[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 127 (Tuesday, September 21, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7244-S7262]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011--MOTION TO
PROCEED--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time between now and 2:30 p.m. will be
equally divided.
The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to Senator Reed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, we are at a critical juncture in proceeding
to the National Defense Authorization Act. This bill is routinely taken
up every year. I want to emphasize again, we are at the first step.
This is just a motion to go forward to begin to debate the bill. I
would hope we could at least summon sufficient votes to agree to talk
about these critical issues.
This legislation contains important programs for our military. We
have a military that is at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. They need
equipment, and they need support. We have included changes for the
quality of life of their families. One change, significantly, is to
make the TRICARE system comparable to the new health care system by
allowing children who are up to 26 years old to stay on their parents'
policies.
There are some controversial provisions and proposals. One is don't
ask, don't tell. The other is the DREAM Act. First, the minority or
anyone has the right to move an amendment to take out or change
provisions with respect to don't ask, don't tell. I would disagree with
that and oppose that, but that is something that can and will happen
and will engender a very strong, positive debate. The other issue is
the DREAM Act. I think that has a significant connection to this bill
because that is one of the ways in which a youngster who came to the
United States--not by his or her choice but because of a family
choice--under 16 years of age who later joins the military, and who
serves honorably, can be put on a path to eventually become a citizen.
That has a strong nexus to this bill. But that issue has to be proposed
on this legislation and voted for by a majority of Members.
So we are here simply to begin an important debate and discussion to
support our men and women in uniform across the globe, and their
families. To deny at least the initiation of such a debate seems to be
exactly contrary to why we should be here, which is to support our
military, to debate difficult issues, and then to take votes up and
down to decide the policy of the United States.
With that, I urge all my colleagues to support this motion to proceed
to the bill.
Mr. President, I yield any remaining time I have back to the chairman
of the committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Time will be charged equally.
The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will yield myself just a minute and a
half. I would ask that the Republicans have their speaker--if they are
going to be using their time--to come immediately after me; otherwise,
it would not be fair for us to be using up all of our time in advance.
Mr. President, this morning a number of Republican Senators stated
they would support the current filibuster of this bill because they
were afraid that if we take up the bill, we are going to have a closed
process that would limit their ability to offer amendments. The
majority leader has addressed this issue. He specifically said last
Thursday 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.'' He is very clear on this. He is not trying
to prevent other amendments from being offered. However, there are not
going to be any amendments, there is not going to be any opportunity to
vote on any amendments unless we get 60 votes to overcome the current
filibuster and proceed to the bill. It makes no sense for Senators to
[[Page S7245]]
block all amendments, which is what the effect will be if we do not end
this filibuster, to deny consideration of this bill so we can consider
amendments. It makes no sense to do that under the guise of wanting an
open amendment process. We are not going to have any amendments unless
we can get to this bill, unless we end this filibuster.
Amendments are appropriate. We have always had amendments on the
Defense bill. The majority leader assures we are going to do that
again, and I will do everything I can as chairman to make sure that is
true. So the issue today is not whether there is going to be specific
amendments in order; it is whether we are going to get to the bill so
we can try to consider amendments to the Defense authorization bill.
There are many amendments that should be considered, and I hope we do
not continue this filibuster. I hope we can get 60 votes and do the
important work of the Nation, which is to get a defense authorization
bill passed after it has been considered.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has 5 minutes 50
seconds.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this is, obviously, an important vote that
is coming up. I repeat, I am not opposed in principle to bringing up
the 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
don't ask, don't tell and then allowing the Senate to legislate. What I
am opposed to is bringing up the Defense bill now before the Defense
Department has completed its survey because we need to know the views
of the men and women who are serving in the military in uniform. Give
them a chance to tell us their views. Whether you agree or disagree
with the 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. All four service chiefs have said the same thing: Let's
conduct the survey, let's get it done and then act on whether to repeal
or not repeal.
There is one other aspect. This is a blatant political ploy in order
to try to galvanize the political base of the other side, which is
facing a losing election. That is why the majority leader said we would
take up don't ask, don't tell, take up the DREAM Act, and then take up
the issue of secret holds and then address the other issues after the
election. I wonder why the majority leader would have those
priorities--in other words, take up those that would be politically
beneficial, galvanize his political base as far as the Hispanic
community is concerned and the gay and lesbian community, and then take
up the other issues after--after--the election is over in lameduck
session.
This majority leader has filled up the tree and has not allowed
debate 40 times--40 times--more than all the other majority leaders
preceding him. Last year, the hate crimes bill was arranged in such a
way that there were not amendments that could be proposed by my side of
the aisle.
So let's vote against cloture. Let's sit down and try to reach some
kind of an agreement. Let the men and women in the military be heard
from. Let their leaders go to their men and women who are serving and
tell them we have heard their input before we make this legislative
change and stop the cynical manipulation of the men and women in the
military in order to get votes on November 2.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Senate should have the opportunity
to debate and amend this important bill. While the bill has many
provisions I support, it also includes billions of dollars of earmarks
and funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that will dig us
deeper into debt without advancing our national security. I have a
number of amendments to improve the bill, including one to require that
future war funding be paid for, so it doesn't add to the deficit. I
look forward to the opportunity to offer those amendments.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield the time to the Senator from Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Levin.
I rise to oppose the filibuster of the National Defense Authorization
Act and to say what is obvious--that this is a preelection campaign
season. There are a lot of politics, partisan politics swirling around,
everything going on here, including procedural matters such as those we
are involved in right now. But there are two things I know and I
believe, and I wish to express them about this vote coming up.
One is, we have to proceed to consider the National Defense
Authorization Act. If we do not do it today, I hope we will do it as
soon after as we can because our military needs it. They are in combat.
Without this legislation passing, we will not have the authorization to
increase compensation and benefits for the military and their families,
we will not have authorization for critical military construction, we
will not have authorization for acquisition of critical military
equipment that our troops need to fight safely on our behalf and to
remain what they are--the bravest, most effective fighting force in the
world. So it may be today, it may not be today, but it is going to be
sometime before the end of the year that we have to take up this bill.
It is our national, constitutional, moral responsibility.
Second--and this is a controversial part, of course--I believe we
have to repeal don't ask, don't tell, not only because it is not
consistent with the American values of equal opportunity, of judging
people by whether they can do a job or not, not by their nationality,
their religion, their gender, their race, or their sexual orientation--
can you do a job, and if you can do it, then you can get that job in
America. We have thousands of Americans who are patriotic who want to
serve who happen to be gay or lesbian, and we are telling them: You
cannot. Not only that, we kicked out 14,000 of them in the last 17
years under don't ask, don't tell.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority's time has expired.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. At some point, we are going to come to a vote on the
bill and on don't ask, don't tell. I believe a majority of my
colleagues in this Chamber--maybe more than that--are going to do what
we need to do, which is to repeal don't ask, don't tell.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has approximately 2 minutes 45
seconds.
Mr. McCAIN. I just wish to emphasize again the statements of the
service chiefs.
GEN George Casey:
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.
Admiral Roughead:
My concern is that legislative changes at this point,
regardless of the precise language used, may cause confusion
on the status of the law in the Fleet and disrupt the review
process itself by leading Sailors to question whether their
input matters.
General Conway:
I encourage the Congress to let the process the Secretary
of Defense created to run its course.
General Schwartz:
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.
Let's listen to the people we place in charge of the men and women in
the military. This is not the time to move forward on this issue,
particularly with a political campaign at its highest.
I hope my colleagues will oppose the cloture vote and let's hear a
statement in favor of the men and women serving in the military.
I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
[[Page S7246]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. 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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I indicated to the majority leader that
I was going to propound a unanimous consent request at this time.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the
consideration of the Defense authorization bill; provided further that
amendments be offered in an alternating fashion between this aisle and
that; that the first 20 amendments offered be Defense-related
amendments within the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee,
with no amendment related to immigration in order during the first 20
amendments.
Before the Chair rules, this is an important bill and the Senate
should consider the way we have done it every year. There are many
controversial issues related to the underlying bill that need to be
debated and voted on by the Senate. Our view is we should start work on
the bill and tackle the relevant Defense issues before we divert into
unrelated measures.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I pride
myself in being a very patient person, and I will continue to be
patient now. But during this Congress, we have had to overcome so many
procedural roadblocks--not one, not two, but scores. We are now over a
hundred. This is in keeping with what has gone on this whole Congress.
It is remarkable that we have been able to get as much done as we have,
with all of the roadblocks that were thrown up.
This is an important bill. I recognize that. It is basically to take
care of our military personnel. To have this consent agreement, written
in the language it is written in, changes how we have done legislation
for a long time.
We all know the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee has
offered so many unrelated amendments to this bill. He is on record as
having done so. His response to one dealing with transparency was: This
is my only opportunity to do it.
For anyone to suggest that the Secretary of Defense is somehow
antimilitary--he is a person who supports the DREAM Act.
I appreciate the manner in which the Republican leader offered this.
He gave me plenty of warning. We don't have surprises between the two
of us.
I respectfully say this is changing the way we do business in the
Senate, and I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Under the previous order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke
cloture.
The 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to S. 3454, the Department of Defense authorization
bill, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 238 Leg.]
YEAS--56
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Goodwin
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--43
Alexander
Barrasso
Bennett
Bond
Brown (MA)
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
LeMieux
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Pryor
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Wicker
NOT VOTING--1
Murkowski
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 56, the nays are
43. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by
which cloture was not invoked.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to reconsider is entered.
The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, for those who have been following this
vote, this was an attempt to proceed to the Defense authorization bill.
It is one of the most important bills we consider during the course of
a year. Senator Levin of Michigan is chairman of the Armed Services
Committee, and he was prepared to bring that bill to the floor.
There was an attempt made by the majority leader, Senator Reid, to
allow three amendments to be considered--three amendments which would
be considered before other amendments on the bill. One of the
amendments related to the don't ask, don't tell policy. There is a
provision already in the bill which allows--after review by the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, the President, and the Department of Defense--the
possibility of removing that provision from our law. That was one of
the amendments. The second amendment related to Senate procedure on
secret holds. But the third amendment--and the one I rise to speak to--
is the one which became the focal point of this last vote. That
amendment related to a measure known as the DREAM Act.
Almost 10 years ago, I introduced this bill called the DREAM Act. The
reason I introduced it was because I felt there was a serious injustice
and unfairness going on in America. We have within our borders
thousands of young people who were brought to the United States by
their parents at an early age. I don't know what it was like in their
homes, but there weren't many democratic votes when I was 5 years old
as to where we were going for vacation. I went where I was told, and
these children followed their parents to America. They came here and
became part of America. We made certain they had an opportunity for an
education and health care. We made certain they had an environment
where they could grow up in this country, and for many of them, it was
the only home they ever knew. But because they came to this country
with undocumented parents, they were not legal. They were not
documented. They couldn't be citizens.
That, to me, is a serious injustice. We do not, in this country, hold
the crimes and misdeeds of parents against their children. What I have
tried to do with the DREAM Act is to give these young people a chance--
a chance to earn their way to legal status and become part of the only
country they have ever known. The DREAM Act isn't easy. The DREAM Act
says if you came here as a child, if you were raised in the United
States, are of good moral character, with no criminal record, and you
have graduated from high school, then we give you 6 years. In that 6-
year period of time, you have a chance to do one of two things to
become legal: No. 1, serve the United States of America in the
military; and No. 2, complete 2 years of a college education. Then we
will give you a chance to come off temporary status and become legal in
[[Page S7247]]
America. But you have to earn your way all the way through, subject to
review, examination, and all the requirements that should be there
before someone gets this chance of a lifetime.
Well, the Republican minority leader came to the floor before this
vote and he offered a unanimous consent request--which Senator Reid
objected to--and here is what it said. Of all the amendments you can
consider on the Defense authorization bill, you cannot consider any
amendment that relates to immigration.
I know what that was about. The Senate knew what that was about. It
was an attempt by the Republican side of the aisle to make certain the
DREAM Act could never be called on the Defense authorization bill. They
have made an empty argument on that side that this DREAM Act has
nothing to do with the defense of the United States. It is an empty
argument.
Mr. REID. Would my friend yield for a question?
Mr. DURBIN. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. REID. I ask my friend, through the Chair, is it not also true
that under the terms of the DREAM Act, no one becomes a legal citizen,
that they get a green card?
Mr. DURBIN. They reach legal status. They have to make application to
go beyond it. In this situation, young people, undocumented in the
United States, who want to voluntarily serve in our military, cannot do
so. They are willing to risk their lives for America. Yet we say no.
The Secretary of Defense knows that is wrong. This morning, in a
conversation I had with him in my office over the telephone, he
reiterated what he had said to me before: These are the kind of young
people we need in America's military--high school graduates from
cultural traditions that respect the military; people who are going to
make more diversity in our ranks. That is what we need. He knows, from
a national defense perspective, these will be good recruits for our
military and will distinguish themselves serving our country and coming
up through the ranks.
