[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 127 (Tuesday, September 21, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7235-S7244]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 3454, which the 
clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to the bill (S. 3454) to authorize 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2011 for military activities 
     of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and 
     for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to 
     prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, 
     and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I hope we will proceed to the Defense 
authorization bill this afternoon. The Senator from Maine, as far as I 
am concerned, has raised a very legitimate question about whether 
amendments will be offerable to this bill, and the majority leader has 
spoken on that on the Record. This is what he said last Thursday. He 
said:

       . . . 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.

  So the majority leader has said he is more than willing to engage in 
that process.
  If that process does not lead to a fair result, then--if we can get 
to the bill--if the Republicans feel there has not been adequate 
opportunity to offer amendments, the opportunity will be there to 
prevent the passage of the bill until those amendments are considered. 
This is the normal process. But to deny an opportunity to move to the 
bill so we can engage in a debate on amendments and so we hopefully 
will have an opportunity, as we should, to debate amendments on the 
bill, it seems to me is prejudging the outcome of the debate.
  The time to determine whether there has been adequate opportunity to 
debate the bill is after you have had an opportunity to debate the 
bill. That judgment cannot be made in advance, particularly in the face 
of the majority leader's assurance. I agree with the Senator from Maine 
that it is important this assurance be there. It is there, it was 
there, in part, because of the issue she has raised over the last few 
days.
  When the majority leader says let us get to the bill because he 
agrees--he has talked about a number of issues, but in addition to the 
issues which he has talked about, which include a debate on don't ask, 
don't tell, include a debate on the DREAM Act--in his words, ``there 
are many other important matters that both sides of the aisle wish to 
address'' and that he is ``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.''
  But we need to get to the bill. We need to get to the bill so we can 
then begin to debate amendments. I think many Senators have amendments 
they want to offer. It is not unusual on a Defense authorization bill. 
We usually have hundreds of amendments that are offered. Last year, I 
believe we adopted something like 60 amendments. That process will 
again occur but only if we can get to the bill.
  To insist in advance there be an agreement, let me tell you, as 
manager of the bill, I love unanimous consent agreements. I love time 
limits. I love time agreements. I love agreements to limit amendments. 
That is fine. But until you get to the bill, you are not in a position 
to work out such agreements. These are theoretical issues. We do not 
even know what amendments are going to be offered to this bill--until 
we get to the bill. How can you have an agreement on what amendments 
will be in order when we have not gotten to the bill and the amendments 
are not even filed?
  So it is a legitimate point the Senator from Maine makes that she 
wants to be sure, as I hope every Senator does, that there will be 
adequate consideration of amendments during the debate on this bill.
  The Republicans have the ability to stop a completion of 
consideration of this bill until--unless and until--there is an 
opportunity to have a debate on amendments the way we usually do on the 
authorization bill. That ability to stop the completion of this bill is 
there, but it can only be utilized if we get to the bill.
  To try to figure out in advance all the amendments which might be 
filed and what amendments will be ordered and what time agreements will 
be reached is, it seems to me as a practical matter, impossible to do.
  The assurance of the majority leader was there and is there. I am not 
going to repeat it because I have already quoted it twice--but that 
assurance that other amendments, besides the ones he has talked about 
publicly, will be in order. Again, I think everybody understands the 
rules of this place. Nonrelevant amendments can be offered. They have 
in the past on this bill, including by the Senator from Arizona, who 
offered a very nonrelevant amendment against the wishes of Senator 
Warner, an amendment having to do with campaign finance reform not too 
many years ago. That amendment, although nonrelevant, was passed by 
this body. I supported that amendment, against the wishes of the 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner.

  There are dozens of nonrelevant amendments which have been offered on 
the Defense authorization bill. To suggest somehow or other that only 
began last year when there was a--or on the last bill--when there was a 
debate on hate crimes is inaccurate. It was not a debate on the 
addition of the hate crimes amendment which began the consideration of 
nonrelevant amendments on the Defense authorization bill. As a matter 
of fact, it was the fourth time the hate crimes amendment was adopted 
on the Defense authorization bill. The first time was when Senator 
Thurmond was chairman of the committee, against his wishes but 
nonetheless adopted. There are literally dozens of other nonrelevant 
amendments that have been considered. Why? Because the rules of the 
Senate permit consideration of nonrelevant amendments on bills.
  This is one of the few authorization bills that needs to be passed, 
not just because it supports the troops, critical not only in wartime 
but generally, but also because of the rules of this body requiring 
there be an authorization bill for defense for a number of specific 
matters, including military construction.
  So our hope is we can begin consideration of this bill. I am going to 
give the reasons why we need to consider this bill in a few moments. 
But, again, I wish to assure colleagues there is plenty of opportunity 
to prevent this bill from being adopted if there is not adequate 
consideration of amendments

[[Page S7236]]

that people may want to offer--relevant amendments and, yes, 
nonrelevant amendments--because the rules of the Senate permit the 
consideration of nonrelevant amendments. So I hope we can get the votes 
of 60 Senators this afternoon to begin consideration of this bill.
  We have enacted a Defense authorization bill every year for the last 
48 years. We have done so because the bill always contains important 
bipartisan measures to improve the compensation and quality of life of 
our men and women in uniform, provides our troops the equipment and 
support they need in ongoing military operations around the world, and 
enhances the oversight and efficiency of DOD operations. Yesterday 
afternoon, I described in detail many such measures that are included 
in this year's bill.
  Before I continue, I do have a parliamentary inquiry as to what the 
time situation is: How many minutes are there available prior to the 
recess for the caucuses, and what is the division of that time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority controls 36\1/2\ minutes and the 
minority 40 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. So the majority has 36 minutes; is that what I understand?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. So I yield myself 10 additional minutes, Mr. President.
  This bill includes a handful of contentious provisions which were 
adopted during the course of the markup. There always are contentious 
provisions in this bill, and the reason we are here is to debate those 
provisions. Hopefully, we will have that opportunity.
  Some of the provisions in the bill I support, some of the provisions 
I objected to in committee and I voted against them. But we should not 
deny the Senate the opportunity to take up a bill which is essential 
for the men and women in the military because we disagree with some 
provisions in the bill.
  These are legitimate issues for debate, and the Senate should debate 
them. But the only way we can debate and vote on the issue--the various 
issues, contentious and otherwise--is if the Senate proceeds to the 
bill.
  It has been argued that we should not proceed to consider this bill 
for a number of reasons: One, because of the don't ask, don't tell 
provision in the bill. Another one is because there was a cut in the 
bill to the money requested by the administration for the Iraqi 
Security Forces Fund. It has been argued there is ``wasteful'' spending 
that was added by the Armed Services Committee. Another issue is 
because of the likelihood that nonrelevant amendments, such as the 
DREAM Act, will be offered.
  First, as to don't ask, don't tell, the Secretary of Defense and the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs informed our committee in February that 
they support the President's decision to work with Congress to repeal 
the existing law. Secretary Gates said:

       The question before us is not whether the military prepares 
     to make this change, but . . . how we best prepare for it.

