[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 125 (Thursday, September 16, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7158-S7168]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011--MOTION TO 
                                PROCEED

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am shortly going to move to the Defense 
authorization bill. I hope we can avoid a cloture vote on it. But from 
what I have been able to determine, that will not be possible. I have 
had a number of conversations with Democratic Senators and Republican 
Senators. I have explained to them that if we are permitted to move to 
the bill, either by consent or cloture on the motion to proceed, there 
are a number of amendments that I think need to be considered on it 
initially. I have stated what those would be more than likely.
  In my conversations with my Republican friends, they have indicated 
that they want, likely, more than just a motion to strike the don't 
ask, don't tell that is in the base of the bill. I said that is fine. 
The main thing I want--and I think it is fair in the waning

[[Page S7159]]

hours of this session before the election--is that we would have the 
text of whatever the amendment might be and also a time agreement 
because everybody is aware that someone could get on an amendment and 
talk forever. I am trying to be as reasonable as possible.
  These decisions don't have to be made today, but I would like to do 
it before Tuesday because I am going to have to make decisions Tuesday 
on what we are going to do on this bill. The main thing I have 
explained to Democrats--and they know this--and I say to my Republican 
colleagues, the work we do on this bill prior to the election is not 
the end of this bill. This bill normally takes some time. We can't 
finish it in a week. I understand more work needs to be done. Senator 
Levin has things in the bill he would like to correct with an amendment 
or agreement. It is my understanding there is more that the minority 
doesn't like in this bill than just the don't ask, don't tell 
provision.
  I understand, in addition to issues I have talked about in the last 
couple days, there are many other important matters that both sides of 
the aisle wish to address. I am willing to work with Republicans on a 
process that will permit the Senate to consider these matters and 
complete the bill as soon as possible, which likely will be after the 
recess.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. President, I move now to proceed to Calendar No. 414, S. 3454, 
the Defense authorization bill, and I have a cloture motion at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the motion.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object, and I will 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no objection in order at this time. 
The cloture motion having been presented under rule XXII, the clerk 
will state the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 414, S. 3454, the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011.
         Harry Reid, Carl Levin, Tom Udall, Jack Reed, Barbara A. 
           Mikulski, Jon Tester, Al Franken, Richard J. Durbin, 
           Byron L. Dorgan, Jeanne Shaheen, Frank R. Lautenberg, 
           Sheldon Whitehouse, Benjamin L. Cardin, Roland W. 
           Burris, Jim Webb, Daniel K. Akaka, Bill Nelson.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, before I proceed with more procedural 
matters related to the motion I just made, I am anxious to hear from my 
friend, the ranking member of the committee. We are not trying to cut 
him off in expressing his views.
  I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the vote 
on the motion to invoke cloture occur at 2:15 p.m. Tuesday, September 
21; that on that date, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to 
proceed following a period of morning business, with the time until 
12:30 p.m. equally divided and controlled between Senators Levin and 
McCain or their designees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, if I understood the majority leader's 
words, in a rather unusual departure from anything I have ever seen in 
the Senate, if he receives sufficient votes to proceed to the bill, he 
would take up certain amendments that are on his agenda, and then, in 
lameduck session, we might consider other amendments.
  Coincidentally, the amendments the majority leader would agree to 
would be two of them that are totally unrelated to national defense. 
One is the DREAM Act and the other is secret holds, as I understand it. 
Then other amendments of importance, which are relevant, which those of 
us on this side of the aisle have, which are important, maybe we would 
take them up, under certain circumstances, in a lameduck session.
  Mr. REID. May I respond to my friend.
  Mr. McCAIN. Yes.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Arizona, I haven't decided for 
sure. We talked about some of the things I would do with our 
amendments. I have been very clear with every Republican Senator I have 
spoken to that, of course, the motion to strike, we would get to that 
as soon as we can. If Senators had other amendments related to the 
don't ask, don't tell provision, which has been somewhat controversial, 
and some people on the other side don't like that--if there are other 
amendments related to that, we would be happy to do that before we 
leave for the elections. Then we would have to see what else we can 
work out on this prior to going home for the elections. But recognize--
and I think it is clear--that we are not going to be able to complete 
this bill before we go home.
  Mr. McCAIN. So, again, I say to the majority leader, you are going to 
ask Members on this side to proceed to the bill without us knowing what 
amendments you are going to allow and those amendments that may be 
considered in a lameduck session. It is well known that the DREAM Act 
is also one of the amendments the Senator from Nevada, the majority 
leader, has said will be part of the prelameduck session, which happens 
to be preelection, which happens not to have a thing to do with our 
Nation's defense. Other amendments that may be directly related to 
national defense will not be allowed by the majority leader, which is 
his right, to fill up the tree, as he did last year after we spent a 
week on the hate crimes bill, which had nothing to do with our Nation's 
defense. I ask the majority leader to draw a conclusion or surmise that 
perhaps this has everything to do with elections and nothing to do with 
national defense.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona has been in 
Congress the exact same period of time I have been here. We were in the 
House together, and we came to the Senate together. I am confident he 
knows the rules of the Senate. It has been very unusual in this 
Congress that we have had to file so many times a motion to proceed to 
get on a bill. This is a bill that relates to the defense of our 
country. On any piece of legislation, it seems like a strange Senate 
process when you have to know what amendments are going to be offered 
by both sides before you move to the bill. That is why we are here and 
why we are Senators, to deal with legislation. I thought I was going 
over and above what I needed to do by telling the Republican leader 
some of the amendments I thought we would deal with prior to the 
election.
  With my friend continually saying that the DREAM Act has nothing to 
do with the defense of this country, we have hundreds of thousands of 
people of Hispanic origin who are serving in the U.S. military as we 
speak. The DREAM Act is very simple. It says if you have been in this 
country for 5 years and you came before age 16, you should be able to 
go to a State school. You get no Pell grant benefits whatsoever. If you 
have been in school for a couple years, you can get a green card, no 
citizenship, or if a young man or woman of Hispanic origin decides they 
want to join the U.S. military, they would have the right to do that, 
and after having served 2 years in the uniform of our country, they 
would be able to get a green card. That is all the DREAM Act does. I 
think it has a lot to do with the defense of this Nation. We need these 
young men and women to join our military. We want them to.
  I also say that the reason I thought there was a concern about this 
legislation from the minority side was they didn't like the don't ask, 
don't tell provision. So I was trying to be as cooperative as possible 
and say amendments relating to that--let's do them. I talked to one 
Republican Senator, and even though I didn't agree with her amendment, 
I thought it was appropriate that she had the ability to offer that.
  I am not trying to end all discussion on this bill. I hope we can 
finish it. As the Senator from Arizona knows, we are very limited in 
the time we have before the election, and because we came here 
together, we are both going to have an election on November 2.
  I am going to have to excuse myself. I will be happy to respond to 
questions but I have a caucus that starts at 1 o'clock. If my colleague 
has some questions, I will be glad to respond; otherwise, I will have 
to excuse myself.

