Providing for 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; waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules; and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Chairman, as legislators, we meet once again to address the wide range of important national security activities undertaken by the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy. We all take our legislative responsibilities very seriously. This is especially true during a time of war. And it's always true of my good friend and colleague, our Armed Services Committee chairman, Ike Skelton.

As a result of Chairman Skelton's tireless efforts to put forward this bill, our committee reported out the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 last Wednesday. The vote was unanimous, 59-0. Consistent with the longstanding bipartisan practice of the Armed Services Committee, this bill reflects our committee's continued strong support for the brave men and women of the United States Armed Forces.

The defense authorization bill authorizes $567 billion in budget authority for the fiscal year 2011 base budget of the Department of Defense and national security programs of the Department of Energy, and it authorizes $139 billion in funding to support operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the global war on terrorism.

This bill does an admirable job in dealing with some of our greatest national security challenges. Addressing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, H.R. 1536 authorizes the fiscal year 2011 overseas contingency operations. With respect to Afghanistan, this bill updates reporting requirements, including asking for the conditions and criteria that will be used to measure progress, instead of allowing the ticking Washington political clock to determine our end state.

I am very pleased that the chairman and our colleagues on the committee joined us in ensuring that lifesaving combat enablers such as force protection, medical evacuation, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities are deployed in time to fully support the 30,000 additional troops scheduled to arrive in Afghanistan by this summer.

Building on the Acquisition Reform Act this body passed in April, this legislation takes a number of important steps on major weapons programs. We strongly believe that a $110 billion noncompetitive, sole source, 25-year contract should not be permitted. Therefore, we strongly support the inclusion of funding to complete development of the F-136 competitive engine for the Joint Strike Fighter.

As a Nation, we owe more than our gratitude to the brave men and women in uniform and their families, past and present, for the sacrifices they make and have made to protect our freedom. We are pleased that this legislation includes a pay raise which is half a percentage point above the President's request.

A major disappointment is that once again the committee and House leadership were unable to find the mandatory spending offsets needed to eliminate the widow's tax, a tax that occurs because survivors must forfeit most or all of their Survivor Benefit Plan annuity to receive Dependency and Indemnity Compensation. Nor were we able to provide for concurrent receipt of military disability retired pay and VA disability pay, as proposed by the President. I know that Chairman Skelton has attempted to find the offsets, but so far, despite this House approving trillions in spending that is not offset, this body has been unable or unwilling to find the means to support widows and disabled veterans.

One of the areas where there is disagreement between the aisles is detainee policy. We need to keep terrorists off our soil, not fight to get them here. We are disappointed that the bill does not prohibit the transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to U.S. soil.

Finally, for the last 8 years, we have asked our men and women of the Armed Forces and their families to make repeated sacrifices while serving this Nation. 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 that disrupts the process that was put in place earlier this year to give the troops the opportunity to make their view known on this most important issue.

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 to turning to our men and women in uniform and their families and saying your opinion, your views do not count.

Yesterday I spoke to and received letters from all four service chiefs. I will include copies of those letters in the Record. Let me read a couple of excerpts, Mr. Chairman.

General Schwartz, the Air Force Chief of Staff, writes, ``I believe it is important, a matter of keeping faith with those currently serving in the Armed Forces, that the Secretary of Defense commissioned review be completed before there is any legislation to repeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law. Such action sends an important signal to our airmen and families that their opinion matters.''

General Casey, the Army Chief of Staff, writes, ``I believe that repealing the law before the completion of the review will be seen by the men and women of the Army as a reversal of our commitment to hear their views before moving forward.'' Similar views are expressed by Admiral Roughead and General Conway.

Mr. Chairman, I planned on addressing this matter in detail when we debate Mr. Murphy's amendment. Unfortunately, the leadership deemed this debate, this issue so critical to the morale and welfare of our military worthy of only 10 minutes of debate. Ten minutes. The repeal of Don't Ask, Don't

Tell will get as much time for debate today as the manager's amendment. This is an outrage.