That is what the DREAM Act offered to the Defense authorization bill.
The Republican leadership and every Republican Senator said no.
Mr. REID. Will my friend yield for a question?
Mr. DURBIN. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. REID. I ask, through the Chair, are you telling the American
people that the Secretary of Defense--a man chosen by the President of
the United States, not only by this President but the last President--
is in favor of our passing the DREAM Act? Is that what the Senator from
Illinois is saying?
Mr. DURBIN. I would say to the Senator from Nevada exactly that. The
Defense Department's fiscal year 2010-2012 strategic plan for the
defense of America specifically includes the DREAM Act as a means of
meeting the strategic goal of shaping and maintaining a mission-ready,
all-volunteer force.
In 2007, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense at that time said the
DREAM Act is very appealing because it would apply to the cream of the
crop of students and be good for readiness. Over and over again, the
Department of Defense has told us this is an opportunity for young
people to serve your Nation, for America to be a safer place.
I wish to relate to my friend, the Senator from Nevada, a story I
told him earlier. This young man came this morning to the U.S. Capitol
from the city of New York. I say to the Presiding Officer, he lives in
Brooklyn. His name is Cesar Vargas. Cesar Vargas came to the United
States at the age of 5, brought here by his mom and dad from Mexico. He
graduated from the regular public schools of New York and then went on
to graduate from college. It was more difficult for him because he is
undocumented. So he couldn't get any Federal aid to education--no Pell
grants, no Federal student loans. But he made it and he graduated. He
said to us this morning that after 9/11, because of his deep commitment
to America, he tried to enlist in the Marine Corps. He said: I wanted
to defend this country after we had been attacked by terrorists. He not
only tried the Marine Corps, but he tried other branches as well and
repeatedly he was turned down because Cesar Vargas is undocumented.
But his dream has not died. Now he is a third-year student at the
City University of New York Law School. He speaks four languages. He
said he is studying a fifth--Cantonese. He is an exceptionally gifted
young man. Do you know what his ambition is? Once again, to join the
Marine Corps--to be in the Judge Advocate General Corps to serve
America, a country he dearly loves.
Because of this Republican decision--a procedural decision that says
we can't consider the DREAM Act--we will not have a chance to vote on
this important measure which would give Cesar Vargas and those like him
a chance to volunteer to serve America. I would say to my friends and
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, where is the justice in this
decision? At least have the courage to let us bring this matter to the
floor and stand and vote no. But to hide behind this procedural ruse--
this unanimous consent request--is totally unfair. It is inconsistent
with the spirit and the history of this Chamber, where we deliberate
and debate and vote. But they ran and they hid behind this procedural
decision.
Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield for a brief question.
Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to yield for a quick question.
Mr. REID. I want everyone within the sound of my voice to understand
how much I appreciate--and the thousands and thousands of other people
who appreciate--Senator Durbin's advocacy of this issue. I also want
everyone else within the sound of my voice to know we are going to vote
on the DREAM Act. It is just a question of time. This is so fair. That
is all it is about, fairness--basic fairness.
I have to say to my friend from Illinois that I feel so bad. I have a
stack of letters in my office that are the most heart-wrenching stories
about these dreamers. They are dreamers. But I want them to understand
this isn't the end of this. We are going to continue to move on it. We
know we have been blocked procedurally, but this is the first time we
have had our colleagues on the other side of the aisle stand and defy
basic fairness on the DREAM Act. They have gone around telling people:
Yes, we like it. We like it. But here was their chance. All we wanted
to do was bring it to the floor, and they wouldn't even let us do that.
They didn't have the courage to allow us to have a vote on this.
So I want my friend to know how deeply appreciative I am--and
speaking for thousands and thousands of other people--for what he has
done on this issue.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Nevada, the majority leader, and
I will tell him and those following this debate--some who are in the
Chamber, in the galleries, who I am sure are disappointed, if not
heartbroken at this point. I mentioned Cesar Vargas, who is here, but
Gaby Pacheco, and so many others who have worked so hard for this
chance, for this day, and my promise to them is this: As long as I can
stand behind this desk and grab this microphone and use my power as a
Senator, I will be pushing for this DREAM Act. It is my highest
priority. It is a matter of simple American justice, and I would hope
the 11 Republicans who joined us last time will stop cowering in the
shadows and come forward and join us in a bipartisan effort and not
stop us procedurally from even debating and deliberating this critical
issue.
For those who are so sad today, take heart. Tomorrow is another day,
and we will be there to fight for you, and many others will join us.
Don't give up your dream to be part of this great Nation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Gillibrand). The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I wish to step back in history, if I
may.
On December 7, 1941, something terrible happened in Hawaii--Pearl
Harbor was bombed by the Japanese. Three weeks later, the Government of
the United States declared that all Japanese Americans, citizens born
in the United States or of Japanese ancestry, were to be considered
enemy aliens. As a result, like these undocumented people, they could
not put on the uniform of this land.
Well, I was 17 at that time, and naturally I resented this because I
loved my country and I wanted to put on a uniform to show where my
heart stood.
[[Page S7248]]
But we were denied. So we petitioned the government, and a year later
they said: OK, if you wish to volunteer, go ahead.
Well, to make a long story short, the regiment I served in, made up
of Japanese Americans, had the highest casualties in Europe but the
most decorated in the history of the United States. I think the
beneficiaries of the Senator from Illinois will do the same.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I know the Senator from Hawaii has to
leave, but before he goes I just wish every American could have heard
from a hero not of this body, of this Nation but of the world. Senator
Inouye did more than swim against the tide in order to put on the
uniform of his country. He had to fight his way into the Army. He then
became a Medal of Honor winner. The highest honor--the Medal of Valor--
that can be granted was awarded to Senator Inouye. He gave up more than
just a few years of his life; he gave up part of his body for this
country.
His eloquence and his passion for proper treatment of people who want
to put on the uniform of this Nation is extraordinarily powerful. I
only wish every American could have heard it. I thank him for that
service and for that statement.
I also want to add a thank-you to the Senator from Illinois. I want
to reinforce something he said by asking him a question. It had to do
with that unanimous consent request to which he referred. The way this
request was worded, even if--well, let me back up.
We have heard for 2 days objections from Republicans that there would
be nonrelevant amendments that would be offered--which, of course, is
permitted under our rules. As a matter of fact, the Senator from
Arizona has on a number of occasions on this bill offered nonrelevant
amendments. But even if that DREAM Act amendment of yours were modified
so that it only related to young men and women who wanted to go into
the Army to serve their country and the educational part of it, as
important as it is, if that were left out--even if the amendment were
designed so that it could be referred to the Armed Services Committee
because it would be defense related, even if you could design an
amendment like that, under this unanimous consent agreement no
amendment related to immigration would be in order during those first
amendments.
Is that not singling out immigration, saying, despite all of the
protestations we heard here about wanting to make sure amendments were
relevant--despite the history that is not required under the rule but
that is the protestations we heard over the last few days, we want
relevant amendments and the DREAM Act isn't relevant--under this
unanimous consent request, even if the DREAM Act were modified so it
might be within the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee
because it would be focused on service in the Armed Forces, under this
request no amendment relating to immigration would be in order; is that
correct?
Mr. DURBIN. I reply to the Senator from Michigan through the Chair
and thank him for this question. Just as the door was closed on Dan
Inouye of Hawaii when, as a Japanese American from Hawaii, he wanted to
serve his country, the unanimous consent request from the Republican
leader closed the door on anyone who wished to serve this country if it
involved the issue of immigration. It had one intent: stop the DREAM
Act, stop these young people from being given a chance to serve their
nation. That is clearly the intent. Unfortunately, the partisan
rollcall that followed is evidence that was the strategy.
Just as Dan Inouye prevailed and persisted and not only served his
country admirably but with the highest level of valor, I am convinced
that many of the young people who leave heartbroken today by this vote
will get their chance someday, just as the Senator did, and they will
serve this country with distinction and they will serve this Nation as
the Senator has led us in the Senate.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, what is the present parliamentary
situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering the motion to
proceed to S. 3534.
Mr. BAUCUS. I ask to speak as in morning business, and I also ask
unanimous consent the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, be
recognized immediately after my remarks and she be recognized to speak
for 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Baucus pertaining to the submission of S. Res.
636 are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I rise to express my deep disappointment
that we were unable to proceed to the Defense authorization bill.
I have been here a while, maybe I am wrong--I am searching my
memory--I don't remember any time that we voted against proceeding to
the Defense bill. I am going to go back. Certainly, in the time I have
been here, I don't remember that.
It is a filibuster just to go to the Defense bill. It is perplexing
to me because of some of what is in this bill--including funding for
the defense health program to care for our military personnel and their
families, including our wounded warriors. We know these wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan have taken quite a toll on our military men and women,
both in seen injuries and unseen injuries--injuries to the brain.
We know some incredible work is going on. I visited some of the
research universities that are finding better ways to treat our wounded
warriors. They are finding better ways to treat terrible wounds that
result from horrible burns to our brave men and women. Now is the time
to put those new and better treatments into place and there is a
filibuster and we cannot get to the bill.
We know there is a military pay raise in this bill for our
servicemembers. Those voting no to proceed to this are stopping that.
This bill authorizes TRICARE coverage for eligible dependents up to
age 26. In other words, just as we did in the Health Care Reform Act,
in this bill we are saying if you are in the military and you have a
child, you can keep them on your coverage until they are 26.
It provides $3.4 billion for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles
or MRAPs, which have proven highly successful in protecting our troops
from improvised explosive devices, and it requires companies to certify
for all DOD contracts valued over $1 million that they are not engaged
in any sanctionable activity under the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996. So
we would make sure that the DOD, Department of Defense, is not involved
in giving contracts to companies that are trading with Iran. This is so
important, as we seek to sanction Iran for its reckless activity in
moving toward a nuclear weapon.
In the bill the Republicans blocked is also a repeal of the
military's don't ask, don't tell policy. The bill includes a provision
stating that there will be no repeal of this policy until there is a
certification from the Department of Defense that it will not have
adverse consequences on our troops.
Some said: Oh, this is just ignoring the Department of Defense,
ignoring the Secretary of Defense. Not at all. The way Chairman Levin
put it together definitely has a check on it. So I do not understand a
lot of my colleagues' claims that it is just a quick repeal with no
checks and balances from the Secretary of Defense.
I will say it again, it is clear in there, and I will read the exact
words, that there must be, as we repeal don't ask, don't tell, a
certification from the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that there will be no significant
impact on ``military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion
and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.''
I think it is important to note what countries allow gays and
lesbians to serve. How about 22 of our allies who have fought with our
service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan: Australia, Britain,
Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Switzerland,
Austria, Canada, Estonia, Germany, Lithuania, New Zealand, Spain,
Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, Luxemburg and Norway and
Sweden. In addition, Israel and South
[[Page S7249]]
Africa also don't discriminate against gays and lesbians. I don't know
who we end up with, but some of the countries I can find that still
discriminate against gays and lesbians in the service are Iran,
Pakistan, Cuba, North Korea, and Turkey.
For us to stand with Iran, for us to stand with Cuba, for us to stand
with North Korea, Pakistan, and Turkey over Australia, Britain,
Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Canada,
Germany, et cetera--it just doesn't make sense.
The point is, because we are part of this coalition of 22 other
nations, our service men and women are already fighting alongside gays
and lesbians.
A majority of Americans think it is the right thing to do, to allow
our qualified young men and women to serve regardless of their sexual
orientation. According to a CNN poll conducted in May, 78 percent of
Americans said they support allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly
in the military--78 percent of Americans. We would be standing with
them and we would be standing with our allies.
Don't ask, don't tell is hurting our military. It is costing our
Nation--more than 14,000 service men and women have been discharged
from the military under don't ask, don't tell. It has cost taxpayers
between $290 million and maybe up to more than a $\1/2\ billion to
replace servicemembers who were discharged under this policy.
I know many Americans have seen in their living rooms, on the TV, men
and women who are our neighbors' kids, and our neighbors, who have been
kicked out of the military even though they were stellar service men
and women. It is most unfortunate that our friends on the other side
are mischaracterizing what is in the bill.
We allowed them an amendment to strip that language, and they said,
oh, well, if we pass this, then the military would be caught off guard.
Not at all. The way it is written specifies that there must be a
certification that a repeal would not be harmful to our military.
I am also terribly disappointed we will not have a chance to vote on
the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act allows those students who have been here
most of their lives an opportunity to earn legalized status if they met
certain criteria. Those are kids who were brought over as kids, maybe a
month or 2, or a year or 2, or 5 or 6 years old. They must have lived
in the United States for 5 years. They must earn a high school diploma.