[[Page S7160]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will not take up the time of the 
majority leader--I have a statement I will present at this time--except 
to say again that this is a transparent attempt to win an election. 
That is what this is all about. Why would we want to put the DREAM Act 
first before the election? Why not after we come back? Why not take up 
the secret holds after we come back? And, of course, the don't ask, 
don't tell issue is one of significant importance to the American 
people.
  Last year, after spending a week on hate crimes--which, again, had 
nothing to do with this Nation's defense--the majority leader, with the 
agreement of the committee chairman, filed cloture and cut off debate 
and discussion of amendments that many of us felt were important.
  I have been around this body for a number of years. I have never seen 
such politicization of our Nation's security as we are seeing in this 
process we are following. This politicization that has taken place over 
the last 2 years is very unfortunate. For as long as I have been 
privileged to be a Member of this body, the Senate has done a good job 
of keeping the National Defense Authorization Act out of partisan 
political fights that have little or nothing to do with the U.S. 
military, the brave men and women serving in it, and our national 
defense programs more broadly. There has even been a healthy degree of 
bipartisan cooperation to prevent items that are unrelated to our 
national defense from crowding out time for debate and amendments 
germane to our national security priorities. Sure, we have had fights 
over this legislation in the past, and at times they have been pretty 
heated. But they were debates overwhelmingly focused on national 
defense. And whatever our differences we had through that process, we 
came together at the end of the day to keep this legislation focused on 
our national defense and all who ensure it.
  What troubles me is how far off course we have gotten over the past 2 
years. Under this majority leader and this chairman, we have witnessed 
the unfortunate and growing politicization of the National Defense 
Authorization Act. Time to offer and debate important defense-related 
amendments to this bill on the floor is being limited or cut off so 
that the majority leader can push through highly political legislation 
that has little or nothing to do with national defense--legislation 
that would never be referred to the Armed Services Committee if it were 
introduced independently.
  The Hate Crimes Act would never have been referred to the Senate 
Armed Services Committee. The DREAM Act would never have been referred 
to the Senate Armed Services Committee.
  This is turning legislation related to our national defense and 
military preparedness into a vehicle to force a partisan agenda through 
the Senate, often on a party-line vote. And their desperation, because 
they see the November 2 elections coming up, is palpable. What is 
worse, the majority leader is pushing this controversial agenda under 
the cover of supporting our troops, knowing that the National Defense 
Authorization Act is a must-pass bill and whatever else is in it will 
inevitably become law as a result.
  Last year it was legislation on hate crimes. I am not saying this is 
not an important issue or an issue that the Senate should not have 
taken up and debated in due time. But hate crimes legislation has 
nothing to do with our national defense. Of course, the majority and 
the committee chairman will always get creative on how to interpret 
``national defense.'' But the plain fact is, if hate crimes legislation 
were introduced independently, it would be referred to the Judiciary 
Committee, not the Armed Services Committee. Yet the majority leader 
and the committee chairman put that legislation onto the Defense 
Authorization Act last year, promptly eliminating the ability to offer 
amendments. Then the Senate spent a week locked in debate over 
legislation that had nothing to do with national defense--precious time 
that should have been spent discussing legislation that actually 
pertained to our military priorities.
  Things are only getting worse this year. We learned on Monday that 
before we go home for this election cycle, there will be no debate at 
all on the Defense authorization bill, except for what we are told--the 
majority leader just said he has not decided--but we are told there 
will be no debate at all on the Defense authorization bill except for 
three amendments handpicked by the majority leader for narrow political 
reasons 2 months before an election.
  One of those amendments will be on banning the use of so-called 
secret holds. Another will be, we are told, on the DREAM Act which 
allows the children of immigrants who entered the country illegally to 
become U.S. citizens.
  Again, I am not saying the Senate should not consider these pieces of 
legislation, but neither of them would be taken up independently in the 
Armed Services Committee because they have nothing to do with national 
defense. The majority leader has no business putting these two 
amendments on the National Defense Authorization Act--and certainly not 
two of only three amendments that will even get voted on--at a time 
when our military is engaged in two wars overseas and when numerous 
defense issues demand the Senate's time.
  That leads us to an amendment to strike the provision in the bill 
that would repeal the don't ask, don't tell law as the only other issue 
the Senate will be able to debate and vote on. Unlike the other issues 
I have mentioned, a repeal of don't ask, don't tell, while 
controversial, is related to the National Defense Authorization Act. It 
is an issue that belongs in the Armed Services Committee. The problem 
is the truncated process and partisan manner in which the majority is 
forcing through a de facto repeal of a longstanding law that may have 
significant ramifications for our military force during a time of two 
wars, all to fulfill a campaign promise made by President Obama in 
2008, barely 2 months before the election.
  I want to make one thing very clear: I do not oppose or support the 
repeal of don't ask, don't tell at this time. I do oppose taking 
legislative action prior to the completion of a real and thorough 
review of the law. A complete survey to evaluate the impact of repeal 
on the men and women serving in our military should be concluded before 
moving forward. When the Senate does consider taking legislative 
action, that action should be based on the survey of our men and women 
in uniform, and their leaders.
  Unfortunately and inexplicably, the majority is following an opposite 
approach. It is pushing for a vote on the don't ask, don't tell law 
before the Defense Department has concluded its survey of the opinions 
of our force on an important matter that will directly affect them and 
their families. The majority is doing this in complete disregard of the 
views of our men and women in uniform, as well as our four service 
chiefs--the heads of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines--who are 
responsible for the battlefield effectiveness of their services. All 
four of the military leaders wrote letters encouraging Congress to wait 
until the completion of the survey of the force before taking any 
legislative action on don't ask, don't tell. Their opinions have been 
disregarded thus far, and it seems that the chairman and the majority 
leader do not care about their views either.
  The majority will say this amendment does not actually repeal don't 
ask, don't tell; it merely authorizes its repeal pending a 
certification from the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that a repeal would not harm 
military effectiveness. Just those three officials--not the four 
service chiefs or Congress, for that matter. This is a legislative 
gimmick and a distinction without a difference.
  In reality, the majority is sending a signal to our men and women in 
uniform that we will not wait to hear their views or give them any due 
consideration once the Pentagon survey is finished. Instead, the Senate 
will turn its responsibility to legislate on this important matter over 
to three officials who have already publicly stated their support for 
repealing don't ask, don't tell. It is a blatant message of disrespect 
to our men and women in uniform that Congress is unwilling to even wait 
to hear what the force has to

[[Page S7161]]

say on this important matter before pushing ahead with a controversial 
political vote less than 2 months before an election.
  That is why I am opposed to debating and amending the National 
Defense Authorization Act at this time. I feel very strongly that we 
should wait--actually wait--and not take any action on this 
controversial issue until we hear from our troops on what they think 
the impact of repeal would be. Then the Senate should take time to 
consider their views before deciding what we think is the best course 
of action. The only rationale for doing this now is a transparently 
partisan and political one.
  After limited debate on only three amendments, two of which are not 
related to our national defense, the majority leader will then 
apparently push for a final vote on this legislation--or delay until 
the lameduck session--that also contains a controversial provision 
permitting abortions in military facilities, an irresponsible cut to 
the Iraqi security forces, and $2.8 billion in porkbarrel earmarks that 
the President did not request and the military says it does not need. 
There will be no chance to debate these or other defense-related 
issues.
  The effect of all of this is that the majority leader is turning 
legislation on our national defense into a political football. Debate 
is limited and unrelated. Politically controversial amendments are 
crowding out our limited time to debate actual military and defense-
related legislation. This is a corruption of the principles and 
procedures of the Senate if there ever was one, and it disrespects the 
longstanding traditions of the Senate. It is only making it more likely 
that the National Defense Authorization Act will one day go the way of 
so many other authorizations bills, which is to say nowhere.
  This kind of transparent politicization of our national defense 
should anger every Member of this body--Democrats and Republicans. The 
men and women of our Armed Forces deserve better, and we should demand 
better.
  I regret to see that the long-respected and revered Senate Armed 
Services Committee has evolved into a forum for a social agenda of the 
liberal left of the Senate. I will do everything in my power, if we 
regain the majority, to see that the Senate Armed Services Committee 
returns to the tradition of addressing only those issues that are 
totally related to the defense of this Nation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). The Senator from Michigan is 
recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will be very brief and save most of the 
debate for next week, but I do want to respond to a few of the 
statements my friend from Arizona made.
  First of all, in terms of hate crimes amendments, last year when we 
adopted this, it was not the first time we adopted it on the Defense 
authorization bill. We at least considered and adopted, in some cases, 
hate crimes amendments in the fiscal year 2001 authorization bill, the 
fiscal year 2005 authorization bill, and the fiscal year 2008 
authorization bill. I did not hear my friend at that time make 
suggestions that somehow the committee had lost its way in terms of 
bipartisanship.
  We have not lost our way. The Senate is a body which has a right to 
offer amendments which are not germane or relevant to the bill in front 
of us. This is not the first time that someone wants to offer these 
amendments. It will not be the last time. For it to produce the charge 
that somehow or another the committee is no longer a bipartisan 
committee, it seems to me, is unfair, it is inappropriate, and I reject 
it.
  The Senate has considered amendments on the Defense authorization 
bill in the last 20 years, not just on hate crimes, over and over 
again--long before I became chairman, by the way--but we have debated 
amendments on the Defense authorization bill on indecency standards, 
minimum wage, managed health plans, welfare reform, and the death 
penalty for drug-related killings. Those are just a few. I didn't hear 
anybody make the kind of charge at that time that somehow or other--
because the Senate rules were being utilized to bring to the floor of 
the Senate an amendment which wasn't directly related to the bill in 
front of us--the committee itself had engaged in some kind of a 
partisan effort.

