Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Act of 2009

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, let me read again, in case I inadequately expressed it before. This is the letter from Secretary Gates that he told Chairman Skelton two days ago that he still stands by strongly:

Therefore, I strongly oppose any legislation that seeks to change this policy prior to the completion of this vital assessment process.

This is a process that was set in place when the President made his comments at the State of the Union that he wanted the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy repealed before the end of the year. The Secretary took him at his word and set up a process. The process would go out to all of the military and their spouses and give them a chance to respond. The military would then have a chance to go over that and give their best military advice to the President and to the Congress as to how we should move forward at that time. That report is due by the first of December.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I know we have differences of opinion on this, and we all have stories, as we just heard from my good friend Mr. Garamendi from my home State. We have stories on both sides of the issue. The problem is, those are one person here, one person here. Maybe we talk to 10. Maybe we talk to 20. But we have 2.5 million people serving, and all of them should have a chance to have input. That is what they were promised. That is what they were told. Now we are short-circuiting that process.

So all I am saying is we should respect all of the people and their families that are serving now in the armed services and follow through with the things we said.

When I talked the other day to Admiral Roughead, the Chief of Naval Operations, his concern was that if we take action now with the vote on this Murphy amendment tonight which repeals Don't Ask, Don't Tell, he said it is going to cause confusion in the force, because we just hired this company to go out and do the survey, to follow through on this process that has been started. They are going to be going out into the field asking questions.

What he said is, this is going to cause confusion, because as one of the other Chiefs said, the headline, once this passes, if it passes, will be ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell is repealed.'' So when the survey goes out into the field, when they put together focus groups and the surveys and all the things they are doing in response to this process that has been started, it is moot.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), who is the author of one of the amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I have another letter to read, and I'd like to insert it into the Record.

This is from General Carl E. Mundy, Jr., United States Marine Corps, Retired. He sent an identical letter, I believe, to the chairman.

He says: ``I write to convey my appreciation for your strong stance relative to efforts to repeal the current law which exclude homosexuals from serving openly in the armed services. You and I both know that such action is not in the best interest of our Nation or its Armed Forces. While each member of the HASC has many constituencies to serve, some very vocal, it may be that your largest is the 2.8 million men and women in uniform, together with the family members who support them and who number at least that many. In sharp contrast to homosexual activists, these volunteers in uniform serve silently and obediently and rely on the reasoned judgment of their leaders and even more so, perhaps, of those empowered to `raise armies, provide and maintain a navy, and to make the rules for the governance thereof' to speak and to represent them.

``Secretary Gates has put into motion an effort to at least give this element of your constituents an opportunity to be heard relative to their concerns about implementation. The

very large majority of servicemembers who are not homosexual, at least 97 percent or more, deserve to be heard before any peremptory, uninformed action is taken to impose the sexuality of a minority on them. I believe strongly that a moratorium on discharges being advocated by some in the Senate and on your committee as well could be tantamount to muzzling those most affected by such peremptory action. I appreciate the stand you have taken to prevent this.''

I would like to enter General Mundy's letter into the Record.

Mr. Chairman, there have been comments made that perhaps the Chiefs support this action that will be taking place tonight on this vote, tonight or tomorrow, whenever we get to that amendment. But I must reiterate, I spoke to them on the phone and they followed up with a letter and, to a person, they all oppose us taking action before the recommended procedure that the Secretary has set in place.

General Carl E. Mundy, Jr.,

United States Marine Corp (Ret.),

May 19, 2010.

Hon. ``Buck'' McKeon,

Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee, Rayburn House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman McKeon: I write to convey my appreciation

for your strong stance relative to efforts to repeal the

current law which excludes homosexuals from serving openly in

the Armed Services. You and I both know that such action is

not in the best interests of our nation or its Armed Forces.

While each member of the HASC has many constituencies to

serve--some very vocal--it may be that your largest is the

2.8 million men and women in uniform together with the family

members who support them and who number at least that many.

In sharp contrast to homosexual activists, these volunteers

in uniform serve silently and obediently and rely on the

reasoned judgment of their leaders and even more so, perhaps,

of those empowered to ``. . . raise armies, provide and

maintain a navy, and to make the rules for the governance

thereof' to speak for and to represent them.

Secretary Gates has put into motion an effort to at least

give this element of your constituents an opportunity to be

heard relative to their concerns about implementation. The

very large majority of servicemembers who are not

homosexual--at least 97% or more--deserve to be heard before

any peremptory, uninformed action is taken to impose the

sexuality of a minority on them. I believe strongly that a

moratorium on discharges being advocated by some in the

Senate and on your Committee as well would be tantamount to

muzzling those most affected by such peremptory action. I

appreciate the stand you have taken to prevent this.

Last year, my Service, the Marine Corps, discharged

something over 32,400 men and women from active service.

Seventy-eight of those were discharged for matters related to

homosexuality--less than one-quarter of one percent. Within

that small number, more than half were still in Entry Level

Training with less than a year in service--young trainees

still in the reality-shock of Boot Camp or the immediate

months following--who can barely be considered qualified,

much less skilled or even of a maturity old enough to drink

alcohol. And within that small number, three were discharged

without any active service at all while still in the Delayed

Entry Program awaiting assignment to active duty. Claims of a

hemorrhage of skills due to the injustice of the law are

simply not supported by cases like these. And in my

experience, if not by admission of homosexuality--factual, or

not at their still emerging state of maturity--most of these

young people--homesick, disillusioned, or stunned by the

shock of Recruit Training--would seek another means of

gaining discharge.

As a final note, let me convey my concern that in counter-

balance to whatever number of homosexual advocate voices you

hear, the voices of the thousand retired military officers

who gave their advice professionally and with dignity and

respect to the President and members of Congress on this

subject last year--together with the 160 more who have lent

their names since--should not be ignored. This is the largest

number of officers to have collectively conveyed their views

and recommendations in the history of our nation. And in

spite of the efforts of activists to impugn the character and

legitimacy of these officers as out of touch, a number of

those offering their advice commanded Divisions in combat or

held other significant command or staff positions as recently

as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This body of

professional advice matters, since the signers base our

judgments on experience, and have no special interest agenda

other than the effectiveness of our Armed Forces.