After high school, they must complete 2 years of college or serve in
the Armed Forces for 2 years. They must demonstrate strong moral
character, and only those who pass these tests would be eligible to get
on the pathway to legality. Sixty-five thousand young people a year
graduate from high school, but they cannot join the military, or they
cannot go to college, because of their immigrant status. It was not
their fault they were brought into the country by their parents. I want
to tell you that our military has said--and I will quote retired Army
LTC Margaret Stock. She said: ``Potential DREAM Act beneficiaries are
likely to be a military recruiter's dream candidates for enlistment.''
Let me repeat that. The military itself has said, The DREAM Act will
result in a military recruiter's dream, because some of these recruits
are very good with foreign language skills, foreign cultural awareness,
they are in short supply, and they would be excellent recruits.
Businesses support the DREAM Act. Our economic future is something we
talk about every day around here. I read a U.S.C. study that said, if
we finally begin a process where people who are here, who are hard
working and caring, can stay here and come out of the shadows, it will
create 25,000 jobs and increase the gross domestic product of my State
and of the Nation.
That is why I have the San Jose Mercury News, home paper of the
Silicon Valley, writing an editorial last week in favor of the DREAM
Act, saying it will boost America's economic competitiveness. So here
we have the time where we have something on the floor that is directly
related to the military bill, because the military is saying it is a
recruiter's dream, this DREAM Act, because they are going to have so
many people lining up to join. We have Silicon Valley strongly
supporting this, and I will tell you, the San Jose Mercury News said:
``The high school dropout rate in this country terrifies business
leaders, who fear that in the coming decades we will not produce enough
college graduates with math and science ability.''
That is why the Silicon Valley Leadership Group supports the DREAM
Act. That is a group made up of Republicans, Independents, and
Democrats. They wrote: DREAM Act students ``deserve a chance, and the
U.S. economy needs their knowledge and ability.''
Companies such as Microsoft also support the DREAM Act. They wrote:
``The DREAM Act rewards those who place high value on education, and on
service to country.''
Last week the president of the University of California, the
chancellor of the California State university system, and the
presidents of State universities in Arizona, Washington, Minnesota,
Utah, and Washington wrote in support of the DREAM Act. They write in a
letter: ``In the current international economic competition, the U.S.
needs all the talent it can acquire and these students represent an
extraordinary resource for the country. The DREAM Act . . . is an
economic imperative.''
In closing, I want to talk about a couple of stories. I think this is
very important. David graduated from high school with a 3.9 grade point
average. He is studying international economics and Korean at UCLA. He
has served as the leader of the UCLA marching band, and he spends his
free time tutoring high school students. After graduation, he hopes to
enter the Air Force and some day politics. In many ways, he is a model
college student and a leader in his community. But he was born in
Korea. He came here when he was 9. His family spent 8 years trying to
navigate their way to legalized status, only to find out that their
sponsor had erred in filling out the paperwork.
So here sits David. He had nothing to do with all of this. Here is
what he says:
I will not be able to put my name down on a job application
because of my status. This country is throwing away talent
every second . . . but the DREAM Act can bring thousands of
students out of the shadows and allow them the opportunity to
work for the country they truly love right now.
I would say these students such as David did not choose to come to
this country. They were brought here by their parents. The reality is,
they have grown up here. This is the only country they know. I am very
disappointed that we are not voting on this important bill today. I
hope we can take up the DREAM Act later this year. I believe it will
truly strengthen our economy, our military, and our Nation.
The very last point I want to make as we wind up this Congress is, I
am so pleased that we passed the Small Business Jobs Act last week. I
traveled across California. I have met with so many small businesses,
and I did a conference call with about 10 of those businesses,
including the Los Angeles Baking Company, the Blue Bottle Coffee
Company in Oakland, biofuels manufacturer Solazyme, Capstone Turbine in
Chatsworth, U.S. Hybrid in Torrance, the Back on the Beach Cafe in
Santa Monica, and the Santa Barbara Adventure Company. These are small
businesses in my State that are very strong. They could not get access
to credit to expand and hire. As a result of the work we did, they will
be able to get that credit. I want to thank the two Republicans who
crossed over to vote with us. It shows us that we can make progress
when we work together, because this has to come ahead of politics.
I went to a company called Renova. Renova is helping to make
California the hub of the clean energy economy. Vincent Battaglia, the
owner there, told me he has been getting no help accessing the credit
he needs. He called our legislation ``the missing piece,'' the piece he
has been waiting for.
Small businesses create 64 percent of our new jobs. That is what
happened over the last 15 years. I believe this bill will help get them
back on track. As they get back on track, our recovery will begin to
have a little more energy behind it. Because it is very slow; it is
agonizingly slow.
I wanted to state on the Record how much I appreciate the two
Republicans--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank you and I yield the floor.
[[Page S7250]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senators from New Hampshire, Arizona, Kansas, and I be permitted to
engage in a colloquy for half an hour.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Senate Proceedings
Mr. ALEXANDER. On December 3, 1996, Senator Robert C. Byrd, the late
Senator Byrd, who most of us think understood this body better than any
Senator in its history, told the newly arriving U.S. Senators the
following:
Good afternoon and welcome to the United States Senate
Chamber. You are presently occupying what I consider to be
hallowed ground.
Senator Byrd went on to say:
. . . as long as the Senate retains the power to amend and
the power of unlimited debate, the liberties of the people
will remain secure.
In his last testimony before the Senate Rules Committee before he
died--this was in May of this year--Senator Byrd said:
Our Founding Fathers intended the Senate to be a continuing
body that allows for open and unlimited debate and the
protection of minority rights.
If I may add to that the last paragraph of a letter from Senator
Coburn, which I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. ALEXANDER. Senator Coburn writes:
Too many Americans are upset, even angry, that their voices
are not being heard in Washington. The majority's abusive
practice of suppressing debate undermines the Senate's debate
traditions . . .
We could start out by complaining that the majority leader has cut
off debate, cut off amendments at a record level. I have submitted
evidence of that. But I think that would look to the American people
like we are kindergartners in a sandbox. Because it is not the voice of
the Senator from New Hampshire, or Tennessee, or Arizona, or Kansas
that is so important. The voices of the people whom we are elected to
represent are the important voices.
When 39 times in the last two Congresses the majority leader, through
procedural tactics, says no to amendments, and no to debate, he is
causing the Senate to deteriorate to a shadow of its former self, the
kind of Senate that Senator Byrd thought was important, and the kind of
Senate in which we want to serve.
Our goal is to represent the voices of the American people, to let
their feelings, their anger, their hopes, all be represented here. That
means we have to have a chance to offer amendments and have to have a
chance to debate.
What that means is if we are successful in this election year, we are
going to make sure that in the new Congress we have that opportunity.
We will make sure that these voices we hear across America are heard on
the floor of the Senate. The Defense authorization bill, which is being
debated today, is a perfect example of why I say the Senate is
deteriorating to a shadow of its former self by closing off the voices
of the American people and by denying their elected Senators an
opportunity to have a full debate on the issues facing them.
Mr. GREGG. Would the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. ALEXANDER. Of course.
Mr. GREGG. Because I think the Senator has addressed a core issue of
constitutional government. When the Founding Fathers got together in
Philadelphia and created this extraordinary Nation called America, and
built the Constitution upon which we were based, and upon which we
govern, was it not their intent to create the Senate as a body
different from the House of Representatives?
We understand in the House of Representatives amendments are not
allowed if the Speaker does not want them. It is an autocracy over
there. We know that. But was not it the intention of the Founding
Fathers, as the Senator has pointed out, to give the American people a
chance, through their Senators, to amend complex legislation? And has
that not always been the tradition since the founding of our Nation?
Did Washington not explain this rather accurately when he said, The
Senate is the saucer into which the hot coffee is poured? The House
boils the coffee, they get all charged up about an issue, they pass it
without amendments, often without any debate. It comes over here, and
the American people get to hear a little more subtlely about the issue,
a little more discussion about the issue. Specifically, they get to
amend it and address the issue.
I know the Senator from Arizona is here. Maybe he will be able to
tell us--I am sure he will--how many times we have had a bill as big as
the Defense authorization bill on the floor, which is spending $700
billion, and not had a chance to amend it. But was that not the purpose
of the Founding Fathers, to make the Senate the place where there was
debate and discussion and amendment? Has that not been basically cut
off by the majority leader and the majority party's attitude that they
do not want to take tough votes?
Mr. ALEXANDER. The Senator from Arizona was here when that was not
the case, and the Senate functioned the way the Senate was supposed to
function.
Mr. McCAIN. Could I make a couple of comments? One is, one of the
things that has disappeared that I saw in the first years I was here in
the Senate is the two leaders sitting down and perhaps coming to
informal agreements that are then put into unanimous consent agreements
to move forward.
The other aspect of this I wonder if my colleagues would care to
comment on. One of the reasons why we have these--the majority leader
comes forward, as I believe he has 40 times, brings up a bill and then
immediately fills up the tree--and to the uninitiated, obviously that
means there will be no other amendments allowed through that kind of
parliamentary procedure. A lot of times that is read by the Members
saying, hey, there is going to be an amendment up that I do not want to
have to vote on. I do not want to have to vote on it. So fill up the
tree, have no other amendments allowed to be voted on.
It seems to me that we should have the courage to go ahead and vote.
Time after time, when I have seen basically a shutout from amendments,
I have said, look, I will agree to a time agreement. I am not going to
filibuster it. Just give us 15 minutes either side and vote on it. But
they do not want to take tough votes. I am not going to call it
cowardice, but I cannot call it courage, that people will prevail and
say, hey, let's fill up the tree so we can only get this done and we
will not have to take a tough vote on whatever the issue is that seems
to be attracting the attention of the American people.
I say to my colleague from New Hampshire, who will not be with us
next January----
Mr. GREGG. I will be with you; I just will not physically be here.
Mr. McCAIN. I certainly do not in any way indicate that there is any
physical ailment that will cause you not to be a Member of the Senate
next January.
If the Senator from New Hampshire could provide us with the benefit
of his experience in both the House and the Senate, and also maybe he
would give us at some point his view of what we need to do to fix this
gridlock we have over the economy. He has done it on numerous
occasions, but it comes to my mind that perhaps the Senator from New
Hampshire at some time would take an hour on the floor and say: Here is
what I think we need to do. I think it would be valuable. I don't think
there is anybody in the Senate today who has a better grasp for the
budgetary issues we have to grapple with as we face an unprecedented
situation of debt and deficit.
Perhaps after this election, it may be possible for us to sit down
and be included in the agenda of the Senate. That is one of the things
that has been a big change. It used to be that at least the majority
leader, whichever party was in the majority, would come over and say:
Here is our agenda. What is your agenda? What is your input? What do
you want to see happen? Most of the time nowadays, we hear what is
going to happen either through reading it in the media or when the
majority leader comes to the floor and says: Here is what we will take
up next. It does not lead to comity.
Mr. GREGG. Those are very generous and kind comments coming from a
Senator who is of huge stature not only
[[Page S7251]]
in the Senate but in the country. I do hope to make some comments on
that. It won't take me an hour because the answer is simple: Stop
spending. That is pretty much the bottom line.
The point of the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Arizona
on the issue of shutting down the amendment process is as critical to
us getting better governance as anything. We can't have good governance
if we don't have discussion and different ideas brought forward. Yet we
are not allowed to do that any longer because the majority leader says:
We will not allow any additional amendment or any discussion.
On budgetary issues, on the spending issue, independent of the
Defense bill, I think one of the reasons we haven't done a budget this
year is because the other side knows that if they bring the budget to
the floor, they cannot shut down amendments. Amendments have to be
allowed. Under the rules, we have to be able to amend the budget
resolution. I don't think they want to do that. They couldn't fill the
tree on the budget.
As a practical matter, this attempt to foreclose debate on core
issues of public policy, such as the defense issue and spending, by
shutting down the floor through filling the tree is undermining not
only the Senate and its role but the whole constitutional process and
the right of the people to be heard.
Mr. McCAIN. Doesn't it send a message to people who are having their
budgets squeezed, having to make the most difficult decisions about
their budget, that this body will function and continue to appropriate
money for our functions without a budget of our own? What kind of a
signal does that send to the American people? Doesn't that contribute
to the disconnect and the frustration Americans feel and give rise to
the tea party, which has had a seismic effect on the political
landscape?
Mr. GREGG. Absolutely. More than that, it begs the question as to why
is the majority party governing. If they are not willing to govern,
what are they collecting their paychecks for? Governing means putting
together a budget and deciding how to spend the money. They are not
willing to do that.
Mr. McCAIN. One of the first decisions every family has to make is
what is the budget, what are they going to be able to spend. We will be
going out of session sometime here before the election without even a
cursory effort at a budget.
Mr. GREGG. Absolutely.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, the Senator from Kansas is here. He
served with distinction not only in the Senate but in the House of
Representatives.
I wish to go back to the point Senator Byrd made. He said in his
address to new Senators in 1996:
[A]s long as the Senate retains the power to amend and the
power of unlimited debate, the liberties of the people will
remain secure.