  The committee held two hearings on don't ask, don't tell policy and 
questioned numerous other witnesses in other hearings about the policy 
as they came before the committee. The amendment of the policy was 
debated on and voted on in the Armed Services Committee. It is clearly 
relevant to the bill because the original policy was adopted as a 
provision of the fiscal year 1994 Defense Authorization Act after being 
debated and voted in the committee 15 years ago.
  The argument, then, is made that it is inappropriate for us to act on 
don't ask, don't tell before the Department of Defense has completed 
its review of the issue. But the provision that is in this bill and the 
provision we adopted in committee doesn't tie the military to any 
specific course of action. There will not be any change to the law or 
to the military's policy before the Department has completed its 
comprehensive review and considered the comprehensive survey of the 
force now underway. Even when that review has been completed, under our 
bill, no change can take place until and unless the President, 
Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
consider the results of the review, and only if then they can certify 
to the Senate and the Congress that the change can be implemented in a 
manner that is consistent with standards of military readiness, 
military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention.
  That certification, if it is not made, then will result in this 
policy not changing. Only if the President, the Secretary of Defense, 
and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, obviously in consultation, as the 
law provides, with the Chiefs of Staff--only then, if the certification 
is made that our standards of military readiness, military 
effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention can be 
maintained, will this law be changed.
  The Senate should debate and vote on don't ask, don't tell as we 
debated the original provision on that issue. As I understand it, by 
the way, one amendment that has been filed is a motion to strike. But 
amendments are not limited to that. The majority leader specifically 
said there may be other amendments relative to don't ask, don't tell 
that would also be able to be considered. But only if we can get to the 
bill can we consider those other amendments. We are not going to have 
the opportunity to debate this issue and vote unless we proceed to the 
bill.
  As to the cut in the money requested for the Iraqi Security Forces 
Fund, I pointed out yesterday this decision was consistent with the 
previously expressed view of the Congress and the Armed Services 
Committee that the Government of Iraq should assume a greater 
responsibility for the financial burden of building Iraqi security 
forces as U.S. forces draw down. Iraq, according to a GAO analysis we 
just received, has a cumulative budget surplus of $52 billion through 
the end of fiscal year 2009, and as much as $5 billion in unspent 
security funds. It is well positioned to pay for its own military 
equipment instead of coming to the American taxpayers for large 
handouts.
  This issue was debated and voted on in the committee. There was an 
amendment of the Senator from Arizona to strike $1 billion, which we 
added for our military, and provide the money, under his amendment, to 
the Iraqi Government instead. What we did is, we had a request for $2 
billion. We reduced that to $1 billion. The Senator's amendment was to 
restore the $1 billion. We defeated that amendment in committee after 
debate by a vote of 15 to 10.
  I know the Senator is disappointed in that outcome, but that is what 
debates are for. The Senate should debate and vote on the issue, but we 
are not going to be able to do that unless we proceed to the bill.
  As to the ``wasteful'' funding that the Senator from Arizona says was 
added by the committee, yesterday I gave a detailed accounting of how 
the committee proposes to spend the money for added force structure, 
force modernization, and quality of life for our troops. The Senator 
responded and gave several examples of what he considered to be 
wasteful spending. Well, let's take a look at some of those. The 
Senator--by the way, we added $4 billion. We made cuts and we added. We 
made changes of $4 billion in that budget request for force structure, 
force modernization, and support of the troops. The wasteful spending 
list of the Senator yesterday was $28 million out of $4 billion. 
Apparently, $4 billion was a pretty good spending decision when 
questions were raised about $28 million.
  Let's look at some of the $28 million that is labeled wasteful 
spending: $3 million because it was for a ``plant-based vaccine 
development.'' This effort that we are supporting, an additional $4 
million, has been identified by the military as the most promising path 
so far to rapidly produce the millions of vaccine doses that could be 
needed to respond to a biological threat against our troops on the 
battlefield. And $8 million was pointed to by the Senator, which is 
going to a physical fitness center at an Air Force base. That fitness 
center has been identified by the Air Force as being mission essential.
  These are not porkbarrel items added by Senators who just want 
spending in their States. These items have been identified by the 
military as being essential items for them. It wasn't in the budget. 
They could not find the money. We did.
  The Senator questioned the proposed spending of $7.6 million for a 
quiet propulsion load house. I doubt that too

[[Page S7237]]

many Members of the Senate know what a quiet propulsion load house is. 
It is a place where we test our ships to make sure that they meet 
requirements for avoiding enemy detection. The Navy said it ``requires 
new ship propulsion technology to be sufficiently tested, evaluated, 
and certified to ensure that signature performance goals and objectives 
are met prior to fleet introduction and operational use.''
  The Navy says the current equipment does not have the capability to 
test and evaluate either reduced or full-scale electric propulsion 
motors with the necessary quiet load machine to approve and certify 
electric propulsion technology and design. The Navy says it needs the 
new facility to be operational within the next 5 years.
  I believe the 10 minutes I have allocated to myself is up. So I will 
withhold further comment on the arguments made against the bill.
  My main point is the time to debate can only come if we can get to 
the bill. That is the issue this afternoon, not whether issues are 
debated--they are and there are plenty of issues to be debated, not as 
to whether issues will be debated. They will be, and the majority 
leader has said so. To try to get an agreement in advance on what 
amendments will be in order before the bill comes up and amendments are 
filed is a task that cannot be achieved. Only the intention can be 
stated to allow that to happen. The majority leader has stated that 
intention and the ways to implement it. There is plenty of leverage to 
stop the bill from passing if there is inadequate opportunity. We will 
get to the bill only if 60 Senators decide we should move to its 
consideration before the recess on the Defense authorization bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe the chairman has agreed that he 
and I would have 5 minutes each before the vote this afternoon; is that 
true?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding there will be a 
modification. There is no objection on this side to the following: that 
the unanimous consent agreement we previously entered into would be 
modified so the vote would occur at 2:30, and the time between 2:15 and 
2:30 would be equally divided. I ask unanimous consent for that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for the benefit of my colleagues on this 
side, we will recognize in the proper order as we go from one side to 
the other: On my side Senator Inhofe would be recognized for 10 
minutes, Senator Brown for 5 minutes, Senator Sessions for 5 minutes, 
Senator Chambliss for 5 minutes, and Senator LeMieux for 5 minutes. I 
believe that comes out to approximately 40 minutes.
  Mr. President, I want to make it clear why I am opposed to moving to 
the National Defense Authorization Act of fiscal year 2011 at this 
time.
  I am not opposed in principle to bringing up this Defense bill and 
debating it, amending it, and voting on it. I am not opposed to having 
a full and informed debate on whether to repeal the don't ask, don't 
tell law and then allowing the Senate to legislate.
  What I am opposed to is bringing up the Defense bill now, before the 
Defense Department has concluded its survey of our men and women in 
uniform, which gives them a chance to tell us their views about don't 
ask, don't tell. Whether you agree or disagree with this policy, 
whether you want to keep it or repeal it, the Senate should not be 
forced to make this decision now, before we have heard from our troops. 
We have asked for their views, and we should wait to hear from them and 
then give their views the fullest consideration before taking any 
legislative action.
  This isn't just my view. This is the view of all force service 
chiefs: GEN George Casey, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army; ADM Gary 
Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations; GEN James Conway, Commandant of 
the Marine Corps; GEN Norton Schwartz, Chief of Staff of the Air Force.
  Let me quote from my colleague, GEN George Casey. Remember, these are 
the service chiefs who are responsible for the training, equipment, 
morale, and well-being of the men and women in uniform who serve under 
them. What did General Casey say? He said this:

       I remain convinced that it is critically important to get a 
     better understanding of where our soldiers and families are 
     on this issue, and what the impacts on readiness and unit 
     cohesion might be, so that I can provide informed military 
     advice to the President and the Congress. I also believe that 
     repealing the law before the completion of the review will be 
     seen by the men and women of the Army as a reversal of our 
     commitment to hear their views before moving forward.

