that I have 
offered dealing with the expansion and opportunity for small and women-
owned businesses and addressing the tragedy of Fort Hood as relates to 
the civilians who were impacted by that enormous tragedy.
  First, of course, my honor and respect to the United States military 
for their service as we move toward the commemoration of Memorial Day.
  But I would also like to suggest that an amendment that I offered 
could have been added that dealt with $10 million going to the State 
Department to improve smart power diplomacy, and also some additional 
work on helping our families, having spoken to the Air Force families, 
to make sure that services are utilized during predeployment.
  But I am grateful, of course, that we are moving forward on Don't 
Ask, Don't Tell, and in tribute to August Provost, an innocent who lost 
his life in San Diego because people did not understand that he, too, 
was a soldier even though, even though his lifestyle may have been 
different. It is a disgrace to eliminate those who want to serve their 
country.
  And finally, I would offer to say that I look forward to a colloquy 
that would establish NASA, or begin to address the question of whether 
or not the Defense Department needs to assess whether NASA is a 
national security asset as we move toward commercialization.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important to honor our military. I also 
believe it is important to recognize their needs. We need to promote 
the needs of their families, the families of the United States 
military, and ensure those civilians who are on military bases, who 
suffered as the soldiers did, will continue to have access to 
posttraumatic stress disorder counseling as they move forward to 
rebuild their lives.
  I ask my colleagues to vote on the amendments and vote on the 
underlying rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my amendment (#175) to H.R. 5136--
``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011.''
  My amendment would authorize the Secretary of Defense to transfer 
funds up to $10,000,000 to the Department of State (DoS) if the 
Secretary of Defense deems such a transfer to be in the interest of 
National Security.
  This amendment would give the Secretary of Defense the ability to 
transfer a portion of the Department of Defense's (DoD)'s budget to the 
Department of State based on the need for diplomatic programs that 
boost national security. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and 
Secretary Gates have declared for years how they believe the State 
Department is better suited to carry out certain diplomatic activities 
in support of defense operations. Admiral Mullen even stated: ``I would 
hand over part of my budget to the State Department, in a heartbeat, 
assuming it was spent in the right place.''
  Diplomatic efforts should always lead and shape our international 
relationships, and the leaders of our military believe that our foreign 
policy is still far too dominated by our military. The diplomatic and 
developmental capabilities of the United States have a direct bearing 
on our ability to shape threats and to reduce the need for military 
action. If this amendment is passed, it will be extremely significant 
and relevant to national defense, and improve the Department of Defense 
and the Department of State's ability to defend our nation.
  Thank you again. I urge my colleagues to support this simple but 
important amendment.
  I thank the Speaker for this opportunity to explain my amendment to 
H.R. 5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. 
My amendment would require the Secretary of Defense to provide an 
outreach program to educate small businesses, including minority-owned, 
women-owned, and disadvantaged businesses. The Secretary shall also 
provide access to procurement and contracting opportunities for these 
businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, I have long supported efforts to increase opportunities 
for small businesses, especially those that are minority-owned, women-
owned and disadvantaged. We know that small businesses are the engine 
to our economy and that they provide much needed support for 
communities across the country. Small businesses employ 57.4 million 
Americans. Many Americans seek to fulfill the American dream by 
becoming small business owners, and everyone in the United States 
should be given the same opportunity to fulfill that dream.
  Women and minorities have long been disadvantaged when it comes to 
getting business opportunities, and it is important to provide 
educational resources that will enable women, minorities, and other 
disadvantaged business owners to arm themselves with the necessary 
tools that they need to operate viable and thriving businesses. This 
will only improve communities throughout the United States.
  For these reasons, I urge the Committee to make my amendment in 
order.
  I thank the Speaker for this opportunity to explain my amendment to 
H.R. 5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. 
My amendment would require the Secretary of Defense to maintain a 
website or searchable database of small businesses, including minority-
owned, women-owned, and disadvantaged businesses with which the 
Department of Defense has contracts.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe it is crucial that we have a mechanism in 
place that allows us to track the numbers of minorities, women, and 
other disadvantaged businesses that receive contracts from the 
Department of Defense. We need to make sure that women, minorities, and 
disadvantaged businesses are getting reasonable opportunities to 
establish and grow their businesses. One of the ways we can monitor 
this is to have public access to the numbers through a searchable 
database.