I'd like to make one last point. If this body were to adopt Mr. Murphy's amendment, then this House would breach the trust of 2.5 million men and women in uniform and their families by saying to them that their voices don't count. We owe our military personnel better.

In order to allow this House the time it needs to hear from our military forces through the process that was set up earlier this year, and their families, before we make a decision, I would encourage Members to vote against the Don't Ask, Don't Tell compromise and against final passage if my Democratic colleagues refuse to wait to hear from our troops.

As in years past, I believe that this legislation reflects many of the Armed Services Committee's priorities in supporting our Nation's dedicated and courageous servicemembers. I thank Chairman Skelton for putting together an excellent bill and helping us to stay focused on delivering a bill that protects, sustains, and builds our forces. I support H.R. 5136 as passed by the House Armed Services Committee.

We never, in the committee, in our markup, we never held a full committee hearing on Don't Ask, Don't Tell. We never included it or discussed it in our debate in the Armed Services Committee.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve H.R. 5136.

Secretary of Defense,

Washington, DC, April 30, 2010.

Hon. Ike Skelton,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing in response to your letter

of April 28 requesting my views on the advisability of

legislative action 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 implementation 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 a direct

impact and consequence for them and their families.

Adm. Michael G. Mullen,

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Robert M. Gates,

Secretary of Defense.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett). He's the ranking member on the Air and Land Subcommittee of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin), the ranking member of the Seapower Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), the ranking member on the Readiness Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), the ranking member of the Terrorism Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), the ranking member on the Military Personnel Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), the ranking member on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), the ranking member on the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana, a member of the committee, Dr. Fleming.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman), a member of the committee.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier, I think this is an outstanding bill. I think the chairman has worked very hard. I think the members of the committee--the subcommittee chairman and the ranking members--have all worked very hard, and the staff.

It is an excellent product as it stands right now. I think we will have, unfortunately, insufficient time to debate the Murphy amendment about Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I think that it is unfortunate that the Rules Committee did not give us the time that will be necessary to fully debate that, but we will take advantage of the time as we may.

I would like to say, as for many of the Members who have spoken today on our side, they do support the bill as it came out of committee. They hope that it will be improved, but if the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Murphy amendment passes, many of them will not be able to support the final passage, which is, indeed, I believe, a tragedy. None of us have ever before, to my knowledge, voted against the defense authorization bill, and we really don't do that lightly. We want to support all of this product, and we hope that we will be able to work this out as the day goes on.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I will not oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Djou), a new Member that will be serving on our committee that we are really happy to hear from at this time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, many of the Members on our side have been talking about the Murphy amendment that will be coming up later today. We were concerned that we were only given 10 minutes to debate that amendment, something that will be very far-reaching, very important to all of the members of the armed services and to the country. I would like to talk just a little bit about the process that we have been going through this year.

Earlier this year, the President, in his State of the Union speech, told the Nation that he wanted to see Don't Ask, Don't Tell repealed by the end of the year. The Secretary, in responding to the President's message, put a process in place, a process that would give to the Congress a report covering many items.

In March, the Secretary selected General Ham and Jeh Johnson, Defense Counsel for the Defense Department, two very good men, men of high integrity, men that have taken this responsibility very seriously. I met with them, and I talked to them about the process, about what they were going to do, how they would work to make it fair.

This month, just a couple of weeks ago, they have let a contract to Westat, a Rockville-based firm that has done survey work for the Defense Manpower Data Center to conduct surveys on military personnel, military spouses, and the comprehensive review working group. They have set their criteria on how they are going to move forward on this survey.

They will sample 350,000 members of the military and their families. They will survey 100,000 active duty military, 70,000 of their spouses, 100,000 of the Reserve component military, and 80,000 of their spouses. The sample size will be dictated by randomized statistically valid responses from various subelements of each component. Servicemembers will be asked to respond by mid-July, spouses by the end of August. They will develop and identify the sample of servicemembers and spouses.