  The rules of the Senate allow the majority leader to do what he did, 
and majority leaders have done that in the past. The rules of the 
Senate allow Senators other than majority leaders to offer amendments 
which are not relevant to the bill, and Republicans and Democrats have 
done that before on bill after bill after bill and on Defense bill 
after Defense bill after Defense bill. I think four times hate crimes 
has been offered, and I believe adopted, in this body on the Defense 
bill, but it didn't unleash or produce the kind of charge we have just 
heard.
  The majority leader, a few moments ago, said there is not going to be 
an effort to limit the consideration of just three amendments, if 
cloture is invoked. In fact, he is hopeful, and so am I, that numbers 
of amendments--many amendments--can be considered before the recess. I 
would like to finish the bill before the recess, if we could. I would 
like to get time agreements. As a matter of fact, before this last 
recess, I asked unanimous consent that we move to this bill. I didn't 
put conditions on it, I just asked unanimous consent that we move to 
the bill, and I couldn't even get consent to do that.
  What is unheard of around here, as far as I know, is what is going on 
repeatedly now in the Senate--objections, filibusters, and threats of 
filibusters to move a bill to debate. This threat of a filibuster isn't 
a filibuster on the bill; it is a threat to filibuster our debating a 
bill and offering amendments on the bill. That is what is happening. 
Denying the Senate the opportunity to legislate on a Defense 
authorization bill is what is being proposed; that we not even be 
allowed to move to the bill until certain conditions of certain 
Senators are met.
  There is going to be a lot of time to debate this cloture motion--and 
I will save most of that debate for Monday--but I do think it is 
inaccurate to suggest that suddenly there is an effort being made to 
offer a nonrelevant amendment to a bill in the Senate. Many of our 
bills have been subjected to nonrelevant amendments because the rules 
allow it. As the manager of this bill, I always try to figure out a way 
through that thicket. It is never easy. I have managed enough bills to 
know it is never easy to get through that thicket the rules provide 
for--that nonrelevant amendments are permitted. But it is not accurate 
to suggest, as my friend from Arizona has, that somehow or other last 
year, for the first time, we adopted a nonrelevant amendment when we 
adopted hate crimes because we adopted that very amendment on this very 
bill two or three times before that.
  That doesn't even get to the point of all these other amendments 
which have been adopted, not just on the Defense authorization bill but 
on other bills which do not relate to the bill on the floor, and I just 
gave a few examples. Many of those amendments came from the Republican 
side. But to start suggesting that somehow or other what is happening 
is unique or novel, it seems to me, is not accurate and does not 
contribute to handling in a bipartisan manner--and in this I think I 
share the hope of the Senator from Arizona--the security of this 
Nation; that it should continue to be, as it always has been, and God 
willing always will be, a bipartisan matter handled in a bipartisan way 
by the Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, just a short time ago, the Senator from 
Arizona, my colleague, Senator John McCain, came to the floor and made 
an issue about the way we are proceeding on the Defense authorization 
bill. Senator McCain, who is the ranking Republican on the Armed 
Services Committee, with Chairman Carl Levin, objected to several 
amendments which will be considered under this bill. One in particular 
is an amendment, a bill which I first introduced in its earliest form 
in the Senate almost 10 years ago. It is known as the DREAM Act.

[[Page S7162]]

  The DREAM Act is a legislative effort to solve a serious problem, and 
the problem is this: There are many young people who were brought to 
America by their undocumented parents. They came at the age of a few 
months old, 2 years, 3 years, 10 years of age, 12 years of age. There 
was no family vote on whether they were coming to America; they were 
packed up and brought. Some came over legally and then became illegal 
because their visas were not extended. Some entered the country 
illegally. In every instance, these were children who were brought with 
their parents.
  These children have grown up in America. They have gone to our 
schools. They have participated in community activities. They have now 
reached an age where they are finishing high school, many of them, and 
they believe they are Americans. It may be the only language they 
speak, the language of America, and they do not know of another country 
that they were told by their parents they once lived in.
  What is to happen with these children? Under the laws of America, 
they are here illegally. The simple, direct answer is, they should be 
deported. But we know that justice calls out for a different approach, 
a better and fairer approach. To hold children responsible or culpable 
for any wrongdoing by their parents is something we do not do in any 
area of the law.
  If I am arrested speeding down the interstate and have my grandson in 
the backseat, they are not going to arrest him for speeding. They will 
charge me with a crime, but they will not charge him. In this instance, 
the children in the backseat on this ride to America are being held as 
criminals.
  They have virtually no future, no status, no country, and it is a 
desperate situation for many of them. Some of them are the best and 
brightest kids in America. They are the valedictorians of the class, 
the class presidents, they are the kids who get admitted to the good 
colleges and universities and want a good life in this country.
  But they are stopped everywhere they turn. They cannot qualify for 
any Federal aid for education because they are not citizens and not 
here legally. They certainly cannot even enlist in the military, if 
they chose to, because under our laws, undocumented cannot enlist.
  So what is to become of them? I introduced the DREAM Act to say let's 
at least give them a chance. Here is what the DREAM Act says: If you 
came to America under the age of 15, if you have been here 5 years, 
graduate from high school, no criminal record of serious offenses, good 
moral character, and you go on, in the next 6 years of your life after 
high school to enlist in our military or to complete 2 years of 
college, we will give you a chance. We will give you a chance.
  Six years after high school, we will give you a chance to petition 
our government for legal status in America. That is it. What I have 
been told by many is that this is not only a good and just option for a 
lot of very young and talented people, but it also has other positive 
benefits.
  Yesterday in my office was a young man named Eric Balderas. I brought 
his picture to the floor the other day. I met him for the first time 
yesterday. Eric Balderas is a sophomore at Harvard University. He was 
born and raised in San Antonio, TX. His mother and father were illegal 
immigrants to the United States.
  He grew up in San Antonio and was accepted at Harvard University. 
That says a lot. After he was there for a short period of time, he 
decided he liked science. It turned out he was pretty good at it. As a 
sophomore, he has set his goal now. He wants to be a cancer researcher. 
He wants to stay the course, finish his masters, and even go on to an 
advanced degree so he can do research to find a cure for cancer.
  Can we afford to let Eric go? Can we afford as a nation to send him 
back to Mexico, a place which he knows of but does not count as his 
home? Can we afford to turn our back on him? I do not think so. I think 
this is a valuable asset for the future of America. Eric's life should 
not be wasted. It should be invested in our future.
  But there is also an option under the DREAM Act beyond the completion 
of 2 years of college for those who would enlist in our armed services. 
Senator McCain came to the floor and he has traditionally supported the 
DREAM Act. But he raised a question as to whether it had a place in the 
Defense authorization bill.
  I would urge my colleague from Arizona to consider the obvious. The 
Defense authorization bill is an appropriate vehicle for the DREAM Act 
because tens of thousands of highly qualified, well-educated young 
people would enlist in the Armed Forces if the DREAM Act becomes law.
  The Army says high school graduation is the best single predictor of 
sticktoitiveness, the kind that is required to succeed in the military. 
That is required in the DREAM Act. You must graduate high school before 
you can qualify.
  In recent years, the Army has been forced to accept more applicants 
who are high school dropouts, have low scores on military aptitude 
tests, and even some with criminal backgrounds to meet recruiting 
quotas. In contrast, now, the DREAM Act recruits would be well-
qualified high school graduates of good moral character.
  Many DREAM Act beneficiaries come from a community that is 
predisposed toward military service. The RAND Corporation found that 
Hispanic youth are more likely than other groups to express a positive 
attitude toward the military, and Hispanics consistently have higher 
retention and faster promotion speeds than their White counterparts. 
The Defense Department, in its fiscal year 2010-2012 strategic plan 
included the DREAM Act as a means of meeting the strategic goal of 
shaping and maintaining a mission-ready, all-volunteer force.
  In 2007, Bill Carr, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, said the DREAM 
Act is ``very appealing,'' in his words, because it would apply to the 
cream of the crop of students and be good for readiness.
  In 2006, then-Secretary of Defense David Chu, testifying before the 
Senate Armed Services Committee, said: There are an estimated 50 to 
65,000 undocumented alien young adults who entered the United States at 
an early age and graduate from high school every year. Many of these 
young people may wish to join the military and have the attributes 
needed: education, aptitude, fitness, and moral qualifications. The 
DREAM Act would provide these young people the opportunity of serving 
the United States in uniform.
  This was said by the Under Secretary of Defense under President Bush. 
It is bipartisan and it should be. Military experts also support the 
DREAM Act. LTC Margaret Stock, professor at West Point, said: Passage 
of the DREAM Act would be highly beneficial to the U.S. military. The 
DREAM Act promises to enlarge dramatically the pool of highly qualified 
recruits for the U.S. Armed Forces.
  The DREAM Act includes many important restrictions to prevent abuse. 
DREAM Act students would not be eligible for Pell grants and would be 
subject to tough criminal penalties for fraud and would have limited 
ability to sponsor any family members for legal status. The DREAM Act 
has broad bipartisan support, 40 cosponsors. In the 110th Congress it 
received 52 votes, a majority of the Senate, which under most 
circumstances is a winning vote, but in the Senate we require 60 for 
controversial issues which many Republicans might oppose.