I want to again offer my admiration for your courageous and

principled stand on behalf of the men and women of our armed

services on this issue. I hold the strongest hope that you

will continue to allow the voices of those in uniform to be

heard on this important subject, and will continue to oppose

efforts to impose a moratorium on discharges, which is

tantamount to de-facto repeal of a law that has, and does

serve the armed forces well.

Sincerely,

Carl E. Mundy, Jr.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to seek the time in opposition although I am not opposed to the amendment.

I would just like to make a couple of points.

The Secretary would first have to determine that BP was not a responsible source. If the Secretary determines that BP was not a responsible source, the Secretary would already be authorized to consider debarment. The Secretary is not obligated to debar BP or any of its subsidiaries in any circumstance.

Having said that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I don't oppose the amendment.

At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman).

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to how much time we have left on each side.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Again, back to this point, I think we weren't concerned on the missile defense about putting them on the ships, what we're concerned about is we don't have the missile to put on the ships. And there will be a gap in the time that we don't have the other missiles before we get the missiles for the ships. So I think that's a concern we have, and hopefully that will be worked out, that we will have a missile instead of just a planned missile.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It has been a while since I read any of these letters. Maybe some people haven't heard of these letters yet, so I would like to read them. We are only given 5 minutes to discuss Don't Ask, Don't Tell, so we have to talk about it when we get an opportunity, because this is something that I think is going to affect the 2.5 million people in the military plus their families. So we have very strong feelings about this. It is unfortunate that the majority has only given us 5 minutes in which to express our views and have a chance to let the people of America know what is happening here.

This is a letter from Secretary Gates that was written April 30, and then 2 days ago he reaffirmed his stand, that he still stands by what he wrote to Chairman Skelton:

``Dear Mr. Chairman, I am writing in response to your letter of April 28th requesting my views on the advisability of legislative action.''

So he is talking about the possibility that the Murphy amendment would be made in order for this legislation taken to repeal the so- called Don't Ask, Don't Tell statute prior to the completion of the Department of Defense review of this matter.

``I believe in the strongest possible terms that the Department must, prior to any legislative action, be allowed the opportunity to conduct a thorough, objective, and systematic assessment of the impact of such a policy change, develop an attentive, comprehensive plan, and provide the President and the Congress with the results of this effort in order to ensure that this step is taken in the most informed and effective manner.

``A critical element of this effort is the need to systematically engage our

forces, their families, and the broader military community throughout this process. Our military must be afforded the opportunity to inform us of their concerns, insights, and suggestions if we are to carry out this change successfully.

``Therefore, I strongly oppose any legislation that seeks to change this policy prior to the completion of this vital assessment process. Further, I hope Congress will not do so, as it would send a very damaging message to our men and women in uniform that in essence their views, concerns, and perspectives do not matter on an issue with such direct impact and consequence for them and their families.''

Signed by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, and Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense.

May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I will continue to yield myself such time as I may consume.

What the Secretary is saying here is there was a process set in place. The President, in the State of the Union, said he wanted the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell by the end of this year. The Secretary, in response, set up a process whereby the military could be contacted, their opinions could be heard, the opinions of all of them that are contacted could be taken under advisement by the Chairman, by each of the Chiefs. They could give their best military advice to the Secretary, which he could then give to the Congress and to the President as to how we proceed on this matter.

That was supposed to be done before December of this year. They are on track to do it. This month, a company was hired by competitive bid to go into the field to interview people, which they will do with various methods, to give us a comprehensive answer as to what people feel about this. They will survey 350,000 people.

Now, if this passes tonight, if this amendment passes, I know the amendment says nothing will take place prior to that study being handed in, but we all know, it is like we say we are going to talk to you, but we have already made the decision. So, go ahead, tell us whatever you want. It is like they will know that their opinions really don't matter because the vote has already taken place, the decision has already been made, and they are left out of the loop.

As the Chiefs of the various services told me, this disrespects the military, and it should not be done. Each of them have stated on the phone to me and in letters that this should not be done.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time do I have left?

I would be happy to yield 1 minute to my good friend from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend from Rhode Island's passion, and I share that with him. I have very deep concerns about the military. They have been asked over and over again, and they have responded over and over and over again. I have been to funerals and I have looked into the parents' eyes and talked to them. I also know in war there are no unwounded, as somebody more eloquent than I stated, and that is one of the tragedies.

The other tragedy is what happened on 9/11, where we were attacked, and now we have been engaged in this worldwide war on terrorism. It is not something we asked for. It is just something that our Nation has responded from the days of the creation of this Nation, when the men rode to the sound of the guns, when they died at Valley Forge, frozen to death, starved to death. They have sacrificed for years.

I am saying, give them an opportunity to have their say, to follow through with the plan that has been set.

I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I don't oppose the amendment, but I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Again, if we had been given the time to discuss Don't Ask, Don't Tell, we could have spent more time talking about all of the good things in the bill. But only having 5 minutes to discuss that, we have to use whatever time we can to explain to people what is going on.

When I talked to members of the Joint Chiefs a couple of days ago, one of them said one of the reasons that he opposes doing anything right now in opposition to the plan that was set up earlier this year was because, he says, I am here. I understand the innuendoes around the Hill. I understand the process of the amendment, and I understand that it doesn't really kick in until later. But, he said, the people in the field, the service people that we promised to hear from before we take action, don't understand that.

And he said, the headline will read, Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repealed.

Well, they don't even have to wait for us. The Senate already did it. The breaking news alert on Fox News is: ``The Senate Armed Services Committee votes to repeal military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy on gays.'' And then if we follow through and do the same thing tonight with the Murphy amendment, that will be the headline. So the young men and women in Afghanistan, when they're watching on Fox News, that's what they're seeing right now.

So then when we do get around to this company that we hired to make this survey to reach out to 350,000 of our servicepeople and their families, when they hear the question they're going to say, what, you're asking us now, after the decision?

What kind of respect is that to show to our young men and women who are out there laying their life on the line?

They signed a contract. They joined the military. They're an all- volunteer force. And they signed under certain circumstances, and now those are going to be changed without any input from them.

Oh, yeah. We're going to follow through with the charade. We will have the survey, it will be turned in in December, but the die is already cast if that amendment passes tonight. And I don't think that is the way that we should be treating our military, especially the people on this committee.