What we are talking about here is not the importance so much of the
voice of the Senator from Kansas or the voice of the Senator from New
Hampshire but the voices of the American people. And they are being
suppressed.
The Senator from Kansas has seen Congress for a long time. What do we
need to do to take the Senate back to the Senate that it should be?
Mr. ROBERTS. I appreciate the Senator bringing up the statements by
our revered Senator Byrd. I remember when I first came to the Senate,
he had, for lack of a better word, a lecture or maybe a sermon to us
all about the comity of the Senate and why the Senate is different from
the House. The standard example is that the House is where we pour a
hot cup of coffee, and then it cools off in the Senate when we put the
coffee in the saucer. And that is what we are supposed to do to protect
the minority. Here is what Senator Byrd said in one of his last
speeches before the Rules Committee before we lost Bob. His knowledge
and love for this body were unmatched. He actually wrote the history of
the Senate. He said he opposed cloture by a simple majority because
``it would immediately destroy the uniqueness of this institution. The
Senate is the only place in government where the rights of a numerical
minority are so protected. A minority can be right and minority views
can certainly improve legislation.''
Obviously, if we go down another road--and we have--I just heard the
majority leader indicate this side of the aisle is guilty of
obstructionism. I guess it is in the eye of the beholder.
I might remind my friend from Arizona that the bumper sticker for the
distinguished State of New Hampshire is ``Live Free or Die.'' I hope we
live free, and I would hope that the distinguished Senator from New
Hampshire would not take that literally, given the comments by the
Senator from Arizona.
I came into public service in 1980, with my dear friend from New
Hampshire. Other than some rather obstreperous incidents in regard to
basketball, we have enjoyed a very good relationship. But there isn't
anybody here who understands the budget process and how minority rights
should be protected and how we should proceed other than Judd Gregg. He
has done an outstanding job. I know that once he leaves the Senate, he
will be called upon to help us get out of this tremendous debt problem
and to face the entitlements square-on.
Facts are stubborn things. I am not trying to put these facts on any
individual. As the distinguished Senator from Tennessee has pointed
out, what this really is about is the consent of the governed. That is
what Madison was really interested in when he wrote about the
Constitution. We want a strong Executive and certainly a House and a
Senate to be responsive, but it is to protect the consent of the
governed. The governed, as everybody knows, is extremely upset. It is
because their voice is not heard. Why is their voice not heard?
In the 110th Congress in the House of Representatives, only 1 percent
of the bills were brought to the floor with open amendment rules--1
percent. Ninety-nine percent of the bills reached the Senate from the
House with little or no input from the minority. As of March of 2010,
the House was on track to shatter its record for closed amendment rules
in the 111th Congress. That is the House.
I spent 16 years in the House. I can remember very well one
particular incident where there was a real controversy over a seat in
Indiana. The secretary of state of Indiana declared the winner. It came
back to the House Administration Committee, went back out to Indiana,
recounted. When the Democrat went ahead, they called it closed, and
that was it. We walked out. We said the comity of the House had been
destroyed.
We are close here in the Senate. In the 110th Congress, cloture was
filed 133 times, 98 of which were filed the moment the question was
raised on the floor. If that isn't obstructionism, I don't know what
is. Over the last 22 years, the majority leader has filled the tree
roughly three times per Congress on average. However, from January 2007
to April of 2010, the majority leader filled the tree 26 times. That is
a 300-percent increase in filling the tree for the 110th and 111th
Congress. These numbers do not reflect the additional times this has
taken place in the 5 months since the numbers were submitted to the
Rules Committee, including today, with DOD authorization. From the
103rd to the 109th Congress, rule XIV to bypass the committee was used
on average 24 times per Congress. This was shattered in the 110th
Congress when it was used 57 times. I go over these facts to show that
in regard to the definition of obstructionism, it goes both ways. That
is the rest of the story.
A little bit later, if the distinguished Senator from Tennessee has
time, I would like to go over this sense-of-the-Senate resolution or
legislation to be introduced by the junior Senator from New Mexico
declaring the rules of the Senate unconstitutional in order to rewrite
the rules to favor a simple majority to pass legislation. I would like
to have a discussion with him at a future time.
I know the distinguished Senator from Utah has something to say as
well.
Mr. ALEXANDER. The Senator from Utah has had a distinguished career
in the Senate. His father did before him. He has an unusual perspective
of this body. I wonder what his reflections might be upon Senator
Byrd's thought about the importance of allowing Senators to reflect the
voices of people in this country and when those voices are
[[Page S7252]]
cut off in the Senate, they are cut off at home.
Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for
his reference to my service. I use as my example for why I am here to
join this colloquy not my long service, because it hasn't been all that
long by the terms of the Senate, but my experience today. I think what
we experienced today on the floor is a demonstration of what happens.
I happen to be one--perhaps a minority on my side of the aisle--who
is in favor of the DREAM Act. I want to be one who will vote for the
DREAM Act. The Senator from Tennessee talks about people and their
concern. While I was back in Utah over the weekend, I had a
demonstration of very earnest young people show up in front of the
Federal building to ask me to please vote for the DREAM Act. They had
compelling stories. I was identifying with what they had to say.
I had to say to them: I won't get an opportunity to vote for the
DREAM Act.
Yes, they said, you will have a vote on Tuesday on the DREAM Act.
No, the vote on Tuesday is not on the DREAM Act. The vote on Tuesday
is on a motion to proceed to the Defense authorization bill that has
been loaded down with amendments that prevent us from having an up-or-
down vote on the DREAM Act itself.
They said: Well, the DREAM Act will be one of those amendments. The
DREAM Act will be added to it.
Yes, it will be added to it. But will I have an opportunity to vote
on an amendment to strip out the other stuff I don't like? No. I won't
have the opportunity to do that. So this was the dilemma I explained to
these young people. Some of them looked too young to vote, but I am
sure they are old enough to vote. It is just that everybody looks a lot
younger to me now than they used to.
I said: Here is the dilemma I have. By virtue of what the majority
leader has done, he has created a parliamentary situation where, in
order to vote as you want me to vote, as you express your voice to me,
I have to vote opposite to what a large number of my other constituents
want me to vote. I have to vote in favor of Federal funding for
abortions in military hospitals. Some will say it will be private
funding. Yes, but it will take place in a military hospital supported
by Federal funding. I have never voted for Federal funding in any form
for abortions. Now, in order to support the DREAM Act by the way the
tree has been filled, by the way this thing has been put together, I
have no choice. If I vote the way you want me to vote, I will offend a
vast majority of my other constituents who don't want me to vote that
way on the question of abortions in military hospitals. If I vote to
proceed, I will be voting to act precipitously, in my view, with
respect to the policy of don't ask, don't tell, which President Clinton
signed into law at the beginning of my service in the Senate.
I am perfectly willing to vote to repeal don't ask, don't tell if the
military services complete their survey that tells us that is right and
proper for military performance. But the majority wants to make that
decision before they get the information from the military. So I have
to cast a vote that I think is the wrong vote for the military in order
to vote for the DREAM Act.
Well, they looked at me as if I were crazy.
Well, certainly you can separate these things and vote on each one on
its own individual merits?
I had to say to them: No, I can't. The way this is being handled now
in the Senate, I cannot vote on the merits of each of these individual
items because the majority leader, exercising his right, has packaged
them together--filled the tree--in such a fashion that makes it
impossible for you to divide them and discuss each one on its own
merits.
I was questioned by the press as I went in to lunch.
Senator, we thought you were in favor of the DREAM Act?
Yes, I am.
Well, then, aren't you going to vote for cloture on the Defense
authorization bill?
Wait a minute, cloture on the Defense authorization bill becomes the
key vote on an immigration issue? That is the situation we have come to
as we get this kind of procedure. And it very clearly, as the Senator
from Tennessee has made clear, says the voices of the people on the
legislation in which they have an interest are not being heard because
of this procedural activity. That is why I have joined in this colloquy
to raise my voice in protest to the way this is being done.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Utah.
Madam President, the point of our discussion is a very simple idea:
This is a year above all years when there are voices in the country
that seek to be heard. When through procedural means the majority
suppresses those voices by suppressing their elected representatives,
it only adds fuel to the fire.
Whatever the conditions after the election, I hope we Republicans
come back with the notion that we intend to make sure this Senate
functions with an unlimited right to amend and with an unlimited right
to debate, so we can force consensus on issues and deal with jobs, deal
with spending, deal with debt, and deal with the other issues that
cause the American people to be turning out in droves this year in
elections.
Mr. ROBERTS. I say to my friend from Tennessee, I want to ask him a
question. Is it fair to characterize these attempts by the majority to
change the rules--and that is what they want to do; I think it is a
sense-of-the-Senate resolution in the Rules Committee--to continue
favoring them, even if their majority narrows after November, in the
lameduck or what I call the Daffy Duck, the lameduck now, you could
characterize that as an ``arrogance of power.'' Those are pretty tough
words, but that is the exact term used by then-Senator Biden in 2005 to
describe a similar attempt to rewrite the rules to favor the majority
at that time. So what goes around comes around.
Does the Senator from Tennessee find it as disconcerting as I do that
the junior Senator from New Mexico has introduced a resolution
declaring the rules of the Senate ``unconstitutional'' in order to
rewrite the rules to favor a slimmer majority, i.e., one, one free
throw. That is it.
Does any majority last forever? The answer to that is no. What goes
around comes around. If the interpretation of the Constitution and the
Senate rules of the junior Senator from New Mexico is accepted, I say
to my friend from Tennessee, what is to prevent any majority of either
party from rewriting the rules of the Senate whenever it suits them?
Would such a practice not negate the whole point of having rules in the
continuing body that is the Senate? Would this practice not make the
Senate nearly identical to the House, where majority takes everything?
Would this not neutralize the express purpose of the Senate to act as a
check on the House and be directly 180 degrees opposed to what Senator
Byrd was warning us about in regard to his last testimony before the
Rules Committee in this distinguished body?
Again, my friend from Tennessee has hit the nail right on the head.
We have a lot of challenges around here. People say ``problems'' or
``crises.'' We have a lot of challenges. The only way you meet a
challenge is to work together and to represent the consent of the
governed. What we have here now is we do not have the consent of the
governed. We do not have the opportunity.
I remember in the health care debate staying up until the wee hours
of the morning in the HELP Committee, the Finance Committee. I did not
get behind closed doors to write the bill that was actually written,
but I had 11 amendments on rationing. All of them were defeated on a
party-line vote. Trying to be a little clever by half, I introduced a
Democratic amendment, one of Senator Schumer's amendments. It was
defeated on a party-line vote. They did not even recognize it was
Senator Schumer's--all on rationing.
One of the biggest controversial items you hear about throughout the
country in regard to the health care debate is the rationing of health
care, which is going on right now. There was no consent of the
governed. It was ``our way or no way.'' It did not have a chance. That
is the biggest issue we face, and it seems to me it really reflects on
this body and how we treat each other and, more importantly, how we
treat the American people and why
[[Page S7253]]
we have such a fuss out there in the hinterlands.
I thank the distinguished Senator for taking this time. I think it is
very valuable time. I hope we can lower the debate a little bit--a
whole lot--and work together, as he has indicated, to meet the
challenges we have before the country.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator
from Kansas for his thoughtful remarks. He is exactly right. The voices
of the people are to be heard here. They can only be heard and their
liberties protected if their elected officials have the right to
express those voices through unlimited amendment and unlimited debate.
When the majority leader closes that debate off and closes off those
amendments a record number of times, that is closing off the voices of
the American people.
As the Senator from Kansas said, the shoe can sometimes be on the
other foot. Those who today are wanting to create a freight train
running through the Senate as a freight train runs through the House
may not be so eager to do that if the freight train turns out, after
the election, to be the tea party express.
I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
Exhibit 1
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, September 21, 2010.
Hon. Lamar Alexander,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Alexander: The U.S. Senate once was considered
``the world's greatest deliberative body.'' This no longer is
the case as the Majority Leader commonly abuses Senate rules
and traditions to prevent debate and obstruct other Senators
from offering amendments to legislation.
As you know, historically, the cloture process authorized
by Senate Rule XXII has been used sparingly. According to
Senate Procedure and Practice, ``Between 1917 and 1962,
cloture was imposed only five times.'' Fast forward 50 years
later, a report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS),
reveals a clear trend by the majority of limiting debate by
immediately filing cloture on nearly all legislative
questions.
Under Democrat control of the Senate, 219 cloture motions
were filed in the 110th and 111th Congresses combined.
Perhaps most troubling, 171 of these cloture motions were
filed after the Senate had considered the legislative
question for one day or less. In contrast, when the
Republicans were in charge in the 108th and 109th Congresses,
only 84 cloture motions were filed.