  In this case, though, with 52 votes, 11 Republicans joined us in 
voting yes. According to a recent poll by Opinion Research Corporation, 
70 percent of likely voters favor the DREAM Act, including 60 percent 
of the Republicans.
  I say this to Senator McCain. I understand his point about amendments 
to the Defense authorization bill. I will not get into that particular 
point. I mean, he can argue that out with Senator Levin and Senator 
Reid and they can come to the best conclusion. They tend to work 
together pretty well under normal circumstances. But to argue the DREAM 
Act has nothing to do with the defense of this country is to overlook 
the obvious, a point that has been made repeatedly by the leaders in 
the Pentagon and Department of Defense; that to give these young people 
a chance to volunteer to serve our Nation and to risk their lives for 
our safety and security is good for the military and gives them a 
chance for a life--a chance for a life.

[[Page S7163]]

  How can we do this to these kids who came to this country with their 
parents and who know no other nation? One of these young students said 
to me along the way: Senator, I dream in English. That is something we 
ought to remember. For these children, America is the only home they 
have ever known, the only home they ever want to know.
  All they are asking for is a chance. There is a larger issue about 
comprehensive immigration reform. We need it. I support it. I have 
worked with Senator McCain on it in years gone by, and we need to 
return to it. But for this particular group of young people in America, 
I beg my colleagues, give them a chance. Give these young people a 
chance.
  They are counting on us, counting on us to come through. I do wish to 
say that this DREAM Act is going to be considered, I hope, next week. 
If we are successful on the motion to proceed, then we will move 
forward from there and probably debate it next week. We will need 
Republican support to pass it, and there should be. It should be a 
bipartisan bill. In the past, many Republicans have stepped up, 
understanding this is the right thing to do.
  When I speak to some of my Republican colleagues today, there are 
myriad explanations of why they are not going to vote for it or may not 
vote for it: Oh, we need comprehensive reform. Maybe this is not the 
right bill to consider it on. After 10 years, I want to tell you, I do 
not know how I can continue to face these young people. I do not know 
how many any of my colleagues can without an effort, without trying.
  I urge all my colleagues, over the weekend as they consider this 
important and historic vote, try to reach out and meet some of these 
young people. They will make converts of you in an instant. They are 
the future of America. They are going to be our military leaders and 
our engineers and our doctors, our lawyers and our accountants, even 
our Senators and our Congressmen. Giving them a chance to give back to 
this country is not too much to ask.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Honoring Federal Employees

  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I rise again to honor our Nation's great 
Federal employees and, in particular, to celebrate this year's Service 
to America Medal winners. These are the employees we recognized in the 
111st Congress.
  Last night, winners of eight awards were announced by the Partnership 
for Public Service, a wonderful leading nonprofit, nonpartisan 
organization. One year ago, when I rose from this desk to pay tribute 
to the 2009 winners, I spoke about the values Federal employees embody: 
citizenship, hard work, a willingness to take risks, perseverance, 
intellect, and humility. All nine of this year's awardees exemplify 
these qualities.
  One important value all of this year's winners share is concern for 
others. Whether rescuing Haitian orphans from a deadly earthquake, 
fighting against trafficking of minors, or helping Native Americans get 
access to Social Security benefits, this year's medalists have 
dedicated their careers and their talents to helping others. They do it 
for less pay--yes, less pay--and often longer hours than at jobs they 
could have taken in the private sector. If they receive a large 
compensation, it is in the form of the satisfaction that their lives 
are serving a meaningful purpose in service to their Nation.
  This year's Federal Employee of the Year Medal was awarded to a 
Citizenship and Immigration Services officer who helped expedite the 
adoption of more than 1,100--that is 1,100--orphans in the wake of 
Haiti's devastating earthquake in January. Pius Bannis was the only 
American immigration official in the country working on adoption in the 
first weeks following the quake. He got right to work organizing 
temporary daycare in our Embassy and ensuring the provision of 
emergency supplies to Haitian orphanages, including diapers, food, 
water, and clean clothes.
  Pius, in the midst of this Herculean effort, also had to cope with 
the loss of Embassy staff and their family members.
  A naturalized immigrant to the United States himself, he knows 
firsthand the complexities of the immigration process, which makes him 
an outstanding CIS officer.
  A resource conservation expert at the Environmental Protection 
Agency, Saskia van Gendt won this year's Call to Service Medal for her 
work on fostering green building technologies. Millions of tons of 
materials used in construction are disposed of each year in landfills--
a third of our Nation's total solid waste. At the EPA, Saskia has 
created an innovative program to help spur a green revolution in 
construction materials. In 2007, she developed the Lifecycle Building 
Challenge. This annual competition engages architects, students, and 
builders to develop new designs that reduce the impact of buildings on 
the environment. Since 2008, Saskia has been working with the StopWaste 
grant program to encourage businesses to adopt environmentally friendly 
equipment. The Call to Service Medal that she won recognizes those who 
have achieved early in their federal careers. Saskia is just 28 years 
old.
  Honoring those who have spent many years in Federal Government, the 
Career Achievement Medal was won this year by Susan Solomon, a senior 
scientist in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's 
Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado. In her nearly 30 
years as a government employee, Susan has been at the forefront of 
pioneering research into the hole in the Earth's ozone layer. Her 
research was critical in determining how certain consumer and 
industrial gases were affecting the ozone, which helped spur the 
landmark 1987 Montreal Protocol. Last year, Susan led a groundbreaking 
study that showed how the effects of carbon pollution, such as altered 
temperatures and changes in sea level, can linger for over a thousand 
years.
  This year's Citizens Services Medal was awarded to a pair of 
officials also from Colorado. Shane Kelley and Eva Ristow work in the 
Denver office of the Social Security Administration. They won for their 
work to expand access to Social Security benefits for those living in 
impoverished and rural areas using an online two-way video service. For 
years, the SSA has had difficulties reaching those living in remote 
areas of the West, in particular Native Americans living on 
reservations. As a result, many do not know they are eligible to 
receive Social Security benefits that could drastically improve their 
families' standard of living. Shane and Eva developed an innovative 
Internet-based video teleconferencing system to help connect these 
rural communities to Social Security representatives in Denver. For 
those whose annual incomes can be as low as $3,000, this new connection 
to the SSA--thanks to Shane and Eva--has had a gigantic impact.
  As Deputy Director of Intelligence and Security and Chief of 
Innovative Technology for the Navy's Joint Interagency Task Force 
South, Sandra Brooks won this year's Homeland Security Medal. Drug 
smugglers are constantly seeking new ways to evade our border security 
and customs checks. Sandy is one of the highly dedicated Federal 
employees working to keep one step ahead of them. Her role is to 
analyze information from a stream of sources and make sure it is shared 
quickly with the military, law enforcement, and homeland security 
agencies in the field. Sandy's efforts have directly led to the capture 
of over 20 submersible vehicles used to bring illegal drugs into our 
country. Her work is breaking down barriers that in the past have 
prevented security agencies from sharing information.
  This year's Justice and Law Enforcement Medal was won by Jamie 
Konstas at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. An intelligence 
analyst, Jamie helped