I specifically asked them if they would reach out to make sure that all members were represented, which is what they are going to do. They are going to set up a system whereby members of the military who may be homosexual will be able to have their feelings known and keep their confidence. That report, as they have been set out now to work on, will reach out to the military.

They will then report back to us no later than the first of December, and at that point we are asked to move forward.

I have a letter here from Secretary Gates that says in part, 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 implementation 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.

Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the entire letter from Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates.

The Secretary of Defense,

Washington, DC, April 30, 2010.

Hon. Ike Skelton,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing in response to your letter

of April 28 requesting my views on the advisability of

legislative action 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 implementation 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 a direct

impact and consequence for them and their families.

Adm. Michael G. Mullen,

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Robert M. Gates,

Secretary of Defense.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, continuing my earlier comments, I was right in the middle of a letter by Secretary Gates. I will catch everybody up to speed.

The Secretary said, prior to any legislative action, the military should be allowed the opportunity to conduct a thorough, objective, and systematic assessment of the impact of such a policy change, develop an attentive comprehensive implementation 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.

I'm inserting some of my own language now. I would like to say that we will be asked to vote on an amendment later today without having the value and the important information that would come from this, without being able to act in a most informed and effective manner.

The Secretary goes on to say a critical element of this effort is the need to systematically engage our forces, their families and the broader military community throughout the 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 a direct impact and consequence for them and their families.

Now, Mr. Skelton, chairman of the committee, spoke to the Secretary 2 days ago, and the Secretary said, I stand by my letter.

Next I have a letter from Admiral Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations. I spoke to each of the chiefs day before yesterday, I believe it was, on May 26, and he sent a letter, part of which says, I share the view of Secretary Gates that the best approach would be to complete the DOD review before there's any legislation to change the law. My concern is that legislative changes, at this point, regardless of the precise language used, 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.

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

The admiral told me he was very concerned about what it would do in the force, the confusion that would be caused, and losing the credibility, actually, of him and his colleagues, because they have gone out. Based on what the President said, based on what the Secretary said earlier this year, they have gone to the force and told them they would be involved in this process; and it breaks faith with them and the things that they have tried to tell the force.

I will read General Schwartz's letter. General Schwartz is the Chief of the Air Force. He said, I believe it's important, a matter of keeping faith with those currently serving in the Armed Forces, that the Secretary of Defense commission review be completed before there is any legislation to repeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law, which is the Murphy amendment which we'll be discussing and voting on later today or tomorrow.

Such action allows me to provide the best military advice to the President and sends an important signal to our airmen and their families that their opinion matters. To do otherwise, in my view, would be presumptive, and would reflect an intent to act before all relevant factors are assessed, digested and understood.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition. I will not oppose the amendment. I will support the amendment as a good member of the committee.

Mr. Chair, we do have other things we can talk about here today, and seeing how the Rules Committee didn't give us time to fully debate the Murphy amendment on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, we will use the time for that.

I yield 2 minutes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman), a member of the committee.

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

I thank the gentleman for his agreement with us on this issue, where we had a process set up. The process was set up by the Secretary in conformance with the President's wishes, and the thing that they thought was very important was having the input from those who would be most affected.

In talking to the Chiefs yesterday, one of them made the comment to me, in addition to the letters, he says, Hey, I understand the politics. I understand what's going on here. And he said, The amendment is very cleverly written. It says nothing will be done to implement this until the study is done. However, the headline will be ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repealed.'' He says, I understand how that works. But the guy that's out on an FOB in Afghanistan is going to get the headline and he is going to then, when somebody may send him a survey, he is going to say, What is this? I know this is already decided. I mean, we ought to treat this like it really is.

Many of your Members, I have been on the floor the whole day, I have listened to this debate, and I was also in the Rules Committee yesterday and heard it, and many of your Members say this repeals Don't Ask, Don't Tell. This is it. And then some of your Members are saying, Well, it doesn't really do anything. It just kind of moves the ball down the field. Then why are we doing the debate? I think be honest in what this really does. This precludes the study, the study we just hired that we are going to pay good money for and we are going to hear from the troops, but they are going to know that their wishes or their desires or their comments or their participation is folly because the decision's already made.