Our responsibility is to look out for those young men and young women that are out there defending us and defending freedom around the world. And the lack of respect to give them the opportunity to have input on this very important issue, one that we've lived with now for 17 years, that has to be changed now, just doesn't make sense.

A Member earlier this evening talked about common sense and the lack of it that we see around here. And one of the reasons why we're given an 18 percent vote of approval from the American people, because we show a lack of common sense, we show a lack of respect. This amendment will show a lack of respect to the young men and young women in uniform and their families.

Again, let me read from Admiral Roughead's letter, the admiral, he's the Chief of Naval Operations.

He says, I share the view of Secretary Gates that the best approach would be to complete the Department of Defense review before there is any legislation to change the law. My concern is that legislation changes at this point, regardless of the precise language used in this--and this amendment was written very carefully--may cause confusion on the status of the law in the fleet and disrupt the review process itself by leading sailors to question whether their input matters.

And he is right on target.

Obtaining the views and opinions of the force and assessing them in the light of the issues involved will be complicated by a shifting legislative backdrop and its associated debate.

I plead with you to give the time necessary to have the evaluation, to follow the process that's been set.

What are we afraid of?

Is something going to happen that you think is going to change this process?

Why not let them have their input? Why not follow through with the process that was set by the Secretary?

The company that's been hired to go out and reach out to these 350,000 of our 2.5 million serving, let's follow through with the process; let's respect our young men and women in uniform and follow through with the process that has been determined.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to take the time in opposition although I don't oppose the amendment.

I will reserve my time.

May I inquire of the chairwoman what the time is remaining?

Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Again, I am sorry that we weren't given more time to debate Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but in using the time that I do have, I would like to read a couple more letters into the Record. This first one is from the American Legion, from the national commander, and this is a letter that he sent to President Obama.

``Dear Mr. President, The American Legion is concerned about reports that you might seek an amendment in Congress which would end the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy,'' which amendment will be before us shortly this evening.

``As the Nation's largest wartime veterans organization, we feel strongly that the current policy has served the U.S. military well for 17 years and it would not be wise to make a major cultural change in the middle of two wars and with tension rising on the Korean Peninsula. Moreover, the Department of Defense has already directed a study on the policy, and it would be premature to act before the commission conducting the study releases its finding. It defies logic.''

I will put that letter in the Record.

The American Legion,

Indianapolis, IN, May 25, 2010.

Hon. President Barack Obama,

The White House,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. President, The American Legion is concerned about

reports that you might seek an amendment in Congress which

would end the military's ``don't ask, don't tell'' (DADT)

policy.

As the nation's largest wartime veterans organization, we

feel strongly that the current policy has served the U.S.

military well for 17 years and it would not be wise to make a

major cultural change in the middle of two wars and with

tension rising on the Korean peninsula. Moreover, the

Department of Defense has already directed a study on the

policy and it would be premature to act before the commission

conducting the study releases its findings. It defies logic.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, who

sat on the committee when DADT was implemented, opposes its

repeal. Additionally, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James

Conway and Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey have also

voiced concerns about the impact such a change would have on

the current forte structure.

The military is a unique environment, in which DADT has

worked well without diminishing our nation's war-fighting

capability. Indeed, the core purpose of our military is to

fight and win our nation's wars. We believe that repealing

the DADT policy at this time may well be detrimental to the

security of our nation. Therefore, we urge you to postpone

any such decision until the wisdom of this action has been

fully studied.

Sincerely,

Clarence E. Hill,

National Commander, The American Legion.

The second one is from the National Military Family Association. The letter says, ``The National Military Family Association has long been an advocate for improving the quality of life of our military family members who have sacrificed greatly in support of our Nation. While our association does not have a position on the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, we are pleased that Secretary Gates has appointed a working group charged to look at the true views and attitudes of our servicemembers and their families if that policy is repealed. We believe inclusion of servicemembers and their families in the process is imperative and that the review process must be allowed to run its course.

``Our association agrees with Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen that the Department of Defense must be allowed, prior to any legislative action, the opportunity to complete the assessment of the impact of such a policy change, and most importantly, develop an attentive comprehensive implementation plan. Our servicemembers and their families deserve no less.''

I will include that letter in the Record.

May 21, 2010.

Hon. John Boehner,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Boehner: The National Military Family

Association has long been an advocate for improving the

quality of life of our military family members, who have

sacrificed greatly in support of our Nation. While our

Association does not have a position on the Don't Ask, Don't

Tell policy, we are pleased that Secretary Gates has

appointed a working group charged to look at the true views

and attitudes of our service members and their families if

that policy is repealed. We believe inclusion of service

members and their families in the process is imperative and

that the review process must be allowed to run its course.

Our Association agrees with Secretary Gates and Admiral

Mullen that the Department of Defense must be allowed, prior

to any legislative action, the opportunity to complete the

assessment of the impact of

such a policy change, and most importantly, develop an

attentive comprehensive implementation plan. Our service

members and their families deserve no less.

We join with Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen in opposing

any legislation that seeks to change this policy prior to

completion of the assessment process. Should you have any

questions please contact Kathleen Moakler, Government

Relations Director.

The National Military Family Association is the only

national organization whose sole focus is the military family

and whose goal is to influence the development and

implementation of policies that will improve the lives of the

families of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast

Guard, and the Commissioned Corps of the Public Health

Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration. For over 40 years, its staff and volunteers,

comprised mostly of military family members, have built a

reputation for being the leading experts on military family

issues.

Sincerely,

Joyce Wessel Raezer,

Executive Director.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire again of the time remaining?

Madam Chairwoman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

May I inquire how much time I have remaining?

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

You know, I listened raptly to the majority leader. I always try to. He always has a lot to say, and he says it very well. And that was a very eloquent speech, and because you are a Member of Congress and because we are Members of Congress, we can come here to the floor and we can express our opinion. I'm asking that the members of the armed services have the same opportunity before we have this vote tonight on the Murphy amendment.

And the reference was made to General Powell. And I was not on the committee at the time. But when Don't Ask, Don't Tell was instituted, he was a strong proponent. And he also mentioned that he didn't believe the comparison held up between the blacks having civil rights and the Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

So while I think that your comments were very, very well spoken, I think all of us should have that opportunity to have that great debate. I just think that we should follow the process that's been established where the Secretary appoints this study. They make the study, and then after the study is presented to us in December, after the military has a chance to give their say, that after the study is released, we follow the process.