[[Page S7164]]

create a national online database used in investigations into the 
trafficking of minors for sex. Before this database was created, local 
law enforcement officials had few resources to track child victims or 
information on suspects after they had crossed state lines. Jamie's 
role is to spot connections and cross-reference clues to break cases 
wide open. Her tireless efforts have led to the prosecution of over 500 
child predators.
  The winner of this year's National Security and International Affairs 
Medal led a U.S. Army team at Fort Detrick, MD, that developed a new 
kind of medical kit to help troops wounded by roadside bombs. In Iraq 
and Afghanistan, improvised explosive devices--or ``IEDs''--have been 
used to target our soldiers and have caused many casualties. Teri Glass 
and her team created a unique medical evaluation kit that has allowed 
medics in the field to transport wounded troops more safely and 
efficiently to hospitals. This has significantly raised the survival 
rate for soldiers wounded by IEDs. The kit Teri and her team developed 
can convert a range of non-ambulance vehicles into medical evacuation 
vehicles in less than a minute, using a foldable litter, a rear-facing 
attendant seat, and a lift system. When not in use, all of it collapses 
into a portable container the size of a suitcase and can fit in the 
back of a vehicle. Commanders in the field have credited this device as 
saving the lives of countless servicemembers.
  Last, but certainly not least, the Science and Environment Medal for 
2010 was awarded to the Department of Energy's Jeffrey Baker. As the 
Director of the Office of Laboratory Operations at the Department's 
field office in Golden, CO, Jeffrey has been the driving force behind 
the design and construction of the largest net-zero energy office 
building in the world. This means that the building generates as much 
or more energy than it consumes. Planning for the Research Support 
Facility began in the 1990s, when Jeffrey had a vision for a building 
that would not only house the Department's laboratories but also serve 
as an example of energy-efficiency. He oversaw the design process and 
construction, and the building was completed on time and on budget. 
Today, the General Services Administration is planning to replicate 
Jeffrey's approach for new federal buildings across the Nation.
  All nine of these men and women are excellent examples of what 
government does right. They deserve our thanks and recognition. So do 
the 23 other finalists, as well as the thousands upon thousands of 
Federal employees who achieved great things this year as well.
  I was proud to serve on this year's Service to America Medals 
Selection Committee--a blue ribbon panel that included my colleagues 
Senator Carper and Senator Voinovich as well as leaders from across the 
nonprofit and business sectors and members of the House of 
Representatives.
  I hope all of my colleagues--and all Americans--will join me in 
congratulating the 2010 Service to America medalists and thanking them 
for their hard work on our behalf.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               IN CELEBRATION OF ``CHANGE THE EQUATION''

  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate President Obama 
for announcing today the launch of Change the Equation, a CEO-led 
effort to improve science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 
education or STEM. I rise to celebrate this incredible effort.
  I have spoken many times on the floor, to outside organizations, and 
to a number of my colleagues individually about my passion for this 
issue. STEM education is a topic of personal importance to me, 
especially because I am the Senate's only formerly working engineer.
  I truly believe, now more than ever, whether it is energy 
independence, global health, homeland security, or infrastructure 
challenges, STEM professionals will be at the forefront of the most 
significant issues of our time. That is not hyperbole; I believe that. 
STEM-educated graduates will hold the jobs of the future.
  In fact, according to a study by Georgetown University's Center for 
Education and the Workforce, by 2018, STEM occupations are projected to 
provide 2.8 million new hires. This includes over 500,000 engineering-
related jobs. When I hear people talk about how we are going to create 
jobs and talk about the macroeconomic effects and microeconomic 
effects, eventually you have to have jobs. You have to have people who 
are ready to take those jobs. That is the only way we are going to make 
it through this economy. In the next 20 years, as the Georgetown study 
has said, there will be 2.8 million more good jobs to keep us 
competitive in the United States with overseas.
  That is why I am so pleased that the business community has responded 
to President Obama's educate and innovate campaign to improve the 
performance and participation of American students in all the STEM 
fields. Launched last fall, the campaign aimed to create partnerships 
between Federal agencies, companies, foundations, professional 
societies, and other STEM-related organizations to help American 
students rise to the top of the pack in math and science achievements.
  In response to the President's call to action, astronaut Sally Ride, 
former Intel CEO Craig Barrett, Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt, 
Xerox CEO Ursula Burns, Eastman Kodak CEO Antonio Perez, along with 
support from the Gates Foundation and Carnegie Corporation joined to 
form Change the Equation. With a membership of more than 100 companies, 
this nonprofit, nonpartisan, CEO-led initiative will replicate 
successful privately funded programs in 100 high needs schools and 
communities.
  Change the Equation will be working toward three goals: One, improve 
STEM teaching at all grade levels; two, to inspire student appreciation 
and excitement for STEM, particularly for women and underrepresented 
minorities; and three, to achieve a sustained commitment to improving 
STEM education across the United States of America. I am so pleased 
because these are some of the same goals I have advocated for during my 
time in the Senate.
  Many Change the Equation members, nonprofits, and foundations have 
already created new public-private partnerships and made commitments to 
meet these goals. Public-private partnerships--that is what we need, 
and this is a great example.

  For example, Lockheed Martin, the Military Child Education Coalition, 
and the National Math and Science Initiative will expand access to 
advanced placement classes in STEM subjects to public schools serving 
military families. What can be better than that? Talk about mixing 
everything together and coming out with something great.
  HP is launching a U.S.-wide employee volunteering initiative with 
Donors Choose and National Lab Day. Other programs will improve 
professional development for STEM teachers, expand summer science camps 
for girls, and allow more students to engage in robotics competitions, 
to name a few.
  If you have not seen a robotics competition, see one. It is 
incredible to see what these young people can do to make robotics. They 
can do something technologically difficult but have so much fun doing 
it.
  All told, with the commitment made today by Change the Equation, the 
Educate to Innovate campaign has resulted in over $700 million in 
financial and in-kind support for STEM education. This is an incredible 
accomplishment and just the kind of public-private collaboration we 
need to bolster STEM education.
  Yesterday I submitted a resolution commending the efforts of the 
entertainment industry to encourage interest in STEM, something with 
which our Presiding Officer is very familiar. Many in that industry 
have heeded President Obama's call to join the educate and innovate 
campaign. The key to this is to make people feel it is cool to be an 
engineer, a mathematician, or

[[Page S7165]]

scientist. What better way than to have leaders in entertainment 
encourage this kind of activity? It is a wonderful program.
  Today, I could not be more pleased that so many of our Nation's CEOs 
have also paid attention to this call to action and joined together to 
form Change the Equation. This is wonderful news. Support for STEM 
education is essential--essential, essential, essential--for our 
economic growth and recovery. It is the future of our workplace. The 
American people deserve no less.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Trade Imbalance

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, yesterday, I filed a report on a trip 
which I made to China, Vietnam, and Taiwan, but I did not have an 
opportunity to come to the Senate floor to discuss it. I do so today on 
a number of the highlights of the trip.
  In Beijing, we met with the head of the banking department, who is 
identified in the filed report, to talk about a number of subjects, the 
centerpiece of which was currency manipulation. We reviewed the 
tremendous trade imbalance between the United States and China, much of 
which is occasioned by manipulating their currency.
  Legislation has been introduced and is pending in the Congress, which 
I have cosponsored, but it has not gone anyplace. There has been 
comment made by the Secretary of the Treasury and the President himself 
about currency manipulation, but it has not done very much to correct a 
very bad situation. The Chinese have suggested officially that they 
would be willing to make some modifications, but what they have done so 
far has been very little.
  In the conversation with the head Chinese banking official, he didn't 
give any ground, really. I also discussed with him the issues of 
subsidies and dumping, which have been rampant, taking away thousands 
of jobs in the United States. That was the subject of more extended 
discussion with the No. 2 Chinese official in their equivalent of our 
Department of Commerce, identified in the written report which I filed 
yesterday. We have seen some of our successful actions before the 
International Trade Commission. For example, last year we had a matter 
involving tires where the International Trade Commission found in favor 
of the petitioners and imposed duties. We were successful in a case 
involving tubular pipe. Earlier this week, I was the lead witness--as I 
had been on the tubular case and on the tire case--on seamless steel 
before the International Trade Commission.