Additionally, the Majority Leader has regularly abused a
procedure known as ``filling the tree,'' to exclude the
minority from offering amendments to bills. According to CRS,
he has employed this tactic 39 times on major pieces of
legislation since the start of the 110th Congress. The result
of this practice was the passage of legislation spending
hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars without members of
the minority having the opportunity to raise issues of
importance or to improve legislation. To put this number in
perspective, this represents a drastic increase from the mere
fifteen occasions former Majority Leader Frist ``filled the
tree'' in 108th and 109th Congresses combined.
Majority Leader Reid's use of ``filling the tree'' combined
with filing cloture entirely preempts any input from the
minority into legislation and destroys the two distinguishing
characteristics of the Senate--the right to fully debate and
amend legislation.
Too many Americans are upset, even angry, that their voices
are not being heard in Washington. The majority's abusive
practice of suppressing debate undermines the Senate's debate
traditions as well as the cherished American rights of free
speech and dissent. As a caucus, we should commit ourselves
to ensuring a more open and deliberative process that
protects the rights of every Senator to express the views of
the taxpayers they were elected to represent.
Sincerely,
Tom A. Coburn, M.D.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Goodwin). The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, first of all, I ask unanimous consent
that we not go into the quorum call.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FRANKEN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss two important issues we
will not have the chance to debate because we are unable to take up the
Defense authorization bill.
Let me start with the need for repeal of the discriminatory don't
ask, don't tell policy. We are so close to making a historic
accomplishment that I think we would be able to look back on with
pride. It is also simply the right thing to do. This country is long
past ready for it, and it is the right thing because the don't ask,
don't tell policy has been costly for our military. Treating gays and
lesbians unequally because of their sexual orientation just does not
make sense to me. We should not be denying gay and lesbian Americans
the ability to serve our Nation simply because of who they are. We
should not make them lie in order to serve.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ADM Mike Mullen, endorsed
the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. He put it this way:
I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in
place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about
who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For
me, personally, it comes down to integrity: theirs as
individuals and ours as an institution.
But as I said, this is not just about the right thing to do. The
country is ready for it, and the military is ready for it. Things have
changed since 1993. The country is now way ahead of us on this issue. A
Washington Post/ABC News poll in February 2010 showed that 75 percent
of Americans believe gay and lesbian Americans should be able to serve
openly in the U.S. military--75 percent. There is almost nothing we can
get 75 percent of the country to agree on these days. The country has
been steadily moving in this direction for some time. In 1993, 44
percent of those surveyed favored this. It was up to 62 percent in
2001. And now we are at 75 percent. Multiple other polls reinforce this
result. The country is way past being ready for this change, and so is
the military.
Do we need to think carefully about how to implement repeal? Yes.
That is why the Pentagon is undertaking a comprehensive review of how
to implement the repeal. But is there any reason to think unit cohesion
or military readiness is going to be negatively affected? No. There is
simply no reason to think that. In fact, let's look to the military's
own thinking on this question. A recent article in Joint Force
Quarterly concluded that ``there is no scientific evidence to support
the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals
serve openly.'' No scientific evidence.
Let me also briefly tell you about my experience. Before I was a
Senator, I did a number of USO tours over the years. On each tour, I
was more and more impressed with the men and women of the military.
This was between 1999 and 2006. I did seven tours. The last 4 years, I
was in Iraq and Afghanistan and Kuwait. I would go with a very eclectic
tour of guys and women: the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, country
western artists, almost all of whom are very rightwing, and we love
each other because we went on these tours.
Let me tell you about one show I did. I am not going to say what base
it was. I do not want to get anybody in trouble. We did a 4-hour show.
This was the fourth year we did this with the sergeant major of the
Army. We did a 4-hour show because we found out the troops loved the
show because it was a little bit of home. During the show, I would--I
was kind of the cohost with a beautiful woman named Leeann Tweeden, and
we would do comedy routines, we would introduce music, and we would
introduce the cheerleaders.
I would go out and do a monologue. This is something I would do and
had done for a number of years. I would go out and I would say: You
know, I have done now seven USO tours, and every year I am just more
and more impressed with the military, except for one thing I don't get.
It is this whole don't ask, don't tell policy.
Now, it was about 28 degrees where I was talking, and there were
maybe a couple thousand troops. Most of them were standing, some were
in the bleachers. This was like 3 hours into the show, but they were
just loving the show.
I said: But there's one thing I don't understand. It is this don't
ask, don't tell policy. We all know that brave gay men and women have
served in our country's uniform throughout its history, and yet we have
this policy. Take, for example, General Smith.
I then pointed to the commander of the base.
I said: Now, here is one of the bravest men ever in the history of
our country
[[Page S7254]]
to don our Nation's uniform in battle, and yet he is one of the gayest
men I have ever met.
And they started laughing and cheering.
I said: Now, why should General Smith have to stay in the closet when
he is such a great leader? General Smith, stand up and wave.
He got up and waved, and everyone cheered. And in the bleachers there
was a group of women soldiers who cheered extra loudly and waved at
him, and he waved back at them.
At the very end of the show, we sang ``American Soldier'' by Toby
Keith.
I don't know if you know that song. It is a beautiful song. I will
always remember while doing the USO tours seeing soldiers with their
arms around each other crying and singing: I don't do it for the money.
I've got bills that I can't pay.
At the end of the show, the general came up and gave me this
beautiful frame with an American flag that had flown over the base. He
gave it to every member of our troop. When he gave it to me, he said,
``Al, keep telling those don't ask don't tell jokes. I think you may
have some fans up there.'' And he pointed at those women. Later, those
women came up to me and said, ``We are gay.'' And I think everybody
knew it.
This was in 2006 when it was really hard for the military to recruit
people, so they gave waivers out at that time. They gave waivers--moral
waivers. They gave waivers for people who didn't do as well in school
or didn't graduate from school. I swear, if you asked every man and
woman on that base: Who would you rather have standing to your right
and left, that gay man or that gay woman who has been serving with you
for the last year or somebody who comes in here with a moral waiver--
and many of those troops who had moral waivers served very honorably
and bravely--or someone with a cognitive waiver--and many of those
flourished in the military--they would say: I want that gay soldier,
that lesbian soldier, who I know has been on my right and on my left.
All gay and lesbian servicemembers want is to be able to serve.
Instead, people are getting kicked out of the military--people who
don't need any kind of conduct waiver, people who don't need standards
lowered for them in order to serve, people who are patriotic and
courageous and who have vital, irreplaceable skills.
What is more, the evidence is clear from other countries that have
allowed gay and lesbian citizens to serve openly in their military--and
Susan Collins spoke about this today. That evidence says this will not
be a problem. Ask the Israelis, ask the Canadians, and ask the British.
They have all successfully implemented open service.
But it is not only that the military is ready for this change; don't
ask, don't tell is just costly for the military. Thousands of willing
and capable Americans with needed skills have been kicked out of the
military because of this foolish policy--and this policy alone. These
are soldiers, airmen, and sailors in whom we have invested time and
training. We cannot afford to lose dedicated personnel with critical
skills when we are engaged in two wars.
On top of that, do we want our military officers spending valuable
time and resources investigating and kicking troops out of the military
for being gay?
The argument offered by some opponents is that this legislation goes
back on the promise to take into account the comprehensive review being
conducted by the Pentagon, but that is just a canard.
Let me remind you what Secretary Gates said about the review when he
testified before the Armed Services Committee back in February.
Secretary Gates said:
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.
Not whether, but how. That process is going forward, and the
provision in this bill repealing the flawed don't ask, don't tell
policy does nothing to interfere with the Pentagon's process. All the
provision does is repeal the existing law. It does not tell the
Department of Defense how to implement the repeal.
What is more, the repeal itself doesn't even go into effect until
after the Pentagon's comprehensive review is complete and the
President, Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff have certified that the Department of Defense has prepared the
necessary policies and regulations for implementation. They must also
certify that the implementation is consistent with military readiness
and effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention.
To be honest, I am not fully satisfied with that compromise. I wanted
a moratorium on discharges. But that is the compromise, and it doesn't
undercut the Pentagon's review in any way.
Don't ask, don't tell makes no sense. It is foolish, it is unjust,
and we must end it. The country is ready, the military is ready, and it
is the right thing to do. I urge all of my colleagues to stand for
equality and for common sense and to stand for our troops. It is long
past time to end don't ask, don't tell. We will be proud that we did.
Let me turn to the DREAM Act, which also would have come up if we had
been able to get cloture and move to the Defense authorization bill.
Minnesota is what it is today because we welcomed immigrants with
open arms. We welcomed the Swedes, who first tilled our fields and
built our railroads. We welcomed the Norwegians, who thrived in our
lumber industry and founded choirs that remain the best in the world
today. We welcomed the Danes, who made our State a leader in dairy
farming. We welcomed the Germans, the Finns, the Poles, and the Czechs.
In fact, from the time we were admitted to the Union in 1858 until
1890, no less than one-third of Minnesotans were born abroad. Today,
most of the people we welcome don't come from Europe. They don't speak
Swedish or German. They speak Spanish or Hmong or Somali, and they are
not one-third of our population. Just 7 percent of Minnesotans were
born abroad. So there are far fewer immigrants in Minnesota by
percentage. Mr. President, let me tell you, these folks work just as
hard and they show just as much promise.
I rise to speak in support of the DREAM Act because just by passing
this law we can do something remarkable to help those Minnesotans--at
least some of them. This is a group of young people who were brought
here by their parents. They were raised as Americans and, for the most
part, speak English just like you and I. But because their parents made
a mistake, because their parents broke the law and entered the country
illegally, or overstayed a visa, these kids are stuck. They can't go to
college. They can't get jobs. They can't join our military. They are
out of luck, and our society is going to pay for it.
The DREAM Act would allow these students to reenter society, to come
out of the shadows of society to study or to serve in our country's
military.
I want to put faces to the young people of Minnesota who would
benefit from the DREAM Act. I am going to change their names to protect
their identity.
There is a young man named Daniel. Daniel came to the United States
from Colombia when he was 8. He grew up in the suburbs, and he ran
varsity track and cross-country for his high school. Since he couldn't
get a driver's license, he took a 2-hour bus ride every day just to get
to classes at Normandale Community College. In his second year,
Daniel's father died, leaving Daniel and his mother without any income.
Daniel almost dropped out, but he didn't. Instead, he became the
first member of his family to graduate from college, with dual
associate degrees in education and computer science--both with honors.
Daniel is now at the University of Minnesota. He is trying to get his
bachelor's degree. But since he can't work, he can't afford to attend
school full time. So every semester, Daniel saves up all of his money
to take just one class. He is completing his bachelor's one class at a
time.
There is another remarkable young Minnesotan, Javier, who came to
this country at the age of 15. He enrolled in St. Paul High School and
quickly learned English, and by his senior year was taking advanced
placement and college courses and volunteering at the State capitol. He
even started to like the weather in Minnesota.
Today, Javier is an elected leader of student government at a college
in our
[[Page S7255]]
State. He has become a role model not just for immigrants but for all
his fellow students. Javier wants to dedicate his career to improving
our educational system. But because of the decision his parents made,
he can't.
I get letters from students like these all the time. Many of them are
just as talented, and they all ask me for the same thing: the
opportunity to work hard for this country. Let me repeat that: They
only ask for the opportunity to work hard for this country.
Another young woman wrote me to ask:
We do not want welfare or any money. We are not asking for
immunity to the law. We are only asking for a chance to come
out to the light and live like any other person.
There are a lot of reasons we should help them. The first reason is
that it is the smart thing to do. Some of my colleagues have stood here
and said they couldn't believe the DREAM Act might be included in the
Defense authorization bill.
In fact, the Defense Department has supported the DREAM Act since the
Bush administration. This bill is actually a part of our Nation's
strategic defense plan--hence, the Defense authorization bill. It will
incentivize and reward students to wear our Nation's uniform, and our
Nation will be safer because of it.
Here is another reason this is smart. We don't want kids like Javier
doing dishes. We don't want kids like Daniel taking 10 years to get
their bachelor's degree. We want them studying, contributing to our
economy, and serving in our military. But there is a far more important
reason we should pass the DREAM Act, and that is because it is the
right thing to do.
Mr. President, there is a passage in Leviticus--a book that appears
in both the Old Testament and the Torah--which I think is appropriate.
Leviticus is a book of laws. It is said to describe God's covenant with
the Israelites. This is chapter 19, verse 33:
When the foreigner resides with you in your land, you shall
not oppress the foreigner. The foreigner who resides with you
shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the
foreigner as yourself, for you were foreigners in the land of
Egypt.
Mr. President, these are children, and we need to help them. They
have learned in our schools, they have played with our kids, and they
want to serve our country. We just need to give them a chance.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it is clear from the debate on the Defense
bill and the vote that was held a bit ago that this is a partisan time
for our Nation. I come to the floor this afternoon to talk about an
issue that is not at all partisan; that is, the question of doing
public business in public.