  I have long supported efforts to increase opportunities for small 
businesses, especially those that are minority-owned, women-owned and 
disadvantaged. We know that small businesses are the engine to our 
economy and that they provide much needed support for communities 
across the country. Many Americans seek to fulfill the American dream 
by becoming small business owners, and everyone in the United States 
should be given the same opportunity to fulfill that dream.
  Women and minorities have long been disadvantaged when it comes to 
getting business opportunities, and it is important to provide 
educational resources that will enable women, minorities, and other 
disadvantaged business owners to arm themselves with the necessary

[[Page 9503]]

tools that they need to operate viable and thriving businesses. This 
will only improve communities throughout the United States.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
my friend from Missouri (Mr. Akin).
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, we are now considering a rule on the Armed 
Services bill. The rule allows 10 minutes to debate the question of 
Don't Ask, Don't Tell. A question in terms of policy which probably has 
more far-reaching implications than how many aircraft carriers we have 
is going to get 10 minutes just before Memorial Day. I think maybe some 
people in the rules department here don't really want to see this fully 
investigated or discussed.
  The current rule of Don't Ask, Don't Tell says that if you are 
homosexual and you want to serve in the military, that's fine, but, if 
your behavior disrupts the mission, you can be discharged. The question 
then becomes, if we repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, what does that mean? 
Does that mean that we are going to then protect or condone 
homosexuality? Does it mean that we are going to have to create 
separate barracks? How do we deal with sexual harassment? What are the 
implications on recruiting? What are the implications on morale? What 
are the implications in terms of small unit cohesion? All of these are 
big question marks, and there are many more besides. Does this impact, 
for instance, the different benefits and how benefits are delivered?
  Well, the military leadership doesn't know the answer to these 
questions any more than we do, so they have said, Please, don't do 
this. Let us have time to take a look at it, see how it affects overall 
our national security. But we are being asked, in a period of 10 
minutes, that we want to repeal this. So we are being asked once again 
to pass legislation when we don't even know what it means. That hasn't 
worked very well in the past.
  Now, I have three sons, graduates of the Naval Academy, all three 
Marine Corps. One survived his experience in Fallujah in 2005. And it 
seems to me that when people are willing to give their lives and their 
limbs for our country, that that is quite a sacred obligation that they 
have placed in our hands as legislators to be careful how we handle 
that trust. And so as we consider something that has very far-reaching 
implications, is this something that we should do lightly, and 
particularly with little respect for them?
  The military leadership, of course, is opposed to this. They are 
asking us for time. They are wanting to take a look and see what that 
means. Are we going to then protect and condone homosexuality in the 
military? That is a big question. And how does that work out? And is 
this the way that we show respect for the people who are willing to 
offer their lives and their limbs for our country? Is this the sort of 
thing that George Washington or our Founders would be proud of that we 
are doing today in this little quick flash before Memorial Day?

                              {time}  1130

  And why are we wanting to do this? To tickle the fancies of a very 
vocal but very small minority for political purposes. I will not betray 
my children or our armed services people just for mere politics.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy.
  I rise in support of the rule. I am pleased that we are going to be 
allowed to debate the wisdom of having two jet engines for the Joint 
Strike Fighter. I strongly hope the amendment that I have cosponsored 
along with Mr. Larsen is in fact approved, adding $485 million to 
reduce the deficit. It is an issue that I feel deserves debate, and I 
think people looking at it on the merits will understand that we don't 
need a second engine, that we can agree with the Secretary of Defense 
of the administration, and indeed the previous administration.
  I am, however, a little frustrated that we continue to shortchange 
our efforts to deal with the toxic legacy of unexploded ordnances from 
military operations in the United States on our soil for the last 200 
years. I had attempted to have a minor amendment to at least have the 
Department of Defense tell people in the community what the risks are 
from these toxic chemicals, from fuels, from unexploded ordnance. 