I don't know why we're so afraid to stick with the policy, to listen to the members of the armed services, to give them the opportunities they have. I have letters from each of the Chairmen and the members of the Joint Chiefs saying we owe that to them. We should not break faith with them. They went out in good faith after the Secretary set that policy, and now we're short circuiting.

I would be happy to yield to the majority leader.

Let me reclaim my time because here's what's actually going to happen. And as I talked to the chiefs on the phone, one of them said very clearly, Look. I know how this works around here. I know what this means. I know how the amendment was written, that we take the vote tonight and then we follow through the process. But it becomes a sham because the headline, as he said, would be ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'' is repealed. And it's already on the headline. I just saw the news alert. ``Senate votes to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'' He says, I understand that. But those troops out at the FOBs in Afghanistan, when they

see it, when they hear it, they're going to see it's repealed. Why are you now asking me my opinion? It's done. It's a done deal.

So while we may understand that by law that it will follow through this process, in reality, it will be set tonight. And that's why we should have had more than 10 minutes, 5 minutes on our side, to discuss this. All we were given was 5 minutes. And that's why we've had to take time.

We could have spent time talking about all of the wonderful things in this bill, and yet we've had to talk because this thing is going to have more impact on our military and on our country.

You smile, Mr. Leader. And if you really feel that, then why don't we just follow the process?

And I'll be happy to yield.

Well, I'm sorry. I have not read that. And I'm not quoting from that same rhetoric. And as Colin Powell said, it is not the same.

In fact, this is Mr. Powell's quote: ``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.''

Mr. Powell's comment.

I yield 30 seconds to the Army colonel in the Reserve, Mr. Buyer from Indiana.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee. But before doing that, I ask unanimous consent that the time for debate on amendment No. 79 offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Patrick J. Murphy) be extended by 30 minutes, evenly divided between opponent and proponent.

Madam Chair, in that case, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairman of the committee, Mr. Skelton.

Madam Chairwoman, may I yield 5 seconds to the sponsor of the amendment to say why you don't want it discussed fully?

The gentleman doesn't wish to respond?

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairwoman, next Monday is Memorial Day. Americans will pause in many ways and in many places to honor and celebrate the courage, sacrifices, and patriotism of those who have served and are serving this Nation in the Armed Forces.

The Hill newspaper yesterday carried a special insert entitled, ``A Tribute to the Troops.'' Among the contributors were Mrs. Michelle Obama and Dr. Jill Biden. They coauthored a piece emphasizing that ``it is our sacred obligation as Americans to take care of the men, women, and families who protect and serve this country.''

I could not agree more with them. We do have a sacred obligation to those who care to serve. That is why today I rise in strong opposition to the amendment being offered by Representative Murphy that would have Congress act to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell even before the comprehensive review directed by the Secretary of Defense is completed and even before Congress has received the comprehensive views of those who will be most directly affected by any change in the law.

They have unhesitatingly and selflessly responded in a magnificent manner, without hesitation, putting mission and Nation ahead of self and family. Now the proponents of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell want to rush a vote to the floor, disrupting the process that was put in place earlier this year to get input from those people most affected by this decision.

After making the continuous sacrifice of fighting two wars over the course of 8 years, the men and women of our military deserve to be heard. Congress acting first is the equivalent of turning to our men and women in uniform and their families and saying, your opinions don't count.

I've read into the Record letters from the chairmen of each of the services asking us to not do this. Don't disrespect the military. Give them the opportunity to have their input.

The Secretary also sent us a letter, and his letter said: ``I believe in the strongest possible terms that the Department must, prior to any legislative action, be allowed the opportunity to conduct a thorough, objective, and systematic assessment of the impact of such a policy change. A critical element of this effort is the need to systemically engage our forces, their families, and the broader military community throughout this process. Our military must be afforded the opportunity to inform us of their concerns, insights, and suggestions if we're to carry out this change successfully. Therefore, I strongly oppose any legislation that seeks to change this policy prior to the completion of this vital assessment process.

``Further, I hope Congress will not do so as it would send a very damaging message to our men and women in uniform that, in essence, their views, concerns, and perspectives do not matter on an issue with such direct impact and consequence for them and their families.''

Now, I know that this amendment and those proponents will say, well, we're going to take this vote, but we will still follow the process. We will have the survey. But you all know, I mean, you have to know that when the surveyors go out into the field, they're already going to have heard on the news--as was already reported on Fox News tonight--the Senate repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell. So how are they given an opportunity to--I mean, this is a sham. It is a total sham from here forward if this amendment passes tonight.

You have the chairman of the committee, a man who has devoted years of his life to our young men and women in uniform, and it's not an easy thing for him, but he stands up to say no on this amendment. I join him in saying no on this amendment. Most of the members of the committee-- if we had had a chance to bring this up in committee where it should have been, it wouldn't be here tonight.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), who has had some important personal experience with the issue contained in the Murphy amendment.

I yield the balance of my time to my friend from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Is it in order to propound a unanimous consent request at this point?

I would make a unanimous consent request to extend for each side 1 minute.

I would yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

The committee supports this amendment because we support Mr. Sarbanes' approach of merit-driven decision-making. The OMB will oversee this process. We believe it will improve quality and protect the taxpayers. We support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 1404, as the designee of the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, I offer amendments en bloc No. 5.

Mr. Chairman, again, this is an example of Members from both sides of the aisle making well thought out, constructive contributions on a whole range of issues that we think improve the bill. Both the majority and minority have examined each of the provisions in the en bloc amendment. We support each of them.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, it's my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) who has taken a leading interest in evaluating both the quality and financial impact of our activities in Afghanistan, very often doing yeoman's work on tedious detail.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) who has done very careful work on making sure that the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction is fully discharging very important functions.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time each side has left on this amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It is very important that we take assessment of the excellent ideas in this bill that both parties support. Much of the debate this afternoon and this evening has obviously been consumed by points of controversy, but there are some major points of consensus that each side should be proud of supporting.

Number one, each side is vigorously supporting a significant pay increase for the men and women who wear the uniform of our country. Each side is supporting a very significant increase in the quality of housing, education and health care for the servicemembers and for their families.

Each side is supporting a significant step toward our Navy, reaching the point where our admirals tell us it ought to be.