When you say those words--``doing public business in public''--people
are almost flabbergasted when they are told that, regrettably, much of
the important decisionmaking in the Senate is not done with that level
of public accountability and public transparency. That is because of
what are known as secret holds where one Senator--just one--in a
completely anonymous fashion, can block a bill or a nomination from
even coming to light, from even being heard in the Senate.
For years now, there has been a bipartisan effort to change this
procedure, to require that all Senators be held accountable. Senator
Grassley and I have been involved in this effort in a bipartisan way
for over a dozen years--for a dozen years--trying every way we could.
We established the principle that the Senate would do public business
in public, and if a Senator wanted to object to a bill or a nomination,
they would have to be publicly accountable.
For years now, the defenders of secrecy, the defenders of a system
without transparency and accountability look for one dodge or another.
But our bipartisan group--on the other side of the aisle, Senator
Grassley, of course, the champion, Senator Collins, Senator Inhofe, a
very significant bipartisan group; over on our side of the aisle, and
particularly appreciative, is Senator McCaskill, who has done such hard
work on the principle of establishing open accountability; my colleague
from the Pacific Northwest, Senator Murray, an influential member of
the Rules Committee, want this level of public accountability. It has
been a big bipartisan group, and we seek to finally change this
procedure through an amendment that would have been possible under the
Defense authorization bill.
It was said in the course of this discussion that a bipartisan effort
to end secret holds through an amendment to the Defense authorization
bill is ``a corruption of the process and procedures of the Senate if
ever there was one.'' I believe the use of secret holds and not a
bipartisan effort to end them is the real corruption of the procedures
of the Senate.
Secret holds cannot be found anywhere in the U.S. Constitution or
anywhere in the Senate rules. We have had a considerable debate over
the last few months about the Constitution, our reverence for this
sacred document. Secret holds are nowhere in the Constitution and
nowhere in the Senate rules. Yet in this Congress alone, they have been
used to block what seems to be dozens of qualified nominees. I point
out, this has gone on for years and years on both sides of the aisle.
That is the point Senator Grassley and I have emphasized for over a
decade: that this is an area of abuse where we have seen both sides of
the aisle use the secret processes to the detriment of the public
interest.
The real corruption of the process, in my view, is the way secret
holds have been used to block the Senate from acting on numerous
nominations and pieces of legislation without any accountability to the
public. That is why I believe it ought to be possible to debate a
bipartisan amendment, to do public business in public to end these
secret holds.
The reason it needs to be done now is because past efforts to ban
these secret procedures have been blocked from getting a vote. This has
happened five times in just the past few months.
In the course of the debate as well, there was a discussion about
what our bipartisan effort--to do public business in public--has to do
with national security. The answer is: a great deal.
For example, earlier this year, one of our colleagues secretly placed
a blanket hold on 70 nominations to critical positions in the Federal
Government that were pending before the Senate. These nominations
included nominees to positions in the Defense Department and the State
Department. The Senator who secretly held up those 70 nominees said he
was doing it to address national security concerns.
Let me repeat that. We had 70 nominees under a blanket hold being
held up from even an open debate to address national security concerns.
It turned out that this particular Senator was concerned about a
dispute about the Defense Department's contracting practices and an
earmark for a counterterrorism center in the Senator's home State. This
one example shows that secret holds have been used, and certainly the
question of whether they have been abused, to hold up dozens of
qualified nominees over defense and national security issues.
This is only one example. Even today, there is at least one nominee
for a national security position whose nomination is secretly being
held up. No one knows who has the hold or why it has been placed.
I come back to the connection, first, that changing these Senate
procedures so public business is done in public is fundamental to all
the operations of the Senate and certainly our accountability to the
American people. But it has a direct link because of the examples I
have cited this afternoon to the future of national security policy in
our country.
The continued use of secret holds is an abuse of secrecy by the
Senate, and there is no better time to end this undemocratic process
than through an amendment to the Defense bill. With colleagues on both
sides of the aisle determined, finally, to get this done, I believe we
will get it done when we get an open debate.
Our democracy and our national security are weakened when secrecy is
abused. I very much appreciate the opportunity this afternoon to
highlight a number of key points in this discussion. First, this has
absolutely nothing to do with partisanship. Second, it is absolutely
key to the fundamental accountability of the Senate to the American
people to end this process of secrecy and of all Senators held
accountable. Finally, this has a direct
[[Page S7256]]
connection to matters of national security because in so many
instances, these secret holds have kept appointments to key national
security positions from being open to debate and scrutiny in the
Senate.
At the end of the day, there are a lot of issues we face in the
Senate that are hard to explain, that are complicated, and they are
hard for folks to follow at home. What is not hard to explain is why it
is so important to do public business in public.
At a time when the American people are certainly voicing considerable
skepticism about the ways of Washington, this is a chance to show the
American people that the Senate is listening to them, that we share
their commitment to open government, to doing public business in
public. I hope the Senate will be able to change this offensive,
antidemocratic procedure that has been used way too long to keep the
American people from seeing the way the Senate operates.
I look forward to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle having
the debate on ending secret holds, doing public business in public. I
believe that when we get that vote, we will get a resounding vote to
finally close this dark chapter in the way the Senate does business and
bring some sunshine to the decisionmaking process in the Senate.
I yield the floor, and 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. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise to talk about the vote we had a
little while ago and the need to go to the Defense authorization bill.
To me it is unconscionable that, at a time in which the Nation is at
war, our Republican colleagues would vote lockstep, in uniformity, to
oppose going to the Defense authorization bill--for whatever the
reasons are, even though I do not find the reasons to be valid.
I think it is very clear that the majority leader said there would be
a host of amendments that would be offered once we went to the bill and
disposed of a few particular amendments that the majority leader was
going to offer, that are in every way germane to the Defense
authorization bill, more germane than the amendments that have been
offered in the past on extraneous matters by those who oppose
proceeding to the bill. They thought it was fitting and appropriate to
offer it on the Defense authorization bill. Yet, when you have
amendments that go to the very heart of how you recruit individuals for
the Armed Forces and how you allow individuals to serve in the Armed
Forces, that is not germane? Ridiculous.
What this is all about is an attempt once again to use the power of
the minority to obstruct the process of making sure this Congress is
moving forward and meeting its obligations to the American people, and
in this particular case to the Nation's collective security. Because
someone does not like an amendment to be offered doesn't mean they
should use their power simply to obstruct the whole process of
considering the Defense authorization bill. Clearly they would have the
opportunity to vote against any amendment they believed was not, in
their view, in line with their views or in the national interest, but
certainly not to stop the process.
What is it? I looked at Senator McConnell's consent offer. It is
interesting. His consent offer basically said you have to do a whole
bunch of amendments before you can do anything related to immigration.
First of all, the DREAM Act is in total focus on recruiting in the
United States. What does it say? It says young people who, by no fault
of their own, no choice of their own, were brought to this country and
do not have a legal status here, and are willing to fight and maybe die
for their country--because this is the country they know, this is the
country they believe is theirs, and they are willing to join the Armed
Forces of the United States and serve with honor and distinction and
risk their lives in defense of the country--if they did all of that,
then a couple of years down the line they would have a shot at becoming
a permanent resident of the United States, but their service to the
Nation would precede that.
Even those who say on the campaign trail ``we are for the DREAM
Act,'' even those who are cosponsors and say ``no, we are for the DREAM
Act,'' could not cast a vote to allow us to go to the Defense
authorization bill--which is much bigger than that--and then ultimately
permit an up-or-down vote on several of those amendments before we got
to a whole host of other amendments that Members are going to be able
to offer, under the guise, under the cloak of saying, ``Oh, no, we
opposed it because we were not going to have our opportunity, our
say,'' when clearly the majority leader said there would be a whole
host of amendments offered and clearly when amendments have been
offered in the past under Democratic majority and Democratic rule. So
the precedent there is that this particular bill has always had a wide
range of amendments--the hypocrisy of saying no, you can't have an
``immigration amendment'' even though that amendment deals with
recruiting people into the Armed Forces of this country.
The bottom line is we have had bill after bill debated in this Senate
having nothing to do with immigration and the other side of the aisle
has come forward with all types of amendments, immigration related, of
all sorts. Whether it was a bill about jobs and the economy, whether it
was a bill about health care, it doesn't matter--motherhood and apple
pie--we had immigration amendments.
Yet, when we have the opportunity to bolster the armed services of
the country and those who are willing to risk their lives to defend the
country, we are told, oh, no, that is inappropriate. That clearly is so
transparent that I hope the Nation understands, and particularly in
communities that were looking for the opportunity of the DREAM Act, to
have a vote on it, it is understood.
It is pretty amazing to me when I go to Walter Reed, and I have been
there in the past, or when I visited some of our troops in my travels
abroad and see young men and women there who are not citizens of the
United States yet. It is pretty amazing to me when I go to Walter Reed
and see them with both of their legs blown off in support of the
country they call their own, wearing the uniform of the United States,
that people question whether they love this country and are willing to
serve it. They rejoice when, after their service, they get to take an
oath and become citizens of this country. These are sacrifices which
the few have been called upon to make for the many who do not have to
go. There is a small universe who have gone to defend this Nation
compared to the large universe of all of us as Americans who get
defended by the men and women in uniform--it is a small percentage of
America. Yet, many of that percentage who wear the uniform and risk
their lives cannot call themselves a citizen. They are permanent
residents of the United States. They aspire to become citizens. But
they are not able to serve the country they call home.
It is fundamentally wrong, in my mind, to simply not allow a vote.
Yet not one Republican was willing to come forth and vote to proceed to
a debate and to consider amendments on the Defense authorization bill
simply because of an ideological view they hold as it relates to the
first two amendments that would have been up in a long line of
amendments. Imagine if Democrats had lockstep voted against the Defense
authorization bill at a time of war--imagine.
I see the majority leader moved to change his vote in order to be in
a position to reconsider. I hope we will have that opportunity. I hope
there will be some enlightenment into understanding that there will be
plenty of opportunities for all amendments. There will be a robust
debate. There will be the opportunity for up-or-down votes on the
amendments on both the DREAM Act--which, as I have said, is about
giving those young people an opportunity to serve their country, either
educationally and/or in the armed services of the country, and to have
to do so and perform before they get any relief--and, at the same time,
to let many already in the service of their country and performing
valiantly and
[[Page S7257]]
risking their life and limb be able to do so without hiding their own
person, who they are. Then we will go on to all the other amendments.
It is amazing to me that we have a lockstep vote to stop us from
proceeding to this legislation. I hope all those communities and others
who both care about the defense of the Nation and those who believe in
the dignity of an individual who is serving their country, who believe
in the opportunity to serve their country, will rise and their voices
will say no more filibustering, no more obstruction, no more ``no's,''
it is time to say yes to our country, it is time to say yes to our
defense, it is time to say yes to those individuals willing to serve.
Many others may not be willing to serve and we respect their choices.
But let's not stop those who are willing to serve, willing to wear the
uniform of the United States, willing to risk their lives, willing to
defend their country. The vote that was taken sends all the wrong
messages. It is, in fact, a shame.
I hope we will have an opportunity another time and that the lights
of some people will be able to turn on and we will have an opportunity
to make sure we move to a Defense authorization bill. As the Nation is
in the midst of winding down one war and is fully engaged in another
war, I hope we will have the opportunity for those who want to serve
their country to be able to do so and earn their way, in the process in
serving to have an opportunity to fully call America home, and for
those who are serving already, gallantly, who are serving with
distinction and courage and honor, not to have to hide who they are.
That is what is at stake. That is why it was so important to move
forward and that is why today's vote is one that is shameful, hopefully
one we can turn around.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, I had hoped we could begin consideration of
the annual National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, today but,
hopefully, we will consider it as our first business when we reconvene
after the election.
I filed three amendments that deserve serious consideration by the
Senate, two of them dealing with the New START treaty. It is important
to deal with these amendments before consideration of the treaty.
Amendments Nos. 4636 and 4638 deal with modernization of the U.S.
nuclear deterrent, which is directly related to the reductions called
for by the treaty; and, the Bilateral Consultative Commission, of which
much has been written concerning the implications for the Senate's
prerogatives in the treaty making function. Amendment No. 4637 deals
with a matter of great concern, China's reckless disregard for the
international nonproliferation regime. I will ask that the article,
``NSG Makes Little Headway at Meeting'' from the Arms Control
Association Web site be printed in the Record.
Regarding amendments Nos. 4636 and 4638, I will first briefly discuss
amendment No. 4636 concerning START and modernization of the U.S.
nuclear deterrent. In section 1251 of the fiscal year 2010 National
Defense Authorization Act, the administration was required to provide a
comprehensive plan for the nuclear weapons stockpile, nuclear weapons
complex and delivery platforms. The report--hereinafter the 1251 Plan--
was delivered to the Senate with the new START treaty on May 13, 2010.