What it's supposed to be was we found out, we went out and did the study, then it comes back and came to us with the Chief's and the Secretary's recommendations, and then we do have a responsibility here. We do pass the laws. And we are giving up that responsibility today by voting on something without the complete information. And we're dissing the troops. That's what we're doing. We're disrespecting them.

And as some of the chairmen said to me yesterday, it's going to cause confusion in the force, and we don't keep faith with those who are putting their lives on the line every day for us. And especially this committee. This committee should stand for the force. This committee should stand for the troops. This should have been discussed in our committee before it came to the full floor.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment, although I will not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1404 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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.

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.

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. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the chair of the Committee on Rules.

I am glad to yield another minute to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), also a member of the Committee on Rules.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean).

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 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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews.)

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), chair of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill as it passed committee, and in particular of the Sea Power and Expeditionary Forces section of the bill.

Under the leadership of Chairman Ike Skelton, the fleet has grown by seven ships since he became chairman to a total of 286. I guess it's in the direction, however slowly, of the 313 ships that CNO wishes to have. It also takes some far-reaching steps, one of which is directing the CNO that in the future, that in order to go to the fleet, he may only retire two ships for every three ships we commission. I think this is very important language. This is the third CNO who has said he wanted 313 ships, but ironically, they keep submitting budgets to Congress that actually shrink their fleet rather than grow it.

So I want to thank Chairman Skelton for working with us on that, my colleagues, on directive language that actually keeps some of those great vessels that would go to someone else's fleet in our fleet a bit longer.

Specifically the bill takes many steps to continue the work of the world's greatest Navy and the world's greatest Marine Corps. It authorizes the construction of nine battle-force vessels and one auxiliary oceanographic research vessel, along with 214 aircraft for the Navy and Marine Corps. It authorizes $5.1 billion to construct two Virginia-class submarines--the first time Congress has ever authorized two Virginia-class submarines; $950 million for the first increment of funding of the Marine Corp's amphibious assault vessel LHA-7; $3 billion to fully fund two DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers to work off of the Navy's surface fleet and the centerpiece of our Nation's missile defense; $1.5 billion to fully fund two littoral combat ships; $180.7 million to fund one Joint High Speed Vessel for the Navy; $380 million to fully fund the remaining construction costs for the first of the class maritime landing platform vessel for the Marine Corps; $3.3 billion for 30 F-18 Superhornet strike fighters, as well as 12 EA-18 Growler expeditionary electronic-warfare aircraft.

That will make a total of 186 of these fine aircraft built on Chairman Skelton's watch. $4.1 billion for 20 Navy and Marine Corps F- 35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft; $4.6 billion for 180 Marine Corps rotary-winged aircraft; $359 million for the Maritime Administration of the Department of Transportation, including $100 million for the Merchant Marine Academy.

The bill strongly supports funding for our Overseas Contingency Operations, authorizing $3.4 billion to build the life saving Mine Resistant Vehicles. This is on top of the $16.4 billion under Chairman Skelton's watch that was allocated in 2007 for a total of 16,000 of these vehicles that have been built as we continue to build 1,000 of them a month to protect our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For Marine Corps programs, this bill fully authorizes the $3.1 billion for a request for Marine Corps procurement, with an additional $126 million for unfunded requirements that will protect our Marines.

Mr. Chairman, I fully support the bill as recommended by the committee.

I also want to thank my colleague Mr. Akin for all of his help on this and all of the Seapower Subcommittee, and in particular I want to commend our great staff: Ms. Jenness Simler, Captain Will Ebbs, Heath Bope, Jesse Tolleson, and Liz Drummond.

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

Since 2007, the House Armed Services Committee under

Chairman Ike Skelton has continued to grow our nation's air,

land and sea forces to address the threats facing the United

States from both foreign nations and terrorist organizations.