  The survey is not complete and will not be complete for some time.
  Admiral Gary Roughead said this:

       We need this review to fully assess our force and carefully 
     examine potential impacts of a change in the law. My concern 
     is that legislative changes at this point, regardless of the 
     precise language used, may cause confusion on the status of 
     the law and the Fleet and disrupt the review process itself 
     by leading Sailors to question whether their input matters.

  GEN James Conway, Commandant of the Marine Corps, said:

       I encourage the Congress to let the process the Secretary 
     of Defense created to run its course. Collectively, we must 
     make logical and pragmatic decisions about the long-term 
     policies of our Armed Forces--which so effectively defend 
     this great nation.

  GEN Norton Schwartz, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, said:

       I believe it is important, a matter of keeping faith with 
     those currently serving in the Armed Forces, that the 
     Secretary of Defense commissioned review be completed before 
     there is any legislation to repeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell 
     law. Such action allows me to provide the best military 
     advice to the President, and sends an important signal to our 
     Airmen and their families that their opinion matters. To do 
     otherwise, in my view, would be presumptive and would reflect 
     an intent to act before all relevant factors are assessed, 
     digested and understood.

  It could not be more clear what our uniformed service chiefs are 
saying: Complete this review before repealing the law.
  Then the question is: Why would the chairman of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee and the majority leader ignore the very explicit 
recommendation of the four service chiefs? One can only draw one 
conclusion: November 2 is a few days away. The President of the United 
States, we all know, made a commitment to the gay and lesbian community 
that he would have as one of his priorities repeal of the don't ask, 
don't tell policy. Looking at a bleak electoral situation, they are now 
going to jam this legislation through--or try to--in direct 
contravention to the views of our service chiefs.
  I spend a great deal of time with the men and women in the military. 
It is my job. It is my job to do so, both the Guard and Reserve in 
Arizona and traveling around the world to visit our men and women in 
places such as Kandahar, Baghdad, and other places around the world. 
Every place I go, the men and women are saying: Look, let's assess the 
impact of the repeal of this law. I get that from the senior enlisted 
men whose responsibilities are great. Why are we now trying to jam this 
through without the survey being completed and without a proper 
assessment of its impact?
  I urge Members not to vote in favor of bringing the bill to the floor 
at this time so the troops can be heard. Let us hear from the men and 
women who are serving in the military.
  I remind my colleagues that last year, they brought up the hate 
crimes bill and then put amendments on the hate crimes bill so there 
were no other amendments allowed until the hate crimes issue was 
resolved. That is the concern of the Senator from Maine, that the 
majority leader and/or the chairman will fill up the tree--in other 
words, make it so other amendments are not allowed until this issue is 
disposed of and then, of course, other issues.
  In light of all the challenges that the Defense authorization bill 
entails--training, equipment, pay, benefits, all of the aspects of 
Defense authorizations that are so vital--why would the majority leader 
and the chairman want to bring up don't ask, don't tell, then the DREAM 
Act, then secret holds, and then reserve the rest of the issues for 
after we come back after the election?
  Again, one can only draw the conclusion that this is all about 
elections, not about the welfare and well-being and the morale and the 
battle effectiveness of the men and women who are

[[Page S7238]]

laying it on the line in Iraq and Afghanistan today.
  The most fundamental thing we could do to honor the sacrifices of our 
troops is to take the time to listen respectfully and carefully to what 
they have to say about this major change before the Senate takes any 
legislative action.
  If the Senate goes down this path, we would be ignoring the views of 
the troops and casting aside the professional military advice given by 
each of the four service chiefs, all four of whom oppose the Senate 
taking any action on don't ask, don't tell before we hear from the 
troops.
  By the way, the way the legislation is framed, the service chiefs are 
not involved in the final decision; only the President, the Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary of Defense are. Why in the 
world before the certification is made would not the service chiefs be 
required to certify that as well?
  This is not about filibustering. It is not about the reasons why we 
are not taking up this legislation or why I am opposing this 
legislation. It is all about the battle effectiveness, the morale of 
the men and women who are serving in the military today who have 
volunteered to put their lives on the line so the rest of us may live 
in a safe and secure environment. We owe them a right to have their 
voices heard before we act legislatively, motivated by the upcoming 
election.
  Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we do alternate when there are Members who 
wish to speak. That would be the appropriate course. So I will yield 
myself 5 minutes to respond to the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. President, I want to quote Admiral Mullen. Admiral Mullen reached 
a conclusion about the necessity to change this policy. He reached this 
conclusion, I hope and believe, without any regard to an election 
coming up. Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in 
front of our committee back in February said the following:

       It is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to 
     serve openly would be the right thing to do. No matter how I 
     look at this issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the 
     fact that we have in place a policy that forces men and women 
     to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow 
     citizens. To me personally, it comes down to integrity, 
     theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.

  To suggest that Admiral Mullen somehow or another reached his 
conclusion because there is an election coming up it seems to me would 
be totally inappropriate, and I hope no one is making that suggestion. 
He reached a conclusion about gays and lesbians serving in the 
military. He stated his conclusion. Election driven, insulting? Of 
course not. He reached a conclusion--so did Secretary Gates--reached a 
conclusion that this policy must change. Because an election is coming 
up, Secretary Gates, a Republican, decides this policy must change 
because there is an election coming up? Of course not. It is because 
they reached a conclusion that the policy needs to change, and the 
study they got underway is to determine how to implement that change.
  What do we do in our bill? What we say in our bill is very explicitly 
there is not going to be a change in policy unless and until there is a 
certification from the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs and the President of the United States that the changes in 
policy, which they are going to presumably provide, will not undermine 
the morale, the recruiting, the retention of troops in the United 
States.
  Our bill that is in front of us specifically says there will be no 
change in policy unless and until that certification comes. We want to 
hear from the troops also--the way the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff wants to hear from the troops, the way the Secretary of Defense 
wants to hear from the troops--as to how to implement a change in 
policy. And we go beyond that. We say there will not be a change in 
policy unless and until there is a certification from the Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs that there will be no negative impact on morale, 
retention, and recruitment. That, it seems to me, is a totally 
appropriate way to legislate. That does pay respect to the men and 
women of the Armed Forces.
  Unless the opponents of this language suggest that Admiral Mullen, 
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Secretary Gates, who have reached 
a conclusion that this policy must change, unless they are suggesting 
that their conclusion is driven by elections, it seems to me it is 
wrong to suggest the fight legislatively is election driven.
  Was the decision to implement this policy 15 years ago election 
driven? No, it was based on a decision at that time that don't ask, 
don't tell was the right policy. I did not think it was. I voted 
against it. But the decision was made.
  To argue now that it is all about elections misunderstands the 
importance of this issue, the significance of this issue, and what the 
people of this country have come to understand, which is the service by 
gays and lesbians is just as valued as the service by others. Giving 
their lives up for the country, being buried in Arlington Cemetery, as 
gays and lesbians are, who have had the uniform of this country on, is 
the ultimate sacrifice citizens can make for this country. Gays and 
lesbians have made this sacrifice, and nongays and lesbians, obviously, 
have made this sacrifice too.
  One other point. Is my time up?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I will stay within the time given me. We 
have all had to reduce our time on this side. We have many Members who 
wish to speak.
  Let me cover a couple of points and respond to statements made by the 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
  I was around in 1993. Actually, it was the last year I was serving in 
the House, and I was on the House Armed Services Committee. I remember 
very well when the gay lobby started becoming active during that time 
during the Clinton administration. They said: We want to change the 
policy. That is why they went through this policy called don't ask, 
don't tell, which allows people to serve regardless of what their 
conditions are, their preferences are, but they do not talk about it. 
They do not use the military as a forum to advance their liberal 
agenda.
  It seemed to work. In the law--and it is still the law today--section 
571 reads--this was passed in 1993, 17 years ago:

       The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate 
     a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would 
     create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, 
     good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the 
     essence of military capability.