While the 1251 Plan identified certain administration proposals to
maintain and modernize our nuclear deterrent, it became quickly
apparent that the plan, prepared on a tight schedule, did not provide a
fully detailed picture of what is needed to modernize the U.S. nuclear
deterrent and how much it will cost. Of course, additional decisions
and revised budget estimates will continue to be made over the next
decade of the 1251 Plan's scope. That is why the 1251 Plan and the
corresponding budget will require regular updating--a point often
repeated by the Directors of the national nuclear weapons laboratories.
As Dr. George Miller, Director of Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, testified:
It is important to note that the nature of NNSA's work
requires program flexibility because technical issues arise
in the stockpile and requirements evolve. The scope of work
and budgets will need to be correspondingly adjusted. Annual
updates . . . could provide a mechanism to outline the
program's funding requirements and projections.
My amendment No. 4636 codifies that recommendation and resolves the
issues of evolving requirements and costs by requiring the President to
provide a detailed update to the 1251 Plan report annually, for the
duration of the new START treaty, describing revisions or adjustments
to the plan as well as progress on satisfying the requirements of
section 1251. Reductions in the nuclear force posture are tied to the
submission of that update. As the Secretary of Defense has stated,
there are 7 years to implement the treaty reductions; thus, a 1-year
notice-and-wait requirement should not cause any difficulty.
Additionally, the unbiased input of the directors of the NNSA
laboratories and facilities will accompany the report as validation
that adequate resources are being provided by the administration in
support of sustainment and modernization activities. This is quite
similar to the annual stockpile assessments as those familiar with that
process will recognize.
This amendment fosters improved project management, a detailed
commitment to sustaining the U.S. nuclear deterrent, and reflects
strong bi-partisan support for nuclear weapon complex modernization.
I appreciate the broad support expressed for modernization. As
Secretary Gates stated in his October 2008 Carnegie Endowment speech:
[t]o be blunt, there is absolutely no way we can maintain a
credible deterrent and reduce the number of weapons in our
stockpile without either resorting to testing our stockpile
or pursuing a modernization program.
Concerning amendment No. 4638, the purpose is equally clear: to
maintain the role of the Senate in treaty making. The Bilateral
Consultative Commission authority is very broad. As Jack Goldsmith and
Jeremy Rabkin observed in an August 4 Washington Post op-ed piece,
``New START Treaty could erode Senate's foreign policy role'':
This treaty . . . does, however, create a Bilateral
Consultative Commission with power to approve `additional
measures as may be necessary to improve the viability and
effectiveness of the treaty.' The U.S. and Russian executive
branches can implement these measures and thus amend U.S.
treaty obligations--without returning to the U.S. Senate or
the Russian Duma.
The time to deal with this concern is now. The Lugar Resolution of
Ratification approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee makes a
genuine effort to address concerns; I hope to work with the ranking
member to further improve his Resolution. But more can and should be
done in binding legislative language, such as my amendment. These
provisions are essential if we are interested in protecting the
Senate's constitutional role and our missile defense and conventional
prompt global strike capabilities.
As Messrs. Goldsmith and Rabkin observed:
If the administration does have a problem with them, the
Senate should worry--about the commission's power to limit
missile defense, the executive's attempt to limit the
Senate's constitutional role in the treaty process, or both.
I am pleased to have the support of Senator Sessions, the ranking
member on the Senate Judiciary Committee and a senior member of the
Senate Armed Services Committee, who has cosponsored this amendment. I
ask unanimous consent that the Goldsmith-Rabkin article be printed in
the Record in addition to the article from the Arms Control
Association.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From Arms Control Association]
NSG Makes Little Headway at Meeting
(By Daniel Horner)
The Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) last month concluded its
annual plenary meeting with little apparent progress on two
high-profile issues, the potential sale of two reactors from
China to Pakistan and the adoption of more-stringent rules
for sensitive nuclear exports.
The Chinese-Pakistani deal was not on the formal agenda for
the meeting in Christchurch, New Zealand, but sources from
participating governments said the matter was discussed.
The group's June 25 public statement at the end of the
meeting does not specifically mention the discussions, but it
says that the NSG ``took note of briefings on developments
concerning non-NSG states. It agreed on the value of ongoing
consultation and transparency.''
The planned Chinese sale is an issue for the NSG because
the group's guidelines do not
[[Page S7258]]
allow the sale of nuclear goods such as reactors and fuel to
countries that do not accept International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) safeguards on all their nuclear facilities.
Pakistan does not have these so-called full-scope safeguards.
When China joined the NSG in 2004, it had already built a
power reactor at Pakistan's Chashma site. It claimed at the
time that, under the NSG's ``grandfather'' provisions, it was
entitled to build a second reactor, on the grounds that the
second project was covered in its existing agreement with
Pakistan. According to several accounts, the group agreed
that the second reactor would be allowable under the
grandfather provision but that subsequent power reactor sales
would not.
In the weeks before the June 21-25 Christchurch meeting,
the U.S. government said the sale of reactors beyond Chashma-
1 and -2 would be ``inconsistent with NSG guidelines and
China's commitments to the NSG.'' (See ACT, June 2010.)
In its public statements, China has responded to questions
about the deal in general terms. At a June 24 press
conference, Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said, ``China
and Pakistan, following the principle of equality and mutual
benefit, have been cooperating on nuclear energy for civilian
use. Our cooperation is consistent with the two countries'
respective international obligations, entirely for peaceful
purpose[s] and subject to IAEA safeguard[s] and
supervision.''
It it not clear what additional information China provided
at the Christchurch meeting. According to a European
diplomat, the discussion was ``not confrontational.''
Clarification Sought
In a June 30 e-mail to Arms Control Today, a U.S.
Department of State official said, ``We are still waiting for
more information from China to clarify China's intended
cooperation with Pakistan, in light of China's NSG
commitments.''
According to the official, ``The United States has
reiterated concern that the transfer of new reactors at
Chasma appears to extend beyond cooperation that was
`grandfathered' when China was approved for membership in the
NSG. If not covered by the grandfather clause, such
cooperation would require a specific exception approved by
consensus of the NSG.''
In 2008 the NSG, led by the United States, granted an
exemption making India eligible to receive nuclear exports
from NSG members. Like Pakistan, India does not have full-
scope safeguards.
The NSG, which currently has 46 members, operates by
consensus. It is not a formal organization, and its export
guidelines are nonbinding. Before the 2008 NSG exemption,
Russia made and carried out deals with India for reactors and
fuel, justifying them on the basis of interpretations of the
NSG guidelines that other members considered overly
expansive.
Enrichment and Reprocessing
A long-standing issue for the NSG has been its effort to
adopt a more rigorous standard for exports relating to
uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing. Since 2004,
the group has been discussing a new, so-called criteria-based
set of guidelines for enrichment and reprocessing transfers,
under which recipients of these proliferation-sensitive
exports would have to meet a list of preset requirements. The
list drafted by the group includes adherence to the nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty, full-scope safeguards, and an
additional protocol, which gives the IAEA enhanced inspection
authority. However, the NSG members have not been able to
overcome certain states' objections to the proposal. Current
NSG guidelines simply call for members to exercise
``restraint'' with respect to enrichment and reprocessing
exports.
At the end of 2008, the suppliers appeared to be close to
an agreement (see ACT, December 2008), but since then they
have not been able to reach consensus. According to the
Christchurch public statement, ``Participating Governments
agreed to continue considering ways to further strengthen
guidelines dealing with the transfer of enrichment and
reprocessing technologies.''
In a June 27 e-mail to Arms Control Today, the European
diplomat said that ``while progress was made there was no
consensus'' on the matter. Before the meeting, observers said
the main objections were coming from South Africa and Turkey.
The diplomat declined to identify the sources of the
objections at the meeting but said, ``The delegations which
have had difficulties in the past continue to have
problems.''
Meanwhile, at their June 25-26 meeting in Muskoka, Canada,
the Group of Eight (G-8) industrialized countries extended
their policy to adopt on a national basis the proposed NSG
guidelines on enrichment and reprocessing transfers. The
leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the
United Kingdom, and the United States said in their summit
communique, ``We reiterate our commitment as found in
paragraph 8 of the L'Aquila Statement on Non-Proliferation.''
Paragraph 8 of the L'Aquila statement, issued at the July
2009 G-8 summit in Italy, said the eight countries would
implement as ``national policy'' for a year the draft NSG
guidelines on enrichment and reprocessing and urged the NSG
``to accelerate its work and swiftly reach consensus this
year to allow for global implementation of a strengthened
mechanism on transfers of enrichment and reprocessing
facilities, equipment, and technology.''
____
[From the Washington Post, Aug. 4, 2010]
New START Treaty Could Erode Senate's Foreign Policy Role
(By Jack Goldsmith and Jeremy Rabkin)
Critics of the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START)
warn that it may endanger the United States' capacity to go
forward with missile defense. But the treaty, Senate
consideration of which has been pushed back to the fall,
raises another concern. Consent to it as it stands will
further erode the Senate's constitutional role in American
foreign policy.
This treaty does not constrain future development of
missile defense (except in a few limited ways). It does,
however, create a Bilateral Consultative Commission with
power to approve ``additional measures as may be necessary to
improve the viability and effectiveness of the treaty.'' The
U.S. and Russian executive branches can implement these
measures and thus amend U.S. treaty obligations--without
returning to the U.S. Senate or the Russian Duma.
Could the commission constrain missile defense? It is
empowered to ``resolve questions related to the applicability
of provisions of the Treaty to a new kind of strategic
offensive arm.'' The treaty's preamble recognizes ``the
interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and
strategic defensive arms.'' The commission might have
jurisdiction over missile defense through this
interrelationship. Russia has already warned that it might
withdraw from the treaty if the United States develops
missile defenses. Limits on missile defense systems thus
might be ``necessary to improve the viability and
effectiveness of the Treaty.''
Supporters say the treaty allows the commission to make
only changes that, in the words of one State Department
official, ``do not affect substantive rights or obligations
under the Treaty.'' This assurance provides little comfort.
New START does not explain what counts as a ``substantive
right,'' and the commission, which is given very broad power
to interpret the treaty, will itself decide the issue.
It is true that the amendment procedure contemplated in the
new treaty is similar to one in the original START and that
amendment procedures of this sort have been embedded in arms
control agreements for decades. Also, the president has long
exercised an independent authority to make new international
agreements that implement treaties. Why should the Senate
care about this issue now?
One reason is that as treaty delegations of this sort have
expanded, and as more authority for making international
agreements is transferred to the executive branch and
international organizations, the cumulative effect of these
arrangements becomes increasingly hard to square with the
Senate's constitutional role in the treaty-making process
and, more generally, with separation of powers.
Some courts have begun to give credence to this concern. In
2006, the federal appellate court for the District of
Columbia declined to implement the ``adjustments'' that an
international organization had made to an environmental
treaty even though the political branches agreed to the
adjustment process. The court noted the ``significant debate
over the constitutionality of assigning lawmaking functions
to international bodies'' and held that treating the treaty
adjustments as law ``would raise serious constitutional
questions in light of the nondelegation doctrine, numerous
constitutional procedural requirements for making law, and
the separation of powers.''
Another reason is that courts often look to the practice
between the branches of government in determining
constitutional limits. If the Senate continually acquiesces
in delegating international lawmaking to the president and
international organizations, courts are unlikely to protect
senatorial power in the end. Moreover, arms control treaties
such as New START rarely come before courts.
In short, only the Senate can protect its constitutional
prerogatives.
One way for the Senate to do this would be to condition its
consent to the treaty on an interpretive ``understanding''
that the commission's amendment power extend only to
technical treaty matters and not to limitations on missile
defense. Understandings of this sort are common in U.S.
treaties. The Senate could also condition consent to the
treaty on a requirement that it be notified about
deliberations of this commission.
Such provisions would preserve the commission's core
authority while constraining it in ways that eliminate the
most serious constitutional objections. They would also lay
down a marker about the Senate's role in this context.
The State Department insists that ``there were no secret
deals made in connection with the New START Treaty; not on
missile defense or any other issue.'' If that is true, the
administration should have no problem with minor Senate
tweaks of this sort. If the administration does have a
problem with them, the Senate should worry--about the
commission's power to limit missile defense, the executive's
attempt to limit the Senate's constitutional role in the
treaty process, or both.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise today to express my profound
disappointment that we were unable to
[[Page S7259]]
proceed to the Defense authorization bill. First and foremost, this is
an important bill that provides our men and women in uniform with the
resources they so desperately require while they bravely fight
overseas. Day in and day out they make sacrifices to keep us safe, and
the fact that we were unable to proceed to a bill that provides them
not only with the equipment they need, but also provides for their
families, is extremely disheartening.
Not only does this bill provide necessary requirements for our armed
services, but it also contains landmark legislation that would finally
lead to the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. Today, my colleagues and
I, had a historic opportunity to put a stop to this discriminatory
policy, and the fact that the Republicans blocked the bill from being
debated is discouraging. The current policy actively discourages a
significant portion of our population that is willing, capable, and
able from serving in our military at a time when our Nation is at war
and needs our best and brightest to serve. We owe it to the gay and
lesbian community to repeal this law. I am confident that today's
military is ready for this change, and most importantly, it is the
right thing to do.