  What we have seen with the Chinese practices on subsidies and dumping 
is a flagrant violation of international trade law. Before the 
International Trade Commission and I believe on the floor of the 
Senate, I have characterized it as international banditry. That is 
clearly tough talk, but I think it is accurate when there are repeated 
violations of international law.
  When I discussed these issues with the No. 2 Chinese official in the 
Department of Commerce, again there was very little give--talking 
points, sticking with them. When I talked about subsidies, he brought 
up our practices on farm subsidies. I pointed out the total differences 
which were involved in those matters.
  From China, we traveled to Hanoi and there met with a number of 
officials. There was a very interesting meeting with a historian who 
was identified in the report filed yesterday. It was fascinating to 
talk to somebody on the perspective of what the history of Vietnam is. 
He pointed out that in a few weeks, Hanoi will celebrate its 1,000th 
anniversary as a city. We pride ourselves on the settlement in 
Philadelphia--especially Philadelphia but Boston and other American 
cities. In tenure, it pales into insignificance when you talk about a 
city which has been in existence for 1,000 years.
  When I talked to him about Chinese trade practices, he said: Well, 
they are very difficult. I talked to him about what China is doing in 
the China Sea, which has been a subject of international notoriety when 
our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, made comments that those were 
matters of importance to the United States. What China is doing there 
is going into the island areas where you have islands long held by 
Taiwan or by the Philippines or by Vietnam and others, rich in 
minerals, and asserting control and really acting like the bully they 
are in that issue, as well as on trade matters.
  I was fascinated to hear the historian recount 13 invasions by China 
against Vietnam. Although it is not exactly the same, I wondered and 
speculated about U.S. action in Vietnam, going into Vietnam to protect 
Vietnam from the incursion of the Chinese Communists. Vietnam seems to 
have done very well for itself for centuries. In a context where China 
has tried to invade them, they have been able to protect themselves.
  From Vietnam, we traveled to Taiwan and there met with the President 
of Taiwan and had a very extensive discussion about their economy and 
their trade practices. I was interested to note that the People's 
Republic of China, the mainland, and the Republic of China, Taiwan, 
have signed a trade agreement. They do it through corporations, but 
they are obviously backed by the state. It appears to me that is almost 
tantamount to tacit recognition, when mainland China negotiates with 
Taiwan in that context. When I discussed it with the officials, they 
all said: No, no, it is not tacit recognition; the People's Republic of 
China still maintains that there is one China. But some 20 countries 
have recognized Taiwan as an independent government, and they are 
moving ahead and have some 15 treaties between the 2 countries. They 
are working it through on what appears to be a fairly extensive 
normalization of relations.
  Although the President of Taiwan was very interested in having the 
arms sold by the United States, I pressed him on whether it was 
realistic, really a measure that they could defend themselves, or 
whether it was symbolic. I did that in the discussions with other 
officials in Taiwan.
  It appears to me that we might consider revising our policy on the 
sale of arms to Taiwan where we have an irritant to mainland China that 
doesn't really accomplish very much. We recently have sold Taiwan some 
$4.6 billion worth, which is very substantial, but if the People's 
Republic of China, mainland China, decided to invade Taiwan, the 
defenses they have and their request for additional fighter planes, 
which has not been granted--all of that would not be sufficient to stem 
the tide.
  While in Taipei, Taiwan, we visited the 101 building, 101 stories. It 
was completed a few years ago, and at that time, it was the tallest 
building in the world. It has since been supplanted. It was quite an 
experience to be 101 stories above the ground, visiting the towers. As 
is known, when a building is that tall, it sways. But they have three 
enormous balls--I do not have the precise measurement but perhaps 50 
feet in diameter. One of the balls is at the apex of the building, 
right at the top, with huge springs, so that when the building sways, 
the ball and the springs keep it in an upright position. I have been in 
some tall buildings in the United States and felt the sway, but this is 
remarkable. We were told there are three enormous balls in the 
building.
  I wish to supplement the written statement filed yesterday with a 
supplement, an addendum to the written statement. I ask unanimous 
consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                Supplemental Statement on Foreign Travel


                                 China

   (Meeting with Wang Chao, Vice Minister of Commerce, Aug. 9, 2010)

       In my meeting with Wang Chao, Vice Minister of Commerce, he 
     provided a history and snapshot of the Chinese economy. He 
     indicated that since 1979, China has tried to foster positive 
     commerce and economic growth. At the time of the revolution, 
     China's economy ranked 15th. Today it is 2nd. However, the 
     Minister pointed out that China's GDP per capita still ranks 
     in the 100s and therefore is still a developing economy. Many 
     regions in China, especially rural areas, lag behind the 
     industrialized cities.

[[Page S7166]]

       I pressed him on what is viewed as unfair economic 
     practices. The Minister replied that China will continue to 
     reform its economy and integrate with the international 
     economy. The balance of trade between the US and China was 
     2.5 billion in 1979. Last year it registered over 300 
     billion. Today, 58,000 US companies have a presence in China 
     representing a total of $63 billion in investment. I 
     encouraged Mr. Wang to implement policies that would increase 
     China's investment in the US which stands at 3.3 billion.
       I shared the history and plight of the steel industry in 
     the United States and how practices such as dumping have 
     caused significant unemployment. The Vice Minister countered 
     with complaints about US agriculture subsidies, the plight of 
     Chinese farmers, the United States' refusal to recognize 
     China as a market economy and its unwillingness to ease 
     export controls on non-defense high-tech products.


                                Vietnam

(Meeting with Duong Trung Quoc, Historian and Assembly Member, Aug. 12, 
                                 2010)

       On Thursday, August 12, I had the opportunity to meet with 
     Mr. Duong Trung Quoc, a member of the National Assembly and a 
     noted historian. Mr. Duong is one of the few members of the 
     Assembly who is not a member of the communist party. He 
     provided me with a history of the region with a special focus 
     on Vietnamese-Chinese relations. Mr. Duong informed me that 
     China had invaded Vietnam on 13 occasions. He noted that 
     October 2010 will mark the 1,000 year celebration of Hanoi. I 
     told Mr. Duong that on the way to our meeting, I had the 
     opportunity to visit the Ly Thai To statue. Mr. Duong 
     provided some background on the founder of the Ly dynasty and 
     the two decades during which he ruled. Interestingly, Ly Thai 
     To launched a pre-emptive strike on China in an effort to 
     prevent and invasion.
       The conversation turned to China's regional and global 
     ambitions and its hegemonic statements and actions in 
     Southeast Asia. I asked if China was attempting to dominate 
     the entire region. Mr. Duong said that China's policy is to 
     get more power and that they have difficulty acknowledging 
     other countries and rights in the region.
       I asked about the claims of various countries over islands 
     in the South China Sea. Mr. Duong said that China's goal is 
     to have them all as their territory. He told me that all 
     Vietnam wants is to enjoy its sovereignty and rights and 
     territory consistent with international law.
       I asked Mr. Duong about what could be done to resolve the 
     conflict on the Korean Peninsula. He responded that China 
     could do much more to resolve the matter, but that they use 
     the conflict as a tool in its bilateral relationship with the 
     United States.
       I asked how Mr. Duong has survived as a politician while 
     remaining outside the communist party. He informed me that 
     the government does not pressure him and that he has been 
     able to operate freely. He further stated that of the 85 
     million residents in Vietnam, only 5 million are members of 
     the communist party. However, 95 percent of the members in 
     parliament are members of the communist party. He stressed a 
     need to have more non-party members in the Assembly. I asked 
     if moving Vietnam towards a market economy could have a 
     positive impact in growing non-party participation. He 
     indicated it could be a step towards forming a two party or 
     multi-party system but that it could take a very long time.