  I was one who applauded Secretary Gates--this is back on February 
10--when he said we are not going to be doing anything to change it 
until we study it and, most important--and this is the whole issue, I 
believe--we hear from those in the field, we hear from the troops in 
the field. These are the guys who have gone through this. They 
understand what it is all about. And they were told they would be 
heard. That is the whole idea, that we would not do anything until 
December 1 when all the results were in.
  I am a product of the U.S. Army. I served proudly in the U.S. Army, 
and I can tell you right now, there are some reasons in the military 
why this would not work.
  Senator McCain covered the statements that were made by the service 
chiefs, but they are worth looking at again. It is very significant 
that these service chiefs were outspoken in their opposition to 
changing this policy or to repealing don't ask, don't tell. It is 
difficult for a general in the armed services to go against a 
President.
  I remember in 1998 when GEN John Jumper was strong enough to stand up 
and say what was happening in the Clinton administration in terms of 
downsizing of the military. It took a lot of courage. But the other 
thing that is--and a lot of things have been said about Secretary Gates 
and Admiral Mullen, but they will be the most instrumental in this. 
Here is what their philosophy was. This is a statement I will read, and 
I want everyone to listen carefully. This is from the Secretary of 
Defense--Gates--and Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff. They said, jointly:


[[Page S7239]]



       We believe, in the strongest possible terms, that the 
     Department must, prior to any legislative action, be allowed 
     the opportunity to conduct a thorough, objective, and 
     systematic assessment of the impact of such a policy change.

  What they are talking about is the study we said was going to take 
place. But then, wait a minute, something happened. Three things 
happened 1 month later. This statement was made April 28. Then 1 month 
later, on May 27, three things happened. What are those three things? 
First of all, Gates and Mullen agreed to this compromise and then 
totally reversed their position of just 1 month before. Now, the 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee was talking about their 
position. This was their position, and yet they reversed it at the same 
time on the same day--May 27--that the House voted to repeal don't ask, 
don't tell. There were a couple of conditions there, and the Senate did 
the same thing, with one exception--one Senator in the Senate Armed 
Services Committee. It was right down party lines. In other words, 
every Republican Senator but one opposed this idea of repealing this 
without going through the study. The study is the critical thing. We 
have to go through the study before we would be in a position to know 
what those in the field want to do. I think this is very critical 
because it is not a matter of what you want to do with this, it is a 
matter of hearing from the troops in the field.
  Let's put up the next chart. People are saying: Well, don't worry 
about it. The Senator from Michigan just said: Don't worry about it 
because, first of all, it has to be certified that there is no negative 
impact on readiness. It is going to be certified by Mullen and Gates 
and the President.
  But wait a minute--certified? They have already made up their minds.
  Look, here is the most important--Admiral Mullen said:

       Mr. Chairman, speaking for myself, it is my personal belief 
     that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the 
     right thing to do.

  He is the one who is supposed to certify this. He has already 
certified it. It is right here. When they say that 60 days after the 
first of December, that certification has to take place, it has already 
happened.
  Secretary Gates says:

       I fully support the President's decision. The question 
     before us is not whether the military prepares to make this 
     change, but how we best prepare for it.

  There you have it. Both of them are saying the same thing. They are 
saying: Well, we have already made up our minds. They are the ones 
certifying. And the third party, of course, is the President, and the 
President's position is very well known on that issue.
  So I think this whole thing is so phony when they talk about this 
certification, but the reason I want to get in as much as I can in the 
limited 10 minutes is to let you know that it is not the only thing 
that happened on May 27. I call it black Thursday because not only did 
they vote to repeal the policy that has worked so well for the last 17 
years in terms of gays in the military, but they also passed an 
abortion amendment that allows abortions in military hospitals.
  Now, very quickly, this has been going on--it has been changed for 
many years. In 1970, an Executive order allowed abortions in DOD 
hospitals. In 1984, Bob Dornan--remember B-1 Bob? A lot of us remember 
him. He changed it and tried to limit the abortions in government 
hospitals. In 1988, DOD hospitals barred abortions from the military 
facilities. President Clinton changed that and relaxed the laws. Then 
in 1996 the authorization bill reversed Clinton, and therefore they 
were not able to have abortions in military hospitals. Now, that is the 
law as it is today. But there is an amendment--and we have not even 
talked about this amendment--that is going to open the military 
hospitals for abortions.
  I had the honor of addressing this Values Summit last Friday, and I 
can tell you right now that the people there, when they heard about all 
of this that was in this bill, were pretty shocked. And the question 
came up, Why is it that we keep hearing over and over what is in this 
bill?
  Let's get the next chart up there. Why are they so anxious to get 
this thing on the floor when we are not going to be able to have 
amendments? We all know what the rules are around here. To my 
knowledge, since I first came to Congress, this is the first time we 
will have an authorization bill where we will not have a chance to 
amend it, where we won't have a chance to offer amendments. Normally, 
there are 100 or so amendments. A lot are agreed to, and our positions 
are heard. Not this time.
  First of all, I think this is a political mistake. It is a dumb thing 
to do, to try to use the Defense authorization bill in times of war to 
advance a liberal agenda. What is that liberal agenda? That agenda is 
to have open gays serving in the military, it is taxpayer-funded 
abortions in our military hospitals, and it is amnesty for illegals. I 
think they are making a mistake. I agree with the Senator from Arizona 
that it is totally political. It is all set up for the November 2 
election. And I can assure you that all of America is watching, and 
they don't think the Defense authorization bill, in times of war, is 
the appropriate thing to do to advance a far-left liberal agenda--an 
open gay policy in the military, taxpayer-funded abortions, and amnesty 
for illegals.
  With that, Mr. President, I have used my 10 minutes, and I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I believe by unanimous consent we have an 
order of speakers, and I think the next one is--well, I will let 
Senator McCain speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. How much time remains, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 20 minutes remaining for the 
Republicans and 19 minutes for the Democrats.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I rise today to speak 
about a very important piece of legislation before this body, and that 
is, obviously, the Defense authorization bill--a bill that provides the 
tools and resources for our men and women serving in the military.
  It has been my honor to serve on the Armed Services Committee with 
the chairman, who is sitting right here. Being the new person on the 
block, I have greatly enjoyed the back-and-forth of that committee 
process and the fair and free way we are able to debate amendments--
some of which passed and some didn't. But always, at the end of the 
day, there was a handshake and a smile, and we would go on and do our 
business.
  I remember a lot of us, especially the newer people, asking about our 
concerns, which haven't been addressed here, and I remember the 
chairman saying that we would be able to handle these things during the 
bill process when it came to the floor. That was the general consensus 
by Senator McCain and others--don't worry, we will handle a lot of 
these things on the floor. So I was actually looking forward to that 
fair and open process, similar to what we did during the financial 
reform bill.
  Unfortunately, what has traditionally been a very open and bipartisan 
process has, in fact, evolved into a dynamic display of political grand
standing. My question is, What happened? I feel the majority party is 
using our men and women in uniform as a tactic to pass politically 
expedient legislation entirely unrelated to the Defense authorization 
bill, which, in my view, is not appropriate.
  There has been much discussion by the leader about his plan to add 
the DREAM Act as an amendment to the Defense bill. Let me be clear: I 
am willing to debate the merits of the DREAM Act, and even 
comprehensive immigration reform, but not in a manner that exploits our 
men and women who are serving in the military by using legislation that 
is supposed to be solely focused on supporting them, and additionally 
not allowing for that open amendment process that I thought was 
promised to us during the committee process and something I have 
understood as being part of the very important history of this body.