In 2008, our Navy had authorized and at sea in the fleet 286 ships. Under this bill, our Navy will have authorized and at sea in the fleet 293 ships, a gain of seven ships. Mr. Taylor, in particular, has worked very hard on this point with the full bipartisan support of the Republican side. Our admirals tell us that the optimal size of the Navy they would like to see us have is 313 ships. So we have a ways to go, but progress is being made.

I mentioned earlier the legislation before the House authorizes $9.8 billion for our Special Operations Command. In the toughest neighborhoods in the world, in the toughest circumstances in the world, it is the men and women under the command of SOCOM who do the toughest work, and the bill on both sides supports them very substantially.

Also, as I mentioned before, this bill dramatically upgrades the amount of money we spend on identifying, securing, and disabling nuclear material that could be used to form a nuclear improvised explosive device. This is very much consistent with the administration's policy and broadly embraced by both sides.

So, Mr. Chairman, I just want you and others observing tonight to understand that it is the nature of debate that we do dwell--as we have these many hours this afternoon--on points of disagreement, and they are profound points of disagreement; but it is very important that people understand the points of agreement that are before us. Whether it is compensation for our servicemembers and their families, their health care, their housing, their job and educational opportunities, whether it is the end strength of our Navy--which, frankly, is a bipartisan commitment to bring us up to those 313 ships--whether it is the end strength of our Armed Forces; in 2008, the end strength of our Armed Forces was in the neighborhood of 1.4 million people, active duty, Guard and Reserve, a little over that. This legislation before us tonight would have the end strength of our Armed Forces exceed 1.5 million people in our active duty, Guard and Reserve.

So, Mr. Chairman, I again want to say that it is healthy, it is expected, it is anticipated that the floor of this Chamber will be a place where our points of disagreement are vigorously and honestly pursued. But as a compliment to both sides of the aisle, to Mr. McKeon and Chairman Skelton, the legislative product that is before us tonight has many, many, many more points of consensus, and we're looking forward to building on those points of consensus.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 2 minutes.

I also wanted to make reference to the excellent work that's been done in this bill in the area of our missile defense program. Now, there are obviously disagreements over what the structure of that program ought to be; but when one looks at the fortification of defenses that we already have at Fort Greely and other places, when one looks at the additional investment that we are making in the successful regional-range missile programs that have tested and been quite efficient, I think that the accurate conclusion is that we are fortifying the defenses which have been proven to work in the missile defense field, we are building upon those successes, and we are preparing ourselves for a future generation of defenses that are effective both in a regional context and in the context of intercontinental ballistic missiles.

The nonproliferation strategy really has two aspects: it is to be prepared to defend ourselves if a strike occurs, but it is to discourage the proliferation of nuclear capability around the world, as the administration has done in the Security Council negotiations with Iran and it has done with its layered defense missile strategy. So, again, I think this is another point where there is more consensus than disagreement.

There is disagreement between the two sides over the best way to pursue an effective ballistic missile defense. I don't think there is a disagreement over whether the pursuit of a ballistic missile defense is in the interest of the country. It most certainly is.

I would conclude at this point, Mr. Chairman, where I began. We know that the cornerstone of our country's defense is not found in this Chamber. It is found at bases throughout the world, both in the Continental United States and at forward-operating bases and other places overseas. We are profoundly grateful to the men and women who volunteer to serve this country. We, on a bipartisan basis, are expressing our gratitude where it counts: compensation, support for families, education, health care, and other opportunities.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

First of all, I would like to thank the gentleman from California for yielding his time to the gentleman from Mississippi. We appreciate that very much.

I will just conclude by pointing out that we've heard some disagreements here about the nature of ballistic missile defense. But to my core point, there is much in this bill that has been embraced by both sides of the aisle because both sides of the aisle have a profound respect for the men and women who serve and a profound appreciation for the core duty we have to preserve and defend the country.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and urge support of the en bloc amendment.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 4 of House Resolution 1404, I hereby give notice that amendment No. 79 may be offered out of order.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 1404, as the designee of the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, I offer amendments en bloc No. 6, including modifications to amendment No. 50.

Again, we appreciate the efforts of Members on both sides of the aisle in working through a wide array of problems in a very thoughtful way. Each of these amendments has been reviewed and accepted by both the minority and majority staff. We thank the Members for their efforts.

At this time, I yield 5 minutes to the author of one of the en bloc amendments, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Braley).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining on both sides?

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to a gentleman who is an Appropriations subcommittee chairman and who has taken the lead on making sure that the use of private contractors is done properly, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure at this point to yield 1 minute to a gentleman who has been in the forefront of trying to promote American jobs through this bill, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. Chairman, at this point, I am privileged to yield 1 minute to another champion of growth of American jobs here from the runner-up city in this year's Stanley Cup finals, the gentleman from Chicago, Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

Mr. Chairman, through the Chair I would say to my friend from California, we have only Mr. Kennedy left to speak, and I believe we have the right to close on this. So does the gentleman intend to speak again?

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

I thank the gentleman from California for yielding the time to the gentleman from Rhode Island, and I would say, of course we recognize our duty to listen to those who serve in uniform. We also recognize our duty to raise their pay, to give them the tools and weapons necessary to do their job, to support their families, and to give them the strategy that works to defend this country. This bill does all of those things. We should support the bill and support the en bloc amendment before the body.

I yield back the balance of our time.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

I want to thank the chairman, who is one of the giants on behalf of national security, military defense, quality of life for our troops, who for decades has been one of the outstanding spokespersons for making sure that we had the defense we needed and that our troops had the equipment, the resources, the quality of life that we would expect to have our young people have. So I congratulate him. I thank Mr. McKeon, as well, for his cooperative spirit in bringing this bill to the floor.

Democrats in Congress have worked closely with President Obama to fight our enemies, promote our interests, and support our troops and their families, compiling a record of securing our Nation in stronger and smarter ways. We have strengthened America's military by putting new and better weapons into the battlefield, like more aerial drones. We have killed or captured much of the top leadership of al Qaeda and the Taliban. And for the first time, there is a clear plan for a way forward in Afghanistan, which, frankly, was neglected for years under the previous administration.

Democrats, often in the face of Republican opposition, have increased funding for human intelligence collection, cybersecurity, and security for our skies, our ports, and our borders. All of this was necessary and appropriate. We are looking out for our troops, our veterans, and our families.