                                 Taiwan

 (Working Lunch, Dr. Lyushun Shen, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, 
                             Aug. 15, 2010)

       The Deputy Foreign Minister provided a unique background in 
     that he had lived in Philadelphia and was stationed in the 
     Midwest while serving with Taiwan's foreign ministry. The 
     forum provided an opportunity to candidly discuss issues of 
     importance in our bilateral relationship as well as those 
     impacting the region.
       We discussed the impact of Taiwan 101--the second tallest 
     building in the world--and what prestige that has brought to 
     Taipei. We discussed Taiwan's economy and the impact of the 
     economic downturn.
       I asked the Minister what could be done about North Korea. 
     He indicated that the multilateral discussions should 
     continue to resolve the conflict. On the issues confronting 
     the cross-strait relations, the Minister was optimistic about 
     the future. He provided a background on what steps and 
     agreements have been made between Taipei and Beijing with an 
     emphasis on the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement 
     struck between both sides. This agreement will remove 
     barriers on trade and provide enhanced access for imports and 
     exports. I asked if this continued economic integration will 
     provide a framework for both sides to move peacefully in the 
     future. The Minister was optimistic it would be coupled with 
     the vibrant social integration between the people of Taiwan 
     and mainland China.


                                 Taiwan

 (Meeting with Wang Jin-pyng, President of the Legislative Yuan, Aug. 
                               16, 2010)

       At 9:30 am on August 16, I was hosted at the Legislative 
     Yuan by Wang Jin-pyng. I noticed a small protest outside the 
     building and the President commented that demonstrations 
     occur every day much like Washington, D.C.
       I asked about the impact of the trade agreement between the 
     Republic of China and the People's Republic of China. Wan 
     Jin-pyng informed me that the Economic Cooperation Framework 
     Agreement (ECFA) was being discussed at the Yuan during my 
     visit and that legislators were reviewing the text which is 
     set to take effect in July 2011. He indicated that there were 
     already fourteen agreements between Taipei and Beijing.
       I asked if this agreement signifies a certain recognition 
     of the island by Beijing and that perhaps China was moving 
     from non-recognition to non-denial. I was told that Beijing's 
     goal is still full reunification. The head of the Yuan stated 
     that the Republic of China, which is commonly referred to as 
     Taiwan, is recognized by more than twenty countries but that 
     mutual recognition is still far away.
       I asked if Taiwan had steel interests, dumped and subsidies 
     like mainland China and what, if any, trade disputes were 
     outstanding. He indicated that napkin towels have been dumped 
     by China which forced Taiwan to levy a heavy duty. He also 
     indicated that Taiwan provided money in its budget for 
     industries to transition as the ECFA may force some 
     industries to go out of business.
       The conversation shifted to China's hegemonic actions in 
     the region. Many entities in the region, including China and 
     Taiwan lay claim to islands in the South China Sea. A concern 
     I heard repeated during my travels is China's power grab on 
     territory and seas which could yield them rights to oil and 
     gas. The Taiwanese stated that any outstanding disputes 
     should be resolved peacefully between all interested parties.
       When I asked about what could be done on the North Korean 
     issue, Wang Jin-pyng stated that Taiwan does not have the 
     capacity to deal with North Korea but that bilateral talks 
     should be resumed between the North and South. He indicated 
     that China could play an enhanced role and provide much 
     needed economic assistance to North Korea as an incentive. He 
     stated that the US-South Korean joint military exercises are 
     good because they put pressure on North Korea and demonstrate 
     resolve. He further stated that the issue of succession in 
     North Korea is a driving force which may impact posture and 
     actions but that the economic situation in the North is so 
     bad that we should continue to supply humanitarian aid. Wang 
     Jin-pyng believes that economic normalization in exchange for 
     security is the key to resolving the issue.
       I asked about the importance of F-16 sales to Taiwan and 
     their real benefit in any cross-strait conflict. I was 
     informed that the sales are both substantive and symbolic in 
     showing backing for Taiwan and aiding in any future cross-
     strait negotiations and talks. Further, Taiwan has a duty to 
     its people to provide defense of the island.

  Mr. SPECTER. In the absence of any other Senator on the floor, I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to share some thoughts 
about the surprising decisions that were noted in some of the media 
that the majority leader, certainly with the support of the 
administration, plans to introduce a very significant, very 
controversial, unacceptable amnesty amendment to the Defense 
authorization bill. The proposal is called the DREAM Act.
  A lot of people think this is legislation that we need to deal with, 
and some have supported it over the years. It has been coming up for 
quite a number of years and never passed. So what do we have now? We 
have a scheme to bring it up, not having had it go through the 
committee process. The bill was introduced March 2009. I assume that is 
what Majority Leader Reid plans to bring up, but we have not been given 
the amendment language. So they have got this DREAM Act proposal. They 
want to add it to the Defense bill, and put it on a bill that is so 
important they think the Congress will pass it anyway. Pass it as part 
of the Defense bill. We are weighing down the Defense bill--I am on the 
Armed Services and Judiciary Committees where both of these matters 
have come up. They want to weigh down this armed services bill with 
controversial legislation that ought not to be on it, to jeopardize it 
and put us in a position where a lot of good people who otherwise want 
to support the bill will not be able to do so, No. 1.
  No. 2, let's talk about the DREAM Act. The American people have every 
right to be unhappy with this Congress. They have every right to be 
unhappy with the President of the United States. This Congress and this 
President have not shown any inclination to end the massive lawlessness 
that is occurring at our borders. We have learned

[[Page S7167]]