  As my colleague from Arizona pointed out yesterday on the floor, the 
extraneous legislation the leader intends to attach to the Defense 
authorization

[[Page S7240]]

bill would never, ever be referred to the Armed Services Committee if 
it was introduced independently. In the past, the authors of the 
Defense bill, led by Senator Levin and Senator McCain, have been 
allowed to come to the floor and debate the process and enact necessary 
pieces of legislation that keep our men and women in the armed services 
safe and keep the military going. It is a traditional custom that, by 
and large, has been shunned. It has been shunned for political 
gamesmanship and posturing in favor of advancing the defense 
authorization process.
  Once again, Mr. President, as the new person here--well, I guess the 
second newest person here now--it is an incredible but not surprising 
turn of events that we have suddenly decided to refuse an open debate 
on the things we have been working on for some time--certainly since I 
have been here. An amendment process would allow for everyone's ideas 
to be considered, as we did during the financial reform and as we did 
during the actual committee process itself.
  Not only have the authors of the bill been effectively shut out, but 
so has every other Senator. Are my needs and the concerns of 
Massachusetts not the same as the majority leader's needs or the 
President's needs? We have issues that affect Massachusetts, and all 
the other Senators have needs that affect their States that they feel 
can contribute to the men and women and the way they serve and are 
protected. When an issue as critical as our national defense comes to 
the Senate floor, we should absolutely allow for an open process. This 
is too important an issue to cut off debate and control the process. I 
know it is football season, but we should not use this as a political 
football. It is inappropriate.
  On another issue of critical importance, as I said before, we spent 4 
weeks on the financial reform legislation, and we had over 30 votes on 
that particular bill. When the process was over, everyone was able to 
offer any amendments they wanted. I am disappointed that we are not 
having that same opportunity here. We should absolutely go through that 
same process.
  In closing, I am hopeful that in the days ahead we will turn our 
focus back to jobs and the economy, where we can start listening to the 
American people, who are demanding we focus on reducing our Nation's 
debt, our out-of-control spending, lowering taxes on individuals and 
families, and getting our economy moving again. I believe that is the 
biggest national security issue we have in front of us right now--
making sure we have the economic engine to not only continue with our 
economic strength throughout this world but obviously providing the 
tools and resources for our men and women who are serving.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Brown for his 
service on the committee. He has been invaluable to the committee, and 
I very much appreciate that.
  The Senator's statement that he favors an open process is one that I 
share. That is why I talked to the majority leader, and the majority 
leader made a statement last Thursday which I hope the Senator from 
Massachusetts would look at relative to the process. The majority 
leader has talked about a number of amendments which he would like to 
see offered and would intend to offer. That is his right, as it is the 
right of any Senator.
  Last year, we adopted the hate crimes bill, which was a nonrelevant 
amendment. There was some objection to it. Many years ago, when the 
Senator from Arizona offered a campaign finance amendment to the 
Defense authorization bill--totally nonrelevant--Senator Warner, 
sitting right over here, very much objected to it. He said it would 
sink the bill. It did not sink the bill, by the way; it was passed by 
the Senate--nonrelevant. And we have adopted other nonrelevant 
amendments on this bill and other bills because the rules of the Senate 
allow for nonrelevant amendments.
  As to whether this process is going to be open to other amendments, I 
assure the Senator from Massachusetts it will be, and I will make sure 
I do everything in my power to see that happens. That is why the 
majority leader, last Thursday, assured the Senate--and these were his 
words:

       In addition to issues that I have talked about in the last 
     couple of 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.

  So Senator Reid was giving the assurance that other amendments 
besides the three he has identified publicly are going to be in order. 
He is not going to try to cut off debate.
  As chairman of this committee, I have, for 30 years now, fought to 
make sure this bill was open to amendments, and I will continue to do 
that. Last year, I think there were something like 60 amendments. So 
there is not going to be an effort to cut off debate on amendments 
which Members of the Senate want to offer that is different from any 
other time when this process is used.
  We have to manage a bill. We have to get a bill passed. After there 
is debate on a bill, there comes a time when the majority leader says 
to the managers: We have to get a bill passed. You have to find some 
way we can get a bill passed. Then we enter into, hopefully, unanimous 
consent agreements, where we work out how many amendments are left on 
each side. That is what our intention is to do here, too--to work out 
these kinds of agreements as this matter unfolds.
  But the issue now is whether we are going to get to debate the bill, 
whether we can get to the point where we can offer amendments and reach 
agreements on what amendments are left that would be in order and on 
time agreements. We can't get to that point unless we are allowed to 
proceed to the bill.
  As far as I am concerned, it is totally inaccurate to say the men and 
women in uniform are being in some way not respected by proceeding to 
this bill. If we cannot debate this bill this year, if we cannot offer 
a motion to change don't ask, don't tell language, strike the language, 
whatever, then we are not taking up the bill which is so critical to 
the men and women in uniform. This bill is critical to them.
  If there are Members here who want to strike or modify don't ask, 
don't tell, the time to do it is when we get to the bill. We cannot do 
it now. We cannot amend this bill now unless we get to the bill. There 
is no point, it seems to me, in talking about the need to amend the 
bill--which I happen to agree is in order--unless we get to the bill. 
It becomes a theoretical statement that something will or will not 
happen, unless we can get to the bill.
  I do not know of a time when there has been a filibuster against 
getting to the Defense authorization bill. No matter how contentious 
issues have been, and they have been contentious over the years, the 
idea that there is a filibuster against proceeding to the bill so we 
cannot debate the kinds of issues which need to be debated, it seems to 
me, is what denies the men and women in uniform the opportunity to get 
a bill passed that is so important to them.
  We need to get to this bill. We need to make progress on this bill. I 
believe, as the majority leader has said,--I believe what he said--that 
this is not going to be the kind of closed process which some have 
suggested and imputed to him.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. We are depriving the men and women in uniform from having 
a voice in this by short-circuiting a process by passing legislation 
before the study is completed. That is a fact. That is the view of all 
four service chiefs, and I read it and I will continue to put it in the 
Record.
  Senator Sessions, I believe, is next?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will yield myself 30 seconds.
  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has reached a conclusion, 
the Secretary of Defense has reached a conclusion--that this policy 
should be changed. It should be. We ought to debate it. Whether to 
change this policy, how it is changed--how it is implemented is what 
they set in motion, a