Chairman Skelton's predecessor, Duncan Hunter, deserves

credit for leading House Armed Service Committee member's

efforts to provide up-armored Humvees, Improvised Explosive

Device (IEDs) Jammers, and other initiatives to counter the

IED threat in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, the game

changing improvement in the IED effort was the rapid

development and fielding of the Mine Resistant Ambush

Protected Vehicle (MRAP) that occurred under the leadership

of Chairman Ike Skelton, The actions of the Democratic

majority speak much louder than words when it comes to our

national defense.

The Mississippi National Guard's 155th Heavy Brigade Combat

Team returned home to Mississippi in March 2010 after

completing their second tour of duty in Iraq. During their

deployment they encountered more than 80 attacks from IEDs

without suffering any fatalities or serious injuries compared

to their 2005 deployment where they suffered 28 fatalities

from lED attacks. During their most recent deployment, their

unit was equipped with MRAPs. Prior to 2007, the demand for

MRAP's was ignored for four straight years by Secretary of

Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. The Republican majority in Congress

did not prod Secretary Rumsfeld to build these vehicles at

the rate our forward deployed commanders were requesting.

In 2004 military officials in Iraq began requesting MRAPs

from the Pentagon to counter the enemy's most successful

means of attack--the IED. At the time, 60% of U.S. fatalities

in Iraq were the direct result of IED attacks. Secretary

Rumsfeld and top leaders at the Pentagon originally ignored

these requests from the forward deployed commanders to make

fielding MRAPs a priority. By the end of 2006 the Department

of Defense's (DoD) established requirement for MRAPs for the

Iraq war effort was an absurdly low amount--4000 vehicles.

Before MRAPs were available in Iraq or Afghanistan,

military patrols were conducted in up-armored Humvees. The

enemy quickly discovered this vehicles vulnerability to

under-bottom explosions. Since Secretary Rumsfeld had refused

to provide MRAPs despite the requests coming from the theater

of combat, the result of continuing to use up-armored Humvees

was unnecessary American injuries and deaths. The MRAP is

designed with a ``V'' shaped bottom that provides an

effective defense against bottom exploding IEDs by forcing

the impact of the explosion away from the bottom of the

vehicle, unlike the Humvees.

When I became Chairman of the Seapower and Expeditionary

Forces Subcommittee in January 2007, under the new Democratic

majority, the very first hearing I chaired focused on the

need to rapidly get MRAPs to

our troops in Iraq. I worked with Chairman Skelton and my

colleagues on the Armed Services Committee to provide an

additional $16.4 billion in 2007 for procurement, building

and transporting 15,374 MRAPs to Iraq. This effort continues

today, and we currently have approximately 16,000 MRAPs in

Iraq and Afghanistan. We also continue to work with DOD on

providing vehicles that provide the same type of protection

as the MRAP but are more suitable for the hazardous terrain

and conditions in Afghanistan. There are approximately 2300

of these vehicles in operational units in Afghanistan, with

6,800 working their way through the pipeline to get to the

theater of combat. We continue to produce about 1000 of these

life saving vehicles a month.

For years the House Armed Services Committee has voiced

concerns over the concurrent and high-risk development of the

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which in turn, has caused a

several years delay in its operational fielding. Because of

this issue, coupled with the planned F/A-18 production line

drawdown, our Naval Air Forces face a significant strike-

fighter shortfall peaking at over 250 aircraft in 2017.

Realizing this significant issue over the last two years, the

committee has added 17 F/A-18s to the Department's request to

help mitigate the shortfall. The Committee, under Chairman

Skelton's leadership, also included candid language within

the FY11 NDAA report stating that ``barring a complete

reversal'' of the F-35 program failures, the Committee

expects the Navy to ``continue production of F/A-18s to

prevent our naval airpower from losing significance in our

nation's arsenal,''

I have made the commitment to my colleagues on the

Committee and to Chairman Skelton to get our shipbuilding

back on track. The United States Navy's goal is to maintain a

313 ship fleet capable of transporting troops around the

world, providing support for military operations, along with

a global U.S. presence. The Navy's fleet is currently at 286

ships, Starting in 2003, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,

shifted our defense needs primarily to the Army, the National

Guard and our Reserves. During this time, the Navy's

shipbuilding program went stagnant, lacked direction, and had

no plan in place to reach the Navy's stated goal of a 313

ship fleet.