People who are building schools, child care centers, and housing 
developments have a right to know what could happen, particularly since 
we are underfunding cleanup.
  The gentlelady who is managing the rule is going to have another 50 
years before the last site is cleaned up in her district--better than 
waiting for 200 years. We can do better.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to 
my friend from Arizona (Mr. Franks).
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy 
is not about equal rights. It's about the impact on the readiness, 
cohesiveness, and effectiveness of the U.S. military. And if the Murphy 
amendment passes, it could have a profoundly negative effect on all of 
those things. I believe it could translate to life-and-death 
implications on the battlefield, Mr. Speaker.
  And yet ironically, on something that will affect 2.8 million service 
men in this country, this side of the aisle will receive 5 minutes to 
debate that--that's half as much as any other amendment. This will also 
be saying to our military, who--all they've asked is just a chance to 
study the issue and come back with their recommendations to this body. 
We're going to say no, we don't care what you say. You can die for us 
on the battlefield, but you have no input into this process. That's a 
disgrace to this institution, and it's an insult to the men and women 
who pour out their blood on foreign battlefields for the country that 
we all love so much.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro.)
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the $485 million 
earmark included in the Defense Authorization Bill for an extra engine 
for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. This extra engine is a prime example 
of government waste: $3 billion already spent. This would require a 
further investment of $2.9 billion, according to the Pentagon. 
Secretary of Defense Gates put it aptly: We have reached a critical 
point in this debate where spending more money on a second engine for 
the JSF, the Joint Strike Fighter, is unnecessary, wasteful. It simply 
diverts precious modernization funds from other more-pressing 
priorities.
  Only two U.S. aircraft models, the F-16C and D, use multiple engine 
types. We have 114 U.S. aircraft models that use a single-source 
engine, the type the Pentagon would like to use with the F-35, yet we 
are making an exception for the F-35. Why? This isn't competition. 
Competition doesn't mean you buy two of everything.
  Both the Bush and the Obama administrations have opposed this 
wasteful spending. Secretary Gates is strongly recommending a veto of 
the Defense Authorization bill if it contains funding for the extra 
engine.
  I urge my colleagues to support an amendment to strip this wasteful 
spending from the bill. The Marines don't want it. The Air Force 
doesn't want it. The Navy doesn't want it. Why are we moving ahead with 
it?
  If you are opposed to wasteful spending--as so many of my colleagues 
stand up on this floor and talk about--then this is your chance to 
prove it. Strip this $485 million earmark out of the Defense 
Authorization Bill.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to 
my friend from Florida (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  And I come to the floor today to, of course, announce opposition to 
the rule, because I just cannot understand why in the world one of the 
crowning principles that the Founding Fathers had of this country was 
the freedom of speech, and certainly in this body we believe in the 
freedom of debate.
  But when we're talking about an issue such as the repeal of Don't 
Ask,

[[Page 9504]]

Don't Tell, and the majority side wants to restrict the debate on this 
to 10 minutes--5 minutes for the minority side--on an issue that is so 
vitally important and should be discussed. We have our folks in the 
military that are trying to study this particular issue.
  But the thing that's most egregious to me is that you're only 
providing the same amount of time that the manager's amendment is 
allowed. And when we have days and days and days here in Washington 
that we can debate on these issues, I ask the majority, why in the 
world on something this important to you and certainly those of us that 
oppose it, are you restricting our ability to debate this particular 
piece of legislation?
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, if you love your country, you ought to be able to serve 
your country. That's the change that Congress is talking about today.
  The minority is opposing an amendment that doesn't exist. We've heard 
voices on the minority side say that the policy changes ignore the 
advice of those in uniform, and it's not listening to the report the 
military is presently preparing. They should read the amendment, Mr. 
Speaker.
  The amendment says the policy change would not take effect until 60 
days after the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff say the implementation of the necessary policies is 
consistent with the standards of military readiness.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ANDREWS. I will yield, yes.
  Has the gentleman read the amendment?
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Yes, I have. And my question is----
  Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, am I correctly stating the 
amendment?