[[Page S7241]]

study to help them decide. That is the process they agreed to.
  Have they offended or insulted the men and women of the Armed Forces 
by concluding that this policy should change? Has the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, somehow, in some way, not taken into 
consideration the well-being of the men and women of the Armed Forces 
when he concluded this policy should change? Has Secretary Gates been 
guided by elections coming up when he concluded that this policy should 
change and that the study that is underway should be taken in order to 
determine how to implement that change?
  I don't consider that they have offended or insulted the men and 
women they command. This language surely protects exactly what 
Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen have put into motion--a study as to 
how to implement a change in policy. That is what this study is all 
about. That is what we require be completed prior to any change in the 
policy.
  We have gone a step beyond--a step beyond--requiring that they 
certify--obviously, after consultations with the Chiefs of Staff; that 
is required by law--that they certify that there will not be a negative 
impact on morale, recruitment, or retention.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this is a policy of the President of the 
United States. He determined to change the policy that has been in 
effect for quite a number of years, and by all accounts has been 
working very well. All four service chiefs favor keeping that policy. 
He selected Admiral Mullen. He selected Secretary Gates, who has not 
been an enthusiastic supporter of this change, frankly. He has gone 
along with the Commander in Chief who appointed him. He has indicated 
that we ought to have a study first--made a commitment, really, to our 
men and women in uniform that there would be a study first, and we are 
not running an objective study.
  So Admiral Mullen did testify he personally believed this was a 
change that ought to be made. But the Army Chief of Staff, General 
Casey; the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Roughead; Air Force Chief 
of Staff Schwartz; the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Conway; 
and now General Amos--who just testified this morning will be replacing 
General Conway--oppose it and believe we owe it at least to the men and 
women in uniform to study the impact this might have. I just believe it 
is not necessary to ram this through this fast before we complete a 
study. I oppose that.
  We had reports of a general--he has denied how he was quoted in the 
Washington Times, General Bostick, in Europe, who made statements that 
upset a very large group of people--he is a personnel general, three 
stars--about how everybody had to go along with this agenda, be on 
board with it, and suggested, according to the article, you would not 
be able to stay in the military if you were not endorsing this 
proposal. He said it was the equivalent of civil rights and you were 
being a bigot if you somehow had a different view.
  I just think that is dangerous. To say this is not going to have a 
corrosive impact on the men and women in the military is a mistake. I 
think it is being raised up in importance and being raised up in the 
potential to damage the military by the fact that it is being rammed 
through before a fair and objective review of the policy is conducted.
  I believe that firmly. If this is going to be changed it ought to be 
done respectfully, carefully, not moved through right now on this bill 
because of fear that the study will not be positive and it will not be 
able to be passed next year, maybe after the American people have sent 
some new Senators to this Senate. Maybe then it will not be so popular 
and have so much support.
  I am frustrated that I would have to vote against moving to the 
Defense authorization bill. Last year was the first time I did that 
because attached to the bill was an unrelated, controversial hate 
crimes piece of legislation. I voted for bills that had other stuff in 
it I didn't agree with, but I try to be supportive. But I will not, and 
I urge my colleagues not to allow the Defense bill to be a train that 
carries through controversial, unpopular pieces of legislation. It is 
just not the right thing for us to do, and we are going at it again 
this year.
  We have had a tradition of bipartisan support of Defense bills. I 
guess the first 12 years I was here we have always had massive 
bipartisan support, and I have signed them. This action is overriding 
that tradition. It is not helpful.
  I will just note, as the ranking Republican on the Judiciary 
Committee, I am very disappointed that the majority leader has made 
clear that one of the amendments he is going to approve for us to vote 
on would be the controversial, unpopular DREAM Act that has not had a 
hearing--at least in years that I can recall--in the Judiciary 
Committee where it should be--to give amnesty to people who came into 
our country illegally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I urge my colleagues to vote against moving to this 
bill until it is cleaned up and does not have this controversial 
legislation on it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time is on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 12 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from GEN John 
Shalikashvili, the retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 General John M.D.


                                 Shalikashvili, USA (Retired),

                               Steilacoom, WA, September 16, 2010.
       Dear Senators: I am writing to urge the Senate to vote in 
     support of the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act. Each 
     element contained in the legislation that passed the Senate 
     Armed Services Committee is essential to the maintenance of a 
     strong, capable fighting force for our nation. Provisions in 
     the bill will ensure that our soldiers have the pay they 
     deserve and the equipment, training and support they need to 
     conduct their critical missions. In particular, I support the 
     DADT repeal language that passed through the Senate Armed 
     Services Committee earlier this year and is currently part of 
     the pending legislation.
       The Pentagon is currently conducting a study on how to 
     implement a policy of open service. Congressional repeal is 
     vital for the Pentagon to implement their findings, whatever 
     they may be. As I have said before, repeal strikes down the 
     law that straitjackets military leaders' ability to craft a 
     sensible and practical policy about open service. Most 
     importantly, the current repeal language allows the Pentagon 
     the time it may need to answer any questions about how to 
     actually implement the change.
       Additionally, repeal would allow military leaders to make 
     personnel decisions based on a person's skills, experience, 
     and overall job performance. Reflecting on my own service and 
     experience, I am quite confident that sexual orientation does 
     not impact a person's ability to defuse IEDs, provide medical 
     care for someone wounded in the line of duty, or translate 
     intercepted enemy intelligence into English.
       Passing the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act, 
     including repealing DADT, would serve the interests of our 
     nation's security and all of its service men and women.
           Sincerely,
                                          John M.D. Shalikashvili.

  Mr. LEVIN. Let me read just part of this letter.

       I am writing to urge the Senate to vote in support of the 
     2001 national Defense Authorization Act. Each element 
     contained in the legislation that passed the Senate Armed 
     Services Committee is essential to the maintenance of a 
     strong, capable fighting force for our nation. Provisions in 
     the bill will ensure that our soldiers have the pay they 
     deserve and the equipment training and support they need to 
     conduct their critical missions. In particular, I support the 
     don't ask, don't tell repeal language that passed through the 
     Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this year and is 
     currently part of the pending legislation.

  He goes on:

       The pentagon is currently conducting a study in how to 
     implement a policy of open service. Congressional repeal is 
     vital for the Pentagon to implement their findings, whatever 
     they may be. As I have said before, repeal strikes down the 
     law that straightjackets military leaders' ability to craft a 
     sensible and practical policy about open service. Most 
     importantly, the current repeal language allows the Pentagon 
     the time it may need to answer any questions about how to 
     actually implement the change.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. LeMIEUX. Mr. President, I have served in the Senate for 1 year. I 
have watched the process of different pieces of legislation come to the 
floor of the Senate.
  One of the most frustrating things, to the American people and 
certainly