This all changed starting in 2007. The Armed Services

Committee began addressing the Navy's acquisition reform

process, the cost overruns as a result of Secretary

Rumsfeld's outsourcing of shipbuilding to contractors and

lead system integrators. We have provided the Navy real goals

to meet each year in order to build the Navy back to a 313

ship fleet.

This reformation includes a proposed authorization of 10

ships in this year's National Defense Authorization Act. We

have worked to bring the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) back

under control. These ships had been previously authorized,

but the program spun wildly out of control. It got to the

point where the contractors wanted $600 million for a ship

they originally said could be built for $220 million in

fiscal year 2005. This cost increase prevented the Navy from

building the amount of LCS' originally approved by Congress

which seriously affected the Navy's ability of reaching its

goal of a 313 ship fleet.

Chairman Skelton and the Democratic majority also prevented

another costly over run from occurring by capping the DDG

1000 program at three ships at approximately $3 billion per

ship. This program was running billions of dollars over

budget. By capping this program at three ships, we allowed

the Navy to shift funds into a much more successful

shipbuilding program--the DDG 51 program. This maximizes the

Navy's budget by providing them with a ship that has a proven

track record for success and providing the funds to a proven

shipbuilding program that has already produced 58 ships for

the United States Navy,

The Navy has also received authorization for 15 ships not

including the additional 10 ships in the proposed FY 2011

NDAA, to be built from fiscal years 2009 through 2011, Since

2007, the Navy's fleet has grown by 7 ships to 286 ships.

Prior to this, the Navy's fleet was the smallest it has been

since the 19th century at 279 ships. The progress made by the

Navy's shipbuilding program is the direct result of a clear

and consistent plan and new leadership at the Department of

the Navy. It is by no means a coincidence that the fleet has

grown and continues to grow under Chairman Skelton's

leadership during this Democratically controlled Congress.

While men and women in the United States military continue

to be put in harms way in Iraq and Afghanistan we must

continue providing them the real support necessary to allow

them to successfully carry out their mission. It is clear

that the House Armed Services Committee under Chairman

Skelton, has provided much more than mere words or rhetoric

and has acted loudly to ensure that the Department of Defense

and our men and women fighting overseas constantly have what

they need to succeed in protecting and defending the United

States of America.

Gene Taylor,

Member of Congress.

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

Today, we as a Congress perform a duty in compliance with the Constitution of the United States. Article I, section 8 states that Congress shall have the power to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. It also provides for and maintaining a Navy and making all rules for the government and regulation of land and naval forces.

So today I rise in support of H.R. 5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2011. I'm pleased to be joined here today with my friend, my colleague, the ranking member, Buck McKeon. Buck's been a true partner in this effort to bring forward a bipartisan bill that addresses the national security needs of our country.

The committee passed the Defense Authorization Bill by a vote of 59- 0.

Our Nation's been at war for nearly a decade. Our troops are worn, and their families are tired, and the Nation recognizes their sacrifices. The bill addresses many of the concerns that they've raised.

I'm proud that this bill is a result of the committee's engagement with the military community and our citizens to determine what issues were important to them as we developed the programs and policies that are included in this bill.

This bill authorizes $567 billion in budget authority for the Department of Defense and the national security programs of the Department of Energy. The bill also authorizes $159 billion to support ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan during fiscal year 2011. These amendments are essentially equal to the President's budget request for items in the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee.

H.R. 5136 continues Congress' deep commitment to supporting U.S. servicemembers and their families and to provide the necessary resources to keep America safe. The bill provides our military personnel a 1.9 percent pay raise, which is an increase of a half a percent above the President's request.

The bill also includes a number of initiatives to support military families, including extending health care coverage to adult dependent children up to the age of 26. We also have the single most comprehensive legislative proposal to address sexual assault in the military.