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. No, you're not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey 
has expired.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to 
my friend from Arizona (Mr. Franks).
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, it is growing more and more clear 
that the Obama administration intends to allow Iran to gain nuclear 
weapons and then to adopt a policy of containment, and I am unable to 
fully express the danger of such a policy. Whatever challenges we have 
in dealing with Iran today will pale in comparison to dealing with an 
Iran that has nuclear weapons.
  Now, I am grateful that the committee chose to accept my amendment to 
this bill requiring the Defense Department to develop and report to the 
Congress a national military strategic plan to counter Iran.
  However, Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration remains asleep at the 
wheel while the last window we will ever have to stop Iran from gaining 
nuclear weapons is rapidly closing. I only pray that the President will 
wake up in time to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran from ushering a human 
family into the shadow of nuclear terrorism.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to 
my friend from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I offered an amendment to the Rules 
Committee which would protect small businesses that support business on 
bases.
  There's a movement right now to convert private employees to public 
or government employees at the detriment of small business. But this 
Rules Committee voted in a straight-line partisan way to deny this 
amendment to protect small businesses. And I am frustrated that as we 
are trying to help this economy, help small businesses grow, that they 
denied an amendment that would have protected small businesses.
  Here's one small business owner in Bellevue, Nebraska, in support of 
Offutt Air Force Base. Dave Everhart, president of Veterans Defense 
Services, a small business in Bellevue, says, In many cases our 
employees are being told that they can either accept the government 
position at a reduced salary or lose their jobs. This is causing--when 
they are taking these employees from small businesses, many times they 
are taking their best talent, leaving only one option for these small 
businesses, and that's shuttering their doors, which leaves vacant bays 
and is impacting our communities in a negative way.
  I am very frustrated with the Rules Committee's denial of this 
amendment.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to 
my friend from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  One of the big disappointments that I have about this rule is that 
the identity of service personnel who are accused of mistreating or 
torturing an al Qaeda terrorist if they capture them is not going to be 
agreed to. We think that their identity ought to be kept secret until 
they're proven guilty if they're charged with something like that.
  We had three Navy SEALs that were accused of mistreating an al Qaeda 
terrorist because of what he said, because of what he got out of the al 
Qaeda training manual, and they were all found innocent, but their 
names were made public--all through the media they were made public--
and as a result, they're at risk, their families are at risk, and their 
future careers are at risk because they've been accused of something 
but not convicted of it.
  So I think the legislation that we proposed in this amendment should 
have been approved by the Rules Committee because it protects our 
service men and women from being exposed for something that they did 
not do.
  And I am very disappointed the Rules Committee did not choose to 
protect the identity of our service personnel who are accused 
wrongfully by al Qaeda terrorists of mistreatment.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), chair of the Financial 
Services Committee.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Speaker 
Pelosi and others in the leadership for successfully insisting that 
this House get a chance to vote on repealing the rule that says that 
patriotic, able-bodied gay and lesbian Americans cannot serve their 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, it strikes me as odd. If there was a situation in which 
we were at war, as we are now sadly in two situations--sadly because no 
one likes war--if I had proposed that gay and lesbian Americans be 
exempted from any drafts and from any requirement to serve and put 
their lives in danger, I would have been accused of a ``special 
rights,'' and it would have been a correct accusation. Instead, gay and 
lesbian people are asking for the right to serve, and we're told that 
will undo military cohesion.
  Mr. Speaker, the Israeli Defense Forces have understandably, given 
the history of the Jewish people and our aversion to bigotry, because 
we know what it does to us, they have been free of any such prejudice. 
Gay and lesbian Israelis have not just the right but the obligation to 
serve their country. And those who tell me that the presence of gay and 
lesbian members of the military undermine the effectiveness of a 
fighting force and undermine unit cohesion must have never heard of 
Israel. They must have never heard of as effective a fighting force as 
has existed in modern times.