[[Page S7242]]

frustrating to me, is that we as Senators do not have the opportunity 
to offer amendments on these large pieces of legislation, legislation 
in this case that authorizes the actions of young men and women who are 
fighting to protect our safety and freedom around the world, that the 
Senator from Florida or Senator from Arizona or Senators from other 
States cannot stand up and say: I have an idea. I have a proposal. I 
have an amendment. Let it be aired in front of this body, let it be 
debated, and let's see whether it rises or falls on its merits.
  Instead, we get these rules that are closed where the majority leader 
comes down and says: I am going to fill the tree, which is Senate 
parlance meaning: I am going to close off all debate except for on the 
amendments I choose to put before the American people.
  That is not right. That is why the American people are, in part, so 
frustrated with Congress. We are not debating the issues that any 
individual Senator may bring forth on behalf of their constituents on 
what they think is the right way to move forward. Instead, we are going 
to amendments on issues that should not be attached to this bill, in my 
opinion.
  Don't ask, don't tell is a highly controversial amendment, one that 
has not been debated, one that is not going to have the opportunity to 
have the input of the military. We are supposed to be conducting a 
thorough examination and evaluation of the U.S. military before we make 
this substantial policy change--while we are fighting two wars at the 
same time. We are going to pass it and then see whether it is going to 
have an impact on military readiness? Does anybody doubt what the 
conclusion will be if it is passed, what the military will then say?
  If, for some reason, they had the courage and were able to have the 
freedom to actually express their opinion, do you think this body would 
undo it? Instead of allowing us to have the process we are supposed to, 
where we are supposed to get a sense from the military about how it 
will impact military readiness, we are going to pass, presumably, over 
the opinion of the four chiefs of the different branches of the 
military who oppose this measure, including General Amos, who will join 
now as the Commandant of the Marines, this controversial measure.
  Then we have the DREAM Act which, as my colleague from Alabama said, 
has not gone through the Judiciary Committee. Many in my State support 
the DREAM Act. It is a very difficult situation for kids who were 
brought to this country by their parents, through no fault of their 
own, have gone through public school, now go to a university and may 
not have the chance to stay and work in this country. I understand and 
I am sympathetic to that. But to attach that to this bill without 
trying to fix the broken immigration system, without first securing our 
borders, is disingenuous and irresponsible.
  So I, too, will not support moving forward on this Defense 
authorization bill. This is not the way this Congress should act. This 
is not the way the process is supposed to work. It is unfair to the 
American people. It is unfair to the members of the military. What 
should happen is we should have an ability to bring any amendments 
forward that are germane to the Defense authorization bill and let them 
rise and fall on their merits.
  What should not happen is that extraneous amendments that do not 
relate to this issue be stuck on and that all debate be closed.
  The American people are upset. They are frustrated with their 
government. Their government is broken, and this is just another 
example of how badly it needs to be fixed.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if what the Senator from Florida said is 
going to occur, it indeed would be a broken system. But the majority 
leader has said and said publicly that there are many other important 
matters that both sides of the aisle wish to address other than the 
ones he has raised himself, and he is willing to work with Republicans 
on a process to permit the Senate to consider these matters and 
complete the bill as soon as possible.
  I do not know exactly what the Senators are saying when they say this 
is a closed process, when the majority leader says, no, it is not. I 
mean, they want to debate amendments. You cannot debate amendments 
unless you get to the bill and offer amendments. I wish to debate 
amendments too. There are provisions in this bill that I do not like 
that I voted against in committee as chairman.
  There are a number of provisions I would like to see stricken in this 
bill. But you cannot strike a provision or try to strike a provision 
before the bill is on the floor to debate. The issue here is whether 
this filibuster against bringing this bill to the floor so we can 
debate the amendments is going to succeed.
  That is the issue today. Should we be able to debate amendments? You 
bet. I fought for that as long as I have been either chairman, ranking 
member or member of the Armed Services Committee and other committees. 
Of course, we ought to be able to debate amendments.
  But the debate today is whether we can get to the point where we can 
debate amendments. People want to strike the language on don't ask, 
don't tell. The only way we can get to that point, to strike or modify 
that language, is if the filibuster does not succeed this afternoon; 
otherwise we cannot get to that point.
  We are debating now whether we can bring a bill to the floor so we 
can do exactly what the Senator from Florida wants us to do, be able to 
offer amendments, be able to strike language, modify language, add 
language.
  As to whether nonrelevant amendments should be added, if we want to 
change the rules of this Senate, offer an amendment to the rules. But 
the rules of this Senate allow nonrelevant amendments to be offered, 
and dozens have been offered on Defense authorization bills, including 
by the Senator from Arizona, who about a decade ago offered a very 
contentious amendment to change the campaign laws on terms of 
disclosure.
  The Senator, who was chairman of the Armed Services Committee, John 
Warner, argued passionately to the Senator from Arizona: Please, do not 
offer that to this bill. It could sink this bill. That was the argument 
of the chairman. The Senator from Arizona went ahead anyway, as was his 
right. By the way, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee 
acknowledged it was the right of the Senator from Arizona to offer 
nonrelevant amendments, and the Senator did that, the Senator from 
Arizona. It was not the first time.
  Senators on both sides of the aisle have offered nonrelevant 
amendments to the Defense authorization bill and to other bills because 
that is their right. What is broken around here is the determination on 
the part of the Republicans to not allow us to proceed to debate bills. 
That is what is broken, in that the filibusters are now being used over 
and over and over in a way that they have never been used before, at 
least in this quantity, to stop a bill from coming to the floor.
  How do we debate the amendments which the Senator from Florida 
rightfully says we should debate unless we can get to the point where 
we can debate them. We cannot debate them now. The bill is not before 
us. The question this afternoon is whether we are going to allow this 
bill to come before us so the Senate can do exactly what the Senate 
should do, which is to have Senators be able to offer amendments, 
debate those amendments, accept or defeat those amendments. That is 
what the Senate should be doing.
  But we cannot do that if a filibuster denying the Senate an 
opportunity to debate the bill succeeds. Then we cannot do that. We 
cannot do what the Senator from Florida wants us to do, and I want us 
to do, to debate amendments, to have Senators be able to offer 
amendments. That is the problem which we face more and more in this 
body, and I deeply regret it.
  I do not know how to change this system without changing the rules, 
which we are not going to be able to do. I do not know how we can 
prevent a filibuster succeeding or delaying the Senate from acting for 
days and days and days, from being able to debate. Filibusters have 
their place, I believe, to protect the minority. They have their place 
so that the minority can be assured of extended debate. I have 
supported that.
  But the filibusters are being used now more and more to prevent us 
from debating, not to guarantee the opportunity to debate for the 
minority,

[[Page S7243]]