The bill also fully funds the President's budget request for military training, equipment, maintenance and the facilities upkeep, which continues the committee's efforts to address readiness shortfalls that have developed over previous years.

The bill provides an increase of $12 billion above the fiscal year 2010 budget for operations and maintenance, including $345 million to fully fund the

first increment of construction necessary to modernize Department of Defense schools. There is 13.6 billion for training of an all active- duty Reserve force to increase readiness; an increase of $500 million for day-to-day operations of Army bases, which is a direct impact on our soldiers. It also provides an increase of $700 million above the administration's budget to address the equipment shortfalls on National Guard and Reserve units.

The war in Afghanistan is a critical mission that is essential to our national security. To ensure that our strategies in both Iraq and Afghanistan are effective and achieve the intended goals within well- defined timelines, the bill requires the President to assess U.S. efforts and regularly report on progress, including providing timelines by which he plans to achieve his goals.

It also extends the authorization of the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund through fiscal year 2011 to allow commanders to help Pakistan quickly and more effectively go after terrorist safe havens. The bill also provides $1.6 billion for Coalition Support Funds to reimburse nations that are providing logistical, military, and other support to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On Iraq, the bill upholds Congress's responsibility to provide oversight to the process of drawing down the mountain of material purchased, transported, and built up in Iraq at tremendous expense to the taxpayer.

In the area of nonproliferation, the bill continues our focus on keeping weapons of mass destruction and related materials out of the hands of terrorists and strengthens our nonproliferation programs and activities. The bill increases funding for the Department of Energy's nonproliferation programs and adds funding to continue the administration's plan to secure and remove all known vulnerable nuclear materials that could be used for weapons.

There are other good things in this bill, which my colleagues will cover.

I want to recognize the members of the Armed Services Committee for their contributions in making this bill one of the best that the committee has put forward in recent years.

I also, Mr. Chair, want to brag about the wonderful staff that we have on the Armed Services Committee. They make it all work well.

Mr. Chair, our committee has been and will continue to be strong proponents of our Nation's security and the people that it defends. We will continue to do what is right and necessary to ensure that our country is safe and secure. We must continue to work with the President to ensure that our citizens are safe and our Nation's security is paramount.

I urge my colleagues to support our troops and their families and vote for the defense authorization bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, my colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

(Mr. SMITH of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, my friend from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), who's the chairman of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my friend, my colleague, a former marine, and the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, the gentleman from Arkansas, Dr. Snyder.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the chair of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 4 of House Resolution 1404, and as the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, I request that, during further consideration of H.R. 5136 in the Committee of the Whole, and following consideration of amendment No. 4 printed in House Report 111-498, the following amendments be considered: en bloc No. 1; amendment No. 13; en bloc No. 2; en bloc No. 3.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the time remaining, please.

Would the gentleman from California care to proceed?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee who is also a member of our Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire about the available time.

I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the chairman of the acquisition reform task force.

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chair, pursuant to section 4 of House Resolution 1404, I hereby give notice that amendment Nos. 80 and 82 may be offered out of order.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

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

Mr. Chairman, picture in your mind an American soldier, a corporal, patrolling in Afghanistan, wearing his American-made uniform, carrying his American-made M4 rifle, having been transported in an MRAP security vehicle to his place of patrolling, with a radio on his back which was made in America--all of these items furnished by the Congress of the United States and under our duty and the duty to train and to allow him to be fully prepared to fight the fight that he is.

That is what is important in what we do today. That is the purpose of an authorization bill. It is required by the Constitution of the United States. It is paramount. It is the most important job that we have to do--to provide for the security of those who fight and who protect us in their line of duty.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, amendment No. 1.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 4 of House Resolution 1404, I hereby give notice that amendments number 21, 42, 47 may be offered out of order.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 1404, I offer amendments en bloc No. 1.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to adopt the amendments en bloc, all of which have been examined by both the majority and the minority.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McMahon).

I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

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.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

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).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Texas (Mr. Olson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend from Florida (Mr. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I would make that request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.