Again, I say there is no Member of this body, and almost every Member, indeed, of this body on both sides of the aisle has worked together to maintain the quality of life for our troops and give them the resources they need; none more so than Chairman Skelton, however.

Democrats are making sure that our troops get the body armor and mine-resistant vehicles they need when they are in the field, and the health care and opportunity for college education they deserve when they return home. That's good for them and it's good for our country.

Today's defense authorization bill builds on that record, authorizing crucial national security programs for fiscal year 2011. It promotes efforts to disrupt and destroy terrorist networks and strengthens the ability of our special forces to act directly against terrorist organizations. It increases our international cooperation against terrorists, especially against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

At the same time, it also insists on accountability, requiring semiannual reports from the administration on the status of the Taliban and the capacity of the Afghan Government and security forces. That accountability is important and necessary.

Because the threats we face have changed in a post-Cold War world, this bill also supports ballistic missile defense and nuclear counterproliferation, including the President's effort to secure all of the world's known vulnerable nuclear material in the next 4 years. The conference the President convened here in Washington was an extraordinary step forward in that effort.

Further, this bill invests in the well-being of our troops and the strength of our Armed Forces. It keeps TRICARE strong and ensures that the military families can keep their children on TRICARE policies up to the age of 26, just as all Americans can do under the health reform law that we passed.

It also reduces strain on our forces by providing for 7,000 more personnel for the Army and 500 for the Air Force, while helping all of the services rebuild the equipment and weapons systems that have been severely worn down by two wars. Now, maybe because there is an agreement on that we haven't talked about it very much.

Finally, the bill strengthens our military by providing for a process to repeal a discriminatory provision. Now, I want my friends to listen to this, and they are not going to be happy with me. I am 70 years of age. I was in college in the late fifties and early sixties. Now, Bill Clinton was in college in the late sixties. His generation of Americans were motivated by the Vietnam

war one way or the other. Now, frankly, I was a member of the State senate and supported that effort in the State senate.

But in the late fifties and early sixties, the motivating force for young people in this country was civil rights. It was about living out the promise of American equality. It was about a commitment of this country, which was the bedrock of this country, that all men were created equal and endowed not by us, but by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. And I will tell my friends, I have some rhetoric here that was used in 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945, 1946, when there were some Americans you didn't have to ask, they didn't have to tell, because you knew they were African Americans. There was no hiding that. And we segregated them.

And I heard Strom Thurmond stand on the floor of the Senate, he was a Democrat, speaking about discriminating against people because of the color of their skin. Separate but equal. I have heard the same rhetoric. Let me read some of it.

``The Army is the wrong place for social experiments. Keep African Americans in their place.''

I was angered in the 1950s and 1960s when I saw that kind of rhetoric because I thought that was not the America that I was so proud of. Hear that language that was used back in 1948 and read the transcripts today.

In 1990, I was the sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act. There was an amendment offered that said people with AIDS could not be waiters and waitresses. Why? Because people wouldn't come into restaurants if they knew that somebody with AIDS was serving them. Of course all the scientists, all the medical personnel said there was no way to transmit AIDS by handling plates or food. And I pulled out some rhetoric, interesting enough, from 1965, when the public accommodations law was considered on this floor. And guess what they said? They said, If we have African American waiters and waitresses, people won't come into our restaurant. That's why we don't have African American waiters and African American restaurants.

That was not the America for which I stand.

Strom Thurmond, however, said, and other Democrats--now, he didn't stay a Democrat, as all of you know, throughout his career--said no, we will keep people separate. And because you are driving down Route 1 from New York to Florida, and you stop and your little girl asked when the Howard Johnson's comes by, ``Can I have an ice cream cone?'' And you say to your little child, ``I am sorry, you can't go in there. You are the wrong color. Can't stay at that hotel.''

Now, in their era they thought they were being good Americans, I presume, and there were filibusters after filibusters to stop treating people as people with their God-given, unalienable rights.

Ladies and gentlemen, look to your hearts and your conscience. Look at the debates of 1948.

Is there one of us, is there one of us that would say General Powell, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, undermined the morale and the effectiveness of the United States Army? Is there one of us? I will yield to anybody who wants to say that he undermined the morale of our services. No one? No one? This is not a social experiment any more than that was a social experiment.

Anymore than 1990 when we wanted to deal with those with disabilities. It was a social experiment. It was the bedrock of what America is.

Now, I think it's unfortunate that we've spent so much time on this issue. Almost every speaker. In the beginning of my talk, I talked about the substance of this bill: fighting terrorists, keeping America safe, making sure that we have the strongest Armed Forces in the world bar none, that technically they are able to confront any enemy, anywhere, any time because we owe that to the American public to keep them safe. That is what we're committed to, a strong defense.

Barry Goldwater said when this issue came up, I care whether they can shoot straight, not whether they are straight. Why? Because he wanted to look at the content of their character, the content of their ability, the content of their commitment to this country and to their service. They were patriots. And he thought if they're patriots and they shoot straight--now let me tell you, something, friends. I don't want anybody bothering me. I don't care who they are. You hear me? And I don't want any male member of the Armed Forces bothering any female member of the Armed Forces, and I don't want anybody else bothering anybody else. Why? Because that's against the law, and it's against morality.

But I tell you, my friends, this bill is about our national security. This bill is about people who perform their service to our country. This bill is about making sure that America is safe. This bill is about making sure that we defeat terrorism and keep America safe. Let's focus on that. Let's not be distracted. Let's focus on protecting America, defeating terrorists, and taking care of our troops.

I thank my friend for yielding, and I agree with my friend. As a matter of fact, I talked to Bob Gates today, and I talked to him 2 weeks ago about this issue. I was concerned about this issue and shared his view that we certainly ought to solicit the views of how and why we ought to proceed.

That is why I worked to make sure that this amendment, which was the exact same amendment adopted in the Senate Armed Services Committee a little earlier today, did in fact provide that both the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen--who has made his comments on this pretty clear, as you know--Secretary Gates, and the President of the United States have to certify that the processes are in place. I understand the difference of opinion here is that, and I am sympathetic with your view.

I smile only because that rhetoric was the same rhetoric that was used in 1946.