which is a legitimate function of the filibuster, but to prevent us 
from debating. This filibuster, if it succeeds this afternoon, is going 
to prevent us from debating the very issues which need to be debated. 
Don't ask, don't tell, we should debate it. We cannot debate it if we 
do not get to the bill. The DREAM Act, should that be offered, should 
it not be offered? We cannot debate that unless we get to the bill.
  As to the other provisions in this bill, one of the Senators 
mentioned the language about abortions. By the way, he said taxpayer-
paid abortions, which is not in the bill, as I think the Senator from 
Florida knows. It only allows abortions on a voluntary basis, which are 
legal, if the woman pays for the abortion. These are not taxpayer-paid 
abortions. So putting that aside, it is a legitimate subject for 
debate. How do you debate it if we cannot get to the bill?
  That is what this issue is about this afternoon. Will we get to a 
bill, which I think all of us believe is a critically important bill to 
the men and women of the Armed Forces? How do we get to that bill? How 
do we debate these issues, which I agree with the Senator from Florida 
need to be debated, rightfully are debated, if we are not able to get 
to the bill? That is the issue which we will decide this afternoon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. How much time is remaining on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes remain on the Republican side and 
4 minutes remain on the Democratic side.
  Mr. McCAIN. Before my colleague speaks, very briefly, maybe the 
Senator from Michigan has forgotten what happened last year on hate 
crimes. The bill was brought up, then the majority leader filed, as is 
his right, the first amendment.
  Then only amendments that the majority leader agreed to were allowed 
on hate crimes. So we got stuck for a week on it. I predict to you that 
is exactly what would happen with the DREAM Act and with this issue as 
well because the majority established that precedent last year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I came over to speak on this bill and 
in opposition to the motion to proceed. I sit here and I listen to the 
distinguished chairman of the committee talk about the fact that this 
is an open process and that we have to get to this bill and everybody 
can file amendments.
  Well, when it comes to filing amendments to the Defense authorization 
bill, the majority leader is just like me. He is a Member of the 
Senate. He has the right to file amendments. I have the right to file 
amendments. That is not the case here. That is not what we are arguing 
about.
  What has happened is the majority leader, for political purposes, has 
come down and he has called up the Defense authorization bill and he 
has done what we call filling the tree. He has filed three Democratic 
amendments for his benefit and then he has filled the tree and he has 
not allowed me to file an amendment. He has not allowed the Senator 
from Florida to file an amendment.
  So when the chairman stands and says: We have to get to the bill. 
Well, we are on the bill. Is it right for the majority leader to be 
able to file amendments and nobody else to file amendments? I do not 
think so. That is what we are arguing about today. If you believe that 
is a fair process and that is an open process, then you vote for the 
motion to proceed.
  But if you believe the process ought to be that every Member of the 
Senate has the right to come down, whether you are a member of the 
Armed Services Committee or not, and file an amendment and call up your 
amendment and have a debate on it and a vote on it, then you need to 
vote against this motion to proceed. This is not the process that the 
Senate is used to following. It is the process this majority leader has 
seen fit to follow time and time again, and it is not right. It is not 
the way the Senate is supposed to work.
  I intend to vote against the motion to proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Are we on the bill 
now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is not on the bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. If cloture passes this afternoon, would we then be able to 
be on the bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. McCAIN. How much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McCAIN. How much time is remaining on the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes on the Republican side and 
3\1/2\ minutes on the Democratic side.
  Mr. McCAIN. Well, again, I would point out again that not only do the 
members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and our service chiefs object to 
this truncated process, being left out of the final decisionmaking 
process, they do not have to sign on to any conclusions that are 
reached as a result of this ongoing survey. But there are others, such 
as the incoming Commandant of the Marine Corps, who says, my personal 
view, the current law and associated policy have supported the unique 
requirements of the Marine Corps. Thus, I do not recommend its repeal. 
My primary concern with proposed repeal is the potential disruption to 
cohesion that may be caused by significant change during a period of 
extended combat operations.
  We are in two wars, and now we are pursuing the social agenda of the 
Democratic Party instead of taking the priority, as it is much called 
for; that is, the welfare, the morale, the battle effectiveness of the 
men and women in the U.S. Marine Corps.
  So last year there was an amendment allowed, but procedurally, when 
we did the hate crimes bill, there were only amendments that were 
agreed to by the majority leader. That is what we fear will happen in 
this debate, and certainly the DREAM Act, which is also on the agenda 
for the elections is clearly not something that should be addressed by 
the Armed Services Committee. By all rights, it should be done by the 
Judiciary Committee.
  I regretfully reach this stage. But I urge my colleagues to vote in 
opposition to the cloture vote.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of the time to the 
Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I regret that I have been held up in another event, 
that I could not get here until now. But I rise to speak in favor, of 
course, of the cloture motion and of taking up the National Defense 
Authorization Act.
  This is critically important legislation. I know the debate has been 
mostly about a couple of parts of it or one amendment or maybe two 
amendments that may be offered to it.
  But the National Defense Authorization Act has to be passed. It has 
been passed every year for more than half a century. Why? Because it 
authorizes increases in compensation and benefits for members of the 
military and their families. No matter what you think about any 
amendments that may or may not be put in, I do not think any of our 
colleagues truly want to stop that from happening, nor do they want to 
stop the authorization of the procurement of military equipment that 
our soldiers need to protect them and to continue to be the most 
effective fighting force in the world, nor do they want to stop the 
authorization for military construction in the United States and around 
the world that our troops and their families need to live decently.
  This is a motion to proceed. It is not a vote on the bill. To me, 
this ought to be an easy vote, no matter what you think about don't 
ask, don't tell or the DREAM Act or even what you think about the 
procedure adopted because, let's remember, at any point once we go to 
proceed, if people in the Chamber do not think Senator Reid has allowed 
enough amendments, they can begin a filibuster and stop it right 
there. This

[[Page S7244]]

bill won't come to a final vote, regardless of what is in it, until 
there are 60 Members of the Senate who want it to come to a final vote.

  I wish to speak for a moment about don't ask, don't tell. Senator 
Levin has done an excellent job in the debate. I voted against the 
policy as a member of the Armed Services Committee in 1993, when it 
first came up. I was privileged to be an original cosponsor, with many 
others, of the legislation to repeal it this year, working with Senator 
Levin and others on the committee, including Senator Collins who, to 
her great credit, had the guts to join us because she believes don't 
ask, don't tell is un-American--my word--not fair and hurtful to 
military effectiveness.
  More than 14,000 members of the military have been put out of the 
services since 1993 under don't ask, don't tell, not because they 
weren't good soldiers, sailors, marines or airmen, not because they 
violated any military code of conduct but only because of their private 
sexual orientation. That number is the equivalent of an entire division 
of warfighters we need in places such as Afghanistan and elsewhere 
around the world. It is also a waste of money to train those 14,000. 
Estimates are that taxpayers paid over $600 million. We waste that by 
tossing them out, not because they are bad soldiers but because of 
their private sexual orientation.
  I know some have said repealing don't ask, don't tell doesn't belong 
on this bill. Don't ask, don't tell was originally adopted as part of 
the Defense authorization bill. It is, frankly, the best and most 
logical place around which to repeal the policy. I know Senator Levin 
has talked about the process. There is a fundamental judgment that the 
President, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff, and those of us who have sponsored the amendment to repeal 
don't ask, don't tell have made, which is that it ought to go. It is 
un-American. It is inconsistent with our best values of equal 
opportunity, who can get the job done, not what one's private life is 
about. It is hurting our military. That judgment has been made.
  The study being done at the Pentagon is to determine how to implement 
this best without intervening in military effectiveness. Then we put in 
the amendment which is in the bill. This provision, as Senator Levin 
has pointed out, doesn't go into effect until 60 days after the 
President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff certify in writing that repeal of don't ask, don't tell 
is consistent with standards of military readiness, military 
effectiveness, unity, cohesion, recruiting, and retention. We couldn't 
ask for more in the way of due process. We don't direct the military 
exactly when and how and over what timeframe they actually go about 
pulling apart this unjust don't ask, don't tell policy.
  It will be a close vote today. It would be a shame if we don't get 
the 60 votes. If Members are against don't ask, don't tell being 
repealed, vote against it when the amendment comes up. Submit an 
amendment to strike it. But don't stop the whole bill which is so 
important to our military. If for some reason we don't get the 60 votes 
today, Senator Reid has made clear we are coming back, and we will do 
this in November or December. We have to pass this bill for all the 
reasons I have stated, for our military effectiveness when our troops 
are in combat. There will come a day before the end of this year when 
there will be a motion to strike the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. I 
don't think opponents of don't ask, don't tell have the votes to 
accomplish that. When that day comes, we will support our military and 
America's best values by ending this nonsensical, unfair policy.
  In America, we judge people by whether they can get the job done, not 
by any quality about them personally. I think we will get this job done 
before the end of this year. I hope we can do it beginning this 
afternoon. But if we don't, we will come back.
  I thank Senator Levin for his extraordinary leadership.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________