[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.
____________________