I didn't quote Mr. Powell. I referred to him.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I also want to thank the chairman and ranking member for including this amendment in the en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, McGovern-Jones-Welch is a straightforward, bipartisan amendment. It requires the President to certify that the Afghanistan Independent Election Commission and the Afghan Electoral Complaints Commission have the professional capacity, legal authority and independence to carry out and oversee free, fair and honest elections, absent the fraud that characterized the 2009 presidential elections, before U.S. taxpayer dollars can support the next round of elections. I don't think that that's too much to ask.

I was in Afghanistan just after the 2009 elections. I didn't meet anyone who thought that those elections were honest. The Embassy told me they were a fraud. The U.N. said they were a fraud. The Afghan people knew they were a fraud. Even President Karzai conceded that they were massively fraudulent. And $200 million of U.S. taxpayer money went into those elections. Just think about it, $200 million. I don't want to see history repeat itself. I don't want the American taxpayer ripped off again.

More is at stake than the waste of money. The U.S. military strategy depends on an honest, competent Afghan government that can win the loyalty of the people. If September's parliamentary elections are also fraudulent, the result could be even greater local and regional turmoil.

No matter where you stand on our policy on Afghanistan, let's make sure that the September elections are free, fair and honest. This amendment strengthens our leverage. Our uniformed men and women are fighting and dying in Afghanistan. The least we can ask is that the Afghan government carries out free, fair and honest elections.

[From the Los Angeles Times, May 10, 2010]

U.S. Lost in Afghan Vote

(By Peter W. Galbraith)

Will we ever learn? In 2009, Afghan President Hamid Karzai,

who will meet with President Obama in Washington this week,

ripped off American taxpayers for about $200 million. This is

what the United States contributed to support presidential

elections that Karzai himself admits were massively

fraudulent. Now, the United Nations and the Obama

administration propose to fund Afghanistan's parliamentary

elections in September, even though new rules pushed through

by Karzai--over the opposition of parliament--make fraud even

more likely this time.

Afghanistan's Independent Election Commission, or IEC, a

body appointed by Karzai and subservient to his wishes, was

deeply implicated in the 2009 fraud. The commission and its

staff either produced the phony tallies--which gave Karzai

more than 1 million of his 3 million votes--or collaborated

with those who did. In many instances, the commission

reported pro-Karzai results from polling centers that never

existed.

Fortunately, Afghanistan also had in place a truly

independent body, the Electoral Complaints Commission, which

was empowered to investigate fraud. Three members of that

commission were appointed by the United Nations, and none of

its members was chosen by Karzai. After investigating the

election, the group tossed out enough phony Karzai votes to

force the president into a runoff with the second-highest

vote-getter, Abdullah Abdullah. In the end, that second

election wasn't held because Abdullah withdrew after the IEC

adopted procedures that made fraud even more likely in the

runoff.

The fact that Karzai retained the presidency didn't mollify

him. Angered by the complaint commission's actions after the

first round of last year's vote, and determined to gain full

control over Afghanistan's election machinery, Karzai issued

a decree in February giving himself the authority to appoint

all five members of the Electoral Complaints Commission. He

also stripped the group of its power to initiate reviews of

suspicious ballots on its own. In the parliamentary

elections, the group will be allowed to act only on

complaints referred to it by members of the provincial

election commissions, all of whom are appointed by Karzai.

The United Nations, which is supposed to help the Afghans

hold honest elections, and the United States, which will pick

up most of the tab for them, have responded far too meekly to

Karzai's power grab. Staffan de Mistura, the new head of the

U.N. mission in Afghanistan, negotiated a deal with Karzai

under which two U.N.-nominated international election experts

were appointed to the complaints commission, and one of them

will have veto power. Because of this compromise, De Mistura

is recommending that Western donors proceed with funding the

election. The Obama administration, wishing to move beyond a

recent harsh exchange of words with Karzai (during which

Karzai bizarrely alleged that foreigners, including the U.S.

and the U.N., were responsible for fraud in the last

election), seems inclined to agree.

But the proposed compromise is a sham. Karzai's three

appointees can outvote the two U.N. choices, and the

compromise does not restore the Electoral Complaints

Commission's power to initiate independently reviews of

suspicious votes.

There is only one positive note I've seen in the whole

mess, and that is that Karzai unexpectedly appointed Fazel

Ahmad Manawi as the new head of the IEC, replacing a chairman

deeply implicated in the fraud. This was a pleasant surprise.

I met Manawi, a respected Islamic scholar from the Panjshir

Valley, an opposition stronghold, when I was deputy head of

the U.N. mission in 2009. At the time, he was one of seven

members of the IEC, and he was clearly a person of integrity,

casting the sole vote against the decision to ratify Karzai's

fraudulent election. But Manawi remains only one vote on a

commission stacked with Karzai loyalists, and the leading

candidate for the position of chief electoral officer is

Zekria Barakzai, a smooth-talking IEC official who was a

public apologist for the fraud.

Much more is at stake in Afghanistan's elections than the

waste of millions more U.S. dollars. Our counterinsurgency

strategy depends on an honest and competent Afghan government

that can win the loyalty of the population. During eight

years in office, the Karzai administration has been

ineffective and corrupt. Since Karzai's disputed reelection,

many Afghans also question his legitimacy.

If September's parliamentary elections are fraudulent, it

could lead to an ethnically based civil war. Afghanistan's

opposition dominates the parliament and has come out strongly

against the new electoral procedures. The parliament is the

one national institution that effectively represents

Afghanistan's non-Pashtun minorities; the speaker of the

lower house is an ethnic Tajik who was the runner-up to

Karzai in the 2004 elections.

The Obama administration, now that it has tenuously patched

up relations with Karzai after his anti-American tirades last

month, is reluctant to confront the Afghan president over

electoral procedures. This reluctance is shortsighted.

Insisting on procedures for honest elections now will be far

less costly, both in lives and money, than having another

crooked election that ends up with U.S. troops mired in even

greater chaos and a broadening civil war. The Taliban will be

the only true winner of yet another phony election in

Afghanistan.

Peter W. Galbraith was deputy special representative of the

secretary-general of the United Nations to Afghanistan from

June to September 2009.

Mr. Chair, I thank Congresswoman Schakowsky for her leadership on this amendment--and on the many issues surrounding private contractors.