that. We went through this debate several years ago. I was engaged in 
it deeply, spent a lot of time and effort on it, and the message the 
American people sent to us, when they shut down the switchboards in 
this Senate by so many phone calls, was border security first. We have 
got to end the lawlessness. So when you take a policy that says you are 
going to reward people who have entered our country illegally with a 
guaranteed pathway to citizenship, and with billions of dollars in 
financial aid or benefits they would not otherwise be entitled to, what 
message are we sending? We are sending a message, as we have too often 
sent year after year after year, that we are not committed to a lawful 
process of immigration in our country.
  Let me say, a lot of people some years ago thought that we could 
never get to a legal system of immigration. And we can. We have made 
some progress. We have built a fence--not all that was supposed to be 
built, but the fencing has helped. We have done some things that have 
helped, but we are not there yet. I believe there is a national 
consensus out there--polling data shows it. My conversation with my 
people in my State and around the country in airports and so forth 
indicates that what we have to do is end the massive illegality and 
then we can begin to talk about people who have been in our country a 
long time. I am not saying that is something that should never be 
talked about and dealt with. But in 1986, this country said, well, we 
have got a lot of people here illegally. What we have got to do is to 
make them all legalized and that will end the problem, see. Everybody 
will be legal then. We do not have a real problem anymore. We promise 
we will enforce the law in the future.
  Well, the amnesty took place immediately and the ending of illegality 
did not occur. In fact, illegality increased dramatically. Why? Because 
the message that went out, not the words that were said by politicians 
on the floor of the Senate, but the real message that went out around 
the world was, Americans do not care if you get in the country 
illegally and if you can stay there for a while, you are going to get 
amnesty too.
  It is the same people today who are making the same argument. It 
cannot sustain scrutiny. It cannot sustain any critical analysis. It 
will not work. It is a failed policy.
  Look at the DREAM Act. It would eliminate the statute passed a little 
over 10 years ago in 1996 that said, if you are in the country 
illegally, you should not be given in-State tuition. A really big deal. 
Oh, it is mean spirited. If you are in the country illegally, I am not 
sure what you should be entitled to, but certainly not discounted 
tuition or Pell grants, or student loans.
  The first thing you do when you want to end illegality on immigration 
policy is stop subsidizing it, for heaven's sake. Stop subsidizing it. 
What kind of mixed message is it when you have people in the country 
illegally and you give them special benefits, including Social Security 
and other benefits too?
  They will be given a green card that has certain conditions. But, in 
fact, basically, I would say if you do not commit a felony, you are put 
on a guaranteed path to citizenship. Well, oh, you have to go to school 
or get a GED or be enrolled in a community college. What happens when 
you do these kind of things? I mean, there are people here who have 
nephews and nieces, children not in this country. They read that we 
passed such a bill as this. Why would they not think, well, I need to 
see if I can get my relatives in, my grandchild or whoever, in this 
country illegally.
  They are not allowed to come in. Everybody else has to wait in line, 
maybe hire lawyers to make sure they can get their entry into the 
country legally. I will bring in my niece, my nephew, and they will 
qualify for this act in a few years. Why would that not increase the 
amount of people who would come into the country illegally? It 
certainly would do so. We have discussed these issues before.
  This is a bogus policy. And after a few years, you are placed on a 
path to become a full citizen of the United States, ahead of millions 
of people who waited in line dutifully to get their citizenship. It is 
a reward for illegality. You can spin it any way you want to. We 
discussed this for years in this body. It will not stand scrutiny. It 
is not good policy.
  I understand some of my colleagues are saying this is somehow 
relevant to the Defense bill, because there is an option to serve in 
the military for two years that will put you on a path to citizenship. 
Well, there are programs already for people who join the military to 
enhance their ability to get citizenship.
  But this bill is plainly legislation that has been kicked around here 
for a decade, at least, and it has never been brought up as a Defense 
bill. It has always been brought up as an immigration bill, which it 
plainly is. So now to come in and try to say it is somehow connected 
because of this minute possibility, that 5 percent, probably at most, 
would demonstrate their educational advantage through the military is a 
stretch. I want to repeat: What is happening here? This administration, 
it has been reported, is having internal analyses done to determine how 
amnesty can be given without congressional action.
  They have announced recently that people apprehended in our country 
illegally will not be deported unless they have committed a felony, 
presumably DUI or larceny, misdemeanor theft. So as long as you do not 
plead guilty to a drug felony, that will not lead to deportation.
  That is the kind of action that eviscerates enforcement. We do not 
need to be having that kind of policy in our country. We had the 
spectacle, shortly after President Obama was elected, when a hard-
working, honest ICE agent conducted a raid at a company in Bellingham, 
Washington and found a whole bunch of people there illegally working, 
and it caused an uproar.
  Secretary Napolitano said, I am going to get to the bottom of it. Was 
she getting to the bottom of this company that hired a bunch of illegal 
aliens? No. She was going to get to the bottom of how it was that a law 
enforcement officer actually had the gumption or the initiative to go 
out and try to enforce the law in this country. They announced a policy 
based on campaign promises they had made during the campaign that they 
were not going to do that anymore. And, presumably, I am not aware of 
any that have been conducted since. They have people from immigration 
advocacy groups running to the administration in high concern--you 
promised us you would not enforce this kind of law.
  What do the American people think about this? They are not happy. 
People should not be happy about it. We are a nation of laws. We need 
to end the lawlessness. I was a Federal prosecutor for 15 years. I know 
something about how this has played out, and I have looked at it 
closely over the last decade. It was not something I chose to be 
involved with. We almost had to raise a question and begin to examine 
it.
  What I have discovered is, the potential is there, it is within our 
grasp, to be able to end this massive lawlessness and create a lawful 
system.
  At that point, we will be able to involve the American people and 
then ask how should we treat people who might have come here young and 
have been here quite a number of years? How should they be treated? But 
to do anything that creates a guaranteed path to citizenship for people 
who are here illegally now will only undermine the progress we have 
made in enforcement in recent years. People can wish things were 
different. But in my analysis, we simply have to follow through on the 
law of the land, to end the lawlessness. We may need to pass 
legislation to help, and we will. But we also have to have the will of 
the Commander in Chief, the chief law enforcement officer, the 
President of the United States. We have to have the support of the 
majority leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, and the 
majority party in the Senate. They have to be committed to ending 
lawlessness. Are they or are they not? They will say they are. But I 
would say this DREAM Act gimmick, this manipulation to stick it on the 
Defense bill is a clear statement that they are not committed to it.
  In fact, what they are committed to is a political plan to assuage 
some campaign promises made last time and to provide another method of 
legalizing those who have entered the country illegally. That is not 
right.
  What are we going to do? Let's get busy. Let's end the lawlessness 
now.

[[Page S7168]]

We can do this in a few years. It is not going to break the bank. I 
have been there and looked at it and studied it. If we followed up on 
the gains we have made, we would make even more and be in a position to 
wrestle with these kinds of issues.
  My concern is the following: First, it ought not to be on the Defense 
bill. It ought to come through in the regular order and in the light of 
day so people can have hearings and testimony, and citizens who are 
concerned about it on either side can have their view and their say. 
Secondly, we don't have the money. Estimates I have seen have indicated 
that this bill, amazingly, could cost the Treasury of the United States 
$19.2 billion just for the first 2 years. Where are we getting that 
money from? We are already in record deficits, having almost doubled 
the debt, and will triple the debt in 8 more years. We are going to add 
another $19 billion to subsidize illegal activity? In addition to that, 
Social Security entitlement benefits, welfare, Pell grants, student 
loans, all those would be added to the cost also.
  Are there any funds to investigate whether someone is qualified? It 
may be that the average American hearing this debate says: These people 
came here at age 3. They should qualify for in-state tuition, even if 
they illegally came here. But those qualifications, coming here at that 
age, is not the requirement, first. No. 2, they only have to prove they 
have been in the country for 5 years. How do they prove it? They 
produce false documents. This is commonly done. How do they prove they 
came here at age 14, age 12? They may or may not have documents.
  Do you think the FBI is going to take a document submitted to the 
immigration people to justify qualifications under the DREAM Act? Does 
anybody think the FBI is going to investigate to see if these are 
forged documents? Nobody is going to check this out; they don't have 
time. There is no money in the legislation to do so, no requirement 
that I can see to do so.
  I know illegal immigration causes significant social and emotional 
problems throughout society. Some would say the way to remedy it is to 
not let anybody suffer any consequences as a result of violating the 
laws of the United States. Just don't enforce the laws. Reward the 
people who came in here illegally. Don't do anything about it.
  Of course, on the surface that is untenable. But when you come up 
with a plan that simply says if you are in our country illegally, you 
don't qualify for in-state tuition, or you don't get subsidized student 
loans if you came into the country illegally, this is seen as harsh and 
mean spirited and should not occur. But great governments have to 
decide how they are going to conduct their business, and they have to 
decide whether we are going to end this lawlessness and have a lawful 
system of immigration.
  This country, by the American people, has made up its mind. They have 
told the Congress what they want. But the arrogance, the total 
disrespect of the decent, honorable plea from the American people to 
end the lawlessness and create a system we can be proud of is 
surprising to me. I would think the Congress, after all we have been 
through, would have understood that the plea of the American people is 
not mean spirited. It is not unfair. It is quite legitimate and decent. 
We believe in immigration. We want immigrants to come to the country. 
We believe they should apply. We believe people who qualify should come 
here before people who do not qualify. That is what America is all 
about. That kind of legal system is one of the things that attracts 
people all over the world to come here. It should not be undermined.
  If we do the right thing, we will reject this amendment. Hopefully, 
it will not even be brought up. Please, I hope it is not brought up. It 
is just going to cause a lot of frustration and tension on the Defense 
bill that ought to be focused on the men and women in harm's way and 
how to help them do their job better and more safely. I hope it does 
not come up. But if it does, it needs to be voted down. We need to tell 
the President, tell his Secretary of Homeland Security and his ICE 
department, tell Members of Congress we are tired of fooling around. 
Let's get busy and complete the job and create a lawful system of 
immigration of which we can be proud.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GOODWIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________