  So the notion that you must deny American gay and lesbian citizens 
their rights has no basis in reality.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 
for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all germane amendments be

[[Page 9505]]

allowed to be offered, because the chairlady said that all germane 
amendments were approved.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will entertain that unanimous 
consent request only from the manager in charge of the resolution.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would make that 
request.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would recognize that request only 
from the proponent of the resolution.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to 
my friend from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. With all 
due respect to the gentleman from Massachusetts who just spoke with 
great passion about his position, I believe the American people don't 
want to see the American military used to advance a liberal political 
agenda, especially when the men and women who serve in our military 
haven't had a say in the matter. That's precisely what this Congress is 
poised to do today with a vote essentially repealing Don't Ask, Don't 
Tell.
  Look, we all know that success on a battlefield requires high morale, 
unit cohesion. Standards of conduct over the years have been a critical 
part of this. Don't Ask, Don't Tell has been in place for 17 years. 
Repealing it without waiting till we hear from our military in December 
is essentially a disservice to those who are putting their lives on the 
line every day.
  I urge this Congress to stop and put our priorities in order. The 
American people don't want the American military used as a vehicle to 
advance a liberal social agenda. Give the men and women in uniform a 
say before bringing this change to the floor of this House.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for 
time, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it's been a good 
debate. It's unfortunate there is not more fairness, procedural 
fairness in this rule with regard to what is traditionally a bipartisan 
bill. I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I will be brief in my closing, but 
I want to say this is a major piece of legislation, and its effects 
will be felt across the country.
  I am extremely proud of this body today, as I know we will be poised 
to finally repeal the issue we have had so much discussion about this 
morning, that is, Don't Ask, Don't Tell. This has had a lengthy 
process. Fourteen thousand members of the military who have served this 
country honorably have been forced to leave strictly because of their 
own personal status.
  This is a long process. It will not be changed until the Secretary of 
Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have had time to certify it will 
not disrupt the military, as we have heard from some of our colleagues.
  This has happened in many other countries, whether it's Israel or 
Australia or even the United Kingdom. If they can do it, so can we as 
well.
  I am proud to know that my colleagues are debating this topic, as 
well as making sure today that we remember, on top of everything else, 
to respect our military, to thank them for their service and to make 
sure they are well compensated.
  I want to thank Chairman Skelton, Ranking Member McKeon and all my 
colleagues on the Armed Services Committee for all their tireless work.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  Ms. GIFFORDS, Mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of the underlying 
bill and to highlight a number of very important provisions related to 
DoD's energy usage.
  Last year, the Department of Defense consumed nearly 6.9 billion 
barrels of oil to power everything from bases to fighters. But every 
day, the services are proving that this dependence no longer needs to 
tether us to supply lines.
  In the last year, thanks in large part to efforts by the Armed 
Services Committee, the military has begun to take aggressive action.
  At Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in my District, the Air Force 
completed construction of the largest solar community in America.
  Last month the Navy flew a fighter jet for the first time on biofuel.
  The Army continues testing battlefield energy solutions at Fort 
Irwin.
  And today, we will have an opportunity to move forward with 
additional responsible energy language I have worked with the services 
to develop and with the Committee to move forward.
  The Defense bill requires DoD to develop a testing and certification 
plan for the operational use of aviation biofuels.
  I have also added language that integrates the hybrid drive platform 
that the Army developed for Future Combat Systems over the last decade 
into the vehicles of today.
  We included $130 million for Energy Conservation projects at bases 
across the country that save the military and the American taxpayer 
millions of dollars.
  In theater, we reduce basic energy consumption by cutting waste. 
During a DoD pilot program to spray foam insulate facilities in Iraq 
and Afghanistan, fuel consumption was reduced by nearly 75% on average. 
These projects had a return on investment of less than six months. The 
Defense bill seeks to expand this program by seeking a comprehensive 
review of all facilities to identify low cost, energy-saving solutions.
  New Energy Performance Goals, new implementation plans and new 
studies of how to more effectively supply the force make the energy 
provisions in this bill stronger than in any previous year.
  The NDAA specifically addresses many of the battlefield energy 
challenges our servicemembers face in-theater every day. And the 
overwhelming bi-partisan support these provisions received at the 
Committee level validates the continued need for aggressive, smart and 
responsible solutions.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and join me in passing the 
Defense Authorization bill.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________