Mr. Chair, this amendment is all about accountability and stopping waste, fraud and abuse. It's long past time that we increased and improved the monitoring and oversight of private contractors, especially military, defense and security contractors.

This amendment, like the provision in my bill, H.R. 5015, places these contractors under the audit and review of our existing Inspectors General, and allows the Special IG for Reconstruction in Afghanistan to make concrete recommendations to the Pentagon, State Department and USAID on how to bring to account and even stop doing business with those contractors with records of waste, fraud and abuse--let alone a record of abusing and killing innocent civilians.

Mr. Chair, this amendment is good for the American taxpayer. It's good for our national security. And it's good for our reputation and standing abroad.

It is a win-win amendment.

I ask my colleagues to support the Schakowsky-McGovern-Hinchey- Conyers-Moran amendment on expanding the oversight over and accountability of private contractors in Afghanistan.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I rise in support of the bill for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with the chairman. I would like to discuss the important role the National Aeronautics and Space Administration plays in our national security. In fact, I had legislation that established NASA as a national security asset.

Chairman Skelton, would you agree that our national security space programs are closely linked to NASA and that termination of the human spaceflight program could result in serious consequences for our space launch?

Further, do you agree that NASA's space programs have made important contributions to our national and homeland security, economic security, international standing, and technological competitiveness?

Finally, it is my hope that the Department of Defense will carefully assess the national security assets that may be possessed by NASA.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

My colleagues and I who are working on this issue appreciate your view. Transferring funds from the human spaceflight program to unproven commercial space efforts designed to carry humans and cargo into space is unreasonable and may be an unreasonable risk that this country should not take at this time. I hope that we can work together on this issue to ensure the continuation of human spaceflight programs.

Thank you, Mr. Skelton, for supporting NASA.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today, as we debate the defense authorization bill, to discuss the concept of humanity because I believe the men and women of the United States military have a sense of compassion for humanity and courage, and the broadness of their humanity causes them to sacrifice on behalf of the American people. Today I stand here and thank them.

And then I want to acknowledge, as well, the vast civilian support staff that are found on the Nation's military bases and bases around the world. I got a good sense of that when I joined, sadly, my fellow colleagues at Ft. Hood a few months ago, mourning the loss of a civilian and soldiers at the hands of a terrorist. I was able to see civilians and soldiers coming together expressing concern for each other.

I saw the mourning of those families who had lost their fallen heroes, their soldiers. And, yes, I saw the civilian staff mourn, as well, over the losses that had occurred amongst their fellow workers and colleagues, soldiers, and a civilian, and those who were also injured.

As we mourned, it came to my attention that we must take care of all of them. Sergeant Kimberly Munley, who was a sergeant, a Fort Hood police sergeant to whom was attributed the success of bringing down this particular dangerous person, despite being shot herself; or a 19- year-old nutritionist who put a tourniquet on a wounded soldier and carried them out for medical care, even though she was also wounded.

So I am grateful that the committee has accepted my amendment, and I ask my colleagues to support the idea of more or continued post- traumatic stress disorder counseling for the civilians on this base, and to ensure that that happens, if ever such a tragedy occurs again, to be able to provide Airborne staff on military bases with that kind of support system. I have promised the Fort Hood community that I would return, and I intend to do so to check on how they're doing.

But it is important that we stand here today as we look toward Memorial Day, mourning those lost, to be able to say to those here that we will counsel or provide them with the services necessary to support those possibly suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental health issues due to work-related violence on our military installations.

I started out quickly, Mr. Chairman, by talking about humanity, and I finish by saying, I've heard all of the talk about Don't Ask, Don't Tell. It is interesting to note that the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, as well as the President, recognize the importance of acknowledging this necessary change in our military.

But I am reminded of the history of integrating the military when President Truman said it was the right thing to do to provide the opportunity for Americans who happened to be of African American heritage to serve.

We know it is distinctive, but there is a reason for Don't Ask, Don't Tell to be eliminated, and it is that every decent human being needs the right to serve his or her country if they are willing to take the Oath of Service.

This is the right thing to do. Repeal it. It's time. The Murphy amendment is right and the process is in keeping with the respect of the opinion of those active duty soldiers who will be surveyed for their view. However now is the time to end this discrimination. My constituent Ensign Provost might have lived if his sexual orientation had not been misused to create an atmosphere that it was alright to take his life because he lived in fear of reprimand and dismissal. He was willing to serve his country but our country did not respect his humanity or his service.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment (#25) to H.R. 5136-- ``National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011.''

My amendment would make available post-traumatic stress counseling for civilian victims of a shooting on a military installation base in the United States, including the shooting at Fort Hood.

Every branch of the United States Armed Forces has a civilian workforce. The civilian workforce, also called ``civil service,'' provides stability in various types of jobs at a military installation. That allows for the continuation of military operations in a peace or wartime environment. Civil service personnel serve in roles that provide an important support system allowing the Armed Services to operate at the highest levels.

There are many ways to serve our country without actually enlisting in the military. One of those ways is to work in a military civilian job with the Armed Services. There are many, many thousands of individuals serving in jobs in fields such as medicine, recreation, education, engineering, food services, and many other important areas in which civilians provide valuable support for our military operations. The Army alone employs more that 250,000 civilians on its bases and installations around the world.

Civilians, like soldiers, are sometimes placed in harm's way and many work in challenging environments. One incident that recently presented unimaginable challenges and consequences for both soldiers and civilians was the shooting at Fort Hood. We understand that civilians stand in the same vulnerable shoes as soldiers when events like the Fort Hood event occur.

Enlisted personnel, National Guards, reservists and veterans with PTSD have lived through traumatic events that caused them to fear for their lives, bear witness to horrible things, and feel helpless and hopeless. PTSD symptoms usually start soon after the traumatic event, but they may not manifest until months or years later. If provided proper medical care, about half, 40 percent to 60 percent, of people who develop PTSD get better at some time.

Although veterans who served in combat are most frequently afflicted by PTSD, events such as the Fort Hood shooting highlight the physical and psychological dangers facing military personnel in all roles. Consequently, it is vital to extend to our civilian personnel the same benefits and support that we give to our active duty military. Civilians and military members on Fort Hood have equal responsibility to protect our Nation and, as such, it is morally imperative that we honor these civilians by providing them with equal support in the aftermath of such traumatic incidents.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this simple but important amendment.