Since 1993, when don't ask, don't tell was implemented, over 14,000
men and women have been discharged from the service at a cost of over
$600 million to the American taxpayer. These gay and lesbian service
members, who are proud to serve in our military, and are often serving
in critical specialties, are being denied the opportunity to fight
based solely on their sexual orientation. We cannot afford to continue
to discharge these brave soldiers in whom we have invested time,
resources, and training. We cannot afford this policy monetarily, but
most importantly, we cannot afford this policy because it negatively
affects our national defense.
It has been estimated that approximately 48,000 gay and lesbians are
currently serving in today's military. That means that there are 48,000
men and women who on a daily basis are being forced to lie about who
they are so they can continue to serve their Nation proudly. These are
patriotic Americans who are willing to put their lives on the line in
defense of our country but are unable to do so openly, simply because
of who they are. Gay and lesbian service members fight, and die,
alongside their fellow troops. It is time we stop asking them to live a
lie.
I have travelled overseas many times and have met with our troops--
all kinds of men and women--first generation Americans and those with a
long family history of service, members of every race and religion,
and, yes, gays and lesbians. No matter what their religious background,
nationality, or sexual orientation they are all unmistakably proud to
be serving the United States of America. It makes no sense to me why we
would deny that right to serve to any American who is brave enough to
answer the call of duty.
As we forge ahead in the coming weeks, I urge my colleagues to fully
repeal don't ask, don't tell. The time to do so is now; we can afford
to wait no longer.
I yield the floor and 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. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, like many Americans, I am
frustrated with the gridlock in the Senate, and I am very concerned by
our dysfunctionality, witnessed once again here today. When we were
asked to lead on critical issues facing our men and women in uniform,
our troops--also tied to our national security and our international
leadership in the 21st century--the Senate has once again taken a pass,
has once again let politics obstruct our progress.
Coloradans sent me here to lead, like they sent the Presiding Officer
here from her great State of North Carolina, and to find solutions to
problems however vexing. I, for one, am increasingly tired of the
partisan wrangling that besets each and every issue.
This debate, like so many others we have attempted to have, was
derailed by obstructionism before it even began. Now, I realize some
will say they scuttled this critical Defense bill in part because the
majority leader announced he expected to have a vote on the DREAM Act,
which, by the way, would allow young, undocumented immigrants a chance
to attend college and serve in our military. They were brought here to
this country through no decision they made as very young people.
But I have to tell you, I think it was about more than just that. In
my humble opinion, the issues mattered far less than the politics.
There has been a concerted effort to prevent or stall debate on nearly
every major bill this year, and, sadly, a bill dealing with our troops
is not free from the same tactics.
There is no reason we should not have a debate on any issue, let
alone a vote, and the DREAM Act is no exception. I know the Presiding
Officer and I joined the Senate at the same time. We heard about how
the Senate is the world's greatest deliberative body. If you do not
deliberate, what does that make us?
I also know that repeal of don't ask, don't tell is a contentious
subject, and it has also been used as an excuse to sink this very
important bill. But, I have to tell you, I think this is an outdated,
discriminatory policy that undermines the strength of our military and
the basic fairness upon which our great Nation was built. At a time
when we are fighting two wars, we need every skilled servicemember we
have: airmen, mechanics, translators, and all the many other
specialties our military serve in.
Unlike what some on the other side of the aisle have claimed, the
language in this bill repealing don't ask, don't tell respects the
Pentagon's timeline and gives our military leaders flexibility to
implement repeal in a way that tracks with military standards and
guidelines. As Admiral Mullen testified before the Senate Armed
Services Committee--the Presiding Officer remembers what a powerful day
that was--he said repealing don't ask, don't tell is the ``right thing
to do.''
Unfortunately, political debate and disagreement has prevented us
from having this important discussion on how best to support our
troops, plus thwarted a serious discussion about numerous pressing
national security issues. I am disappointed in the partisanship, but I
have to tell you, I am even more disappointed in the disservice to the
men and women in uniform that today's inaction has caused.
Our American citizens, our constituents, our friends and neighbors
face difficult decisions in their lives every day, but many here in
Washington bristle at the notion that they face hard choices. They say
taking votes on certain issues will be too difficult, that the politics
are too tough, or that they cannot stomach the thought of losing. But
Americans have not run away from hard decisions in the past. What about
us? This place is a forum--or it should be a forum--where we can work
together.
But, today, with the Senate blocking this bill, I fear our national
security and our troops will suffer. Every year for nearly a half
century--I think accurately put, 49 years consecutively--Congress has
taken up and passed a bill that renews, in some cases reforms, and in
other cases replaces our defense policies.
This Defense authorization bill, like all those that came before it--
the previous 49 Defense authorization bills--is critically important.
It provides funding for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. It supports
our servicemembers who keep America safe by including fair pay and
benefits for our men and women in uniform.
Preventing this debate keeps us from pushing forward with this bill's
provisions to enhance our military's readiness, improve our
servicemembers' training, and upgrade equipment and resources to
succeed in combat. We are also leaving behind provisions in the bill to
strengthen our nonproliferation programs and enable the reduction of
our nuclear weapons stockpile while ensuring the stockpile has
continued reliability.
We are foregoing the crucial opportunity--I know the Presiding
Officer has believed this is very important as well--to increase the
Pentagon's use of alternative energy technologies and
[[Page S7260]]
fuels to improve the Department's efficiency and energy security.
The bill also includes so many important provisions for the health
and resiliency--both mental and physical--of our servicemembers and
their families. Specifically, it includes a provision I authored
extending health insurance for military families, enabling the children
of Active-Duty servicemembers and retirees to stay on their parents'
plans until the age of 26--similar to what we did in the Health Care
Reform Act for the civilian sector. Importantly, the bill provides
improved care for our wounded servicemembers and their families.
As part of a longer term effort to treat both the physical and the
unseen mental wounds of war, I have been reviewing the Army's report on
Health Promotion, Risk Reduction, and Suicide Prevention, which was
published earlier this summer. One passage particularly struck me:
In just six years, Soldiers experience the equivalent of a
lifetime when compared to their civilian counterparts.
In other words, at the age of 24, the average soldier has moved
multiple times, been deployed around the world, married and had
children, seen death, had financial and relationship problems, is
responsible for dozens of soldiers, and gets paid less than $40,000 a
year.
The lives of average soldiers bear no resemblance whatsoever to ours.
Their sacrifices are far beyond what many of us can imagine, and we
have demanded so much of them for so long. That is why I have continued
to focus my efforts on how we can help our brave service men and women
suffering from mental wounds when they come home. Fort Carson in
Colorado has had its share of difficulties addressing the needs of our
soldiers, but we are seeing real progress. I am particularly proud of
what Fort Carson has been doing in the way of providing behavioral
health care to soldiers not just when they get back home but also while
they are still on the battlefield.
That is the essence of Fort Carson's Mobile Behavioral Health Teams,
which embed credentialed behavioral health providers within a brigade
combat team, both during deployment and in garrison. Language I
authored in this bill encourages the Army to replicate this successful
program to help facilitate early identification and treatment of
behavioral health problems.
The bad news, again, is that this provision--and so many important
provisions in this bill--will not be debated today. It appears election
year partisanship has prevailed over the responsibility and the need to
provide for our men and women in uniform as they fight two wars.
Having said that, I do remain optimistic about our future, and I am
committed to working toward a new kind of politics, where we find
consensus amidst disagreement. I know Americans want their leaders to
tackle challenging problems and resolve the tough issues. That is what
America does. That is what Americans do. That is what we were hired to
do. So in that spirit, I will continue to reach out to all my
colleagues who wish to find common ground and call on others to let
this debate move forward in the coming weeks so support for our troops
is not held back any longer. Americans sent us here to do no less.
Madam President, I thank you for your attention. I thank you for your
service on the Armed Services Committee alongside me. With that, I note
the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). Without objection, it
is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I just completed a visit with the Republican
leader. There will be no more rollcall votes tonight.
I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEVIN. 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. LEVIN. Mr. President, ever since an act of horrific violence on a
bright blue morning 9 years ago, our Nation has been at war. At home
and abroad, this war has tested our Nation, tested our military
strength and our diplomatic skill, tested our resilience and our
courage. Over the last few months, I fear our Nation has been in danger
of failing one of these tests, a failure that would threaten our safety
and the freedoms we hold so dear.
At issue is a plan to build an Islamic community center a few blocks
away from the site of the attack on the World Trade Center and the
larger question of whether our Nation will embrace diversity or choose
a path of division. This is not just a question of doing the right
thing, although it is that. It is not just a question of preserving the
values that have made our Nation a beacon of freedom across the globe,
although it is certainly that too. This is also a question of whether
we will make our Nation safer by focusing on and extinguishing the
flames of hatred that spawned the 9/11 attacks or, on the other hand,
add fuel to the fire that threatens us.
There should be little doubt that religious intolerance has no place
in a nation built on the idea, as Thomas Jefferson once wrote, ``that
our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions.'' Our
history is filled with moments in which we struggle to live up to that
notion, in which Roman Catholics or Mormons or Jews or others found
themselves beset by religious intolerance and wondering if the ideals
set forth by our Founding Fathers would hold.
So it is in this case. American Muslims have built homes, raised
families, and run successful businesses in communities across our
country. They have been drawn here because of the belief, as one
prominent member of Michigan's Arab-American community recently wrote,
``that there is room in America for all cultural and religious
backgrounds.''
Well, that is the America in which they chose to build their lives.
It is the America we aspire to be, that we claim to be. We should ask
ourselves, if we would not object to a church or synagogue at that
location in Manhattan, how can we object to a Muslim place of worship
and remain true to our most fundamental principles?
Upholding the promise of our founding values should be reason enough
to resist anti-Muslim sentiment. But there are equally powerful reasons
that rely not on values but on simple common sense. The war that began
on September 11, 2001, is not only a war against terrorists but a war
to isolate those terrorists from broader Muslim society. We have seen
time and time again that when we stray from our values, it is not just
a moral failure but a national security failure. Our troops work every
day to keep weapons out of the hands of al-Qaida and its terrorists.
Yet, by indulging in intolerance, we hand al-Qaida a powerful
propaganda weapon, one to use to stoke hatred of us and to recruit the
terrorists who threaten our troops abroad and our citizens at home. We
have already seen in the violent and even deadly protests in
Afghanistan how anger can spawn anger and hatred and can inspire
hatred.
By threatening to burn holy texts or by holding an entire faith as
somehow responsible for the actions of its most fanatic members, Osama
bin Laden and his kind are given precisely the kind of clash of
civilizations they so desperately seek to create.
I was heartened by the words of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who said:
We would be untrue to the best part of ourselves--and who
we are as New Yorkers and Americans--if we said ``no'' to a
mosque in Lower Manhattan.
I am also encouraged by the religious leaders of many faiths across
our country who have stood up and said:
We support the rights of all Americans to worship in their
chosen place, through a climate of respect, dignity and
peace.
I am encouraged by the words of our commander in Afghanistan, GEN
David Petraeus, who powerfully pointed out that the acts of religious
intolerance are ``precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses'' to
direct hatred at our brave troops.
I am encouraged by the words of our President:
[[Page S7261]]
This is America and our commitment to religious freedom
must be unshakeable.
I am heartened, too, by the reaction in my home State, which is home
to a large, thriving, and valued community of Muslim Americans. The
Grand Rapids Press has editorialized that ``[a] Manhattan mosque would
be a powerful statement that the terrorists did not--and cannot--win.''
A columnist in the Detroit News wrote:
Ground zero would seem to be the perfect place to
demonstrate that religious tolerance is why so many flocked
to our shores in the first place, and remains a key block in
the foundation of our freedom.
A Detroit Free Press editorial reads:
It's not just about this being a mosque, but about the
religious freedom that we all hold dear, and that was such a
critical part of this country's founding.
Michigan civil and religious leaders of many faiths and backgrounds
have invoked our most closely held beliefs and called on the Nation to
speak and act in harmony with those beliefs. The power of those beliefs
represents a powerful tool against the hatred that inspired 9/11.
The founding principles of our Nation call on us to stand with voices
of tolerance and reason. Those who have given their all in the defense
of those principles would surely hope that we would resist the calls to
hatred and violence. Our moral authority depends on that. Preservation
of the freedom that defines us depends on that. Our safety depends on
that. I commend those who have spoken for tolerance and diversity, who
have resisted anger and intolerance, and who in doing so have upheld
our most important values and have made our Nation safer.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and 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. FRANKEN. 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. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up
to 6 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
World Alzheimer's Day
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the Minnesotans and
their families affected by Alzheimer's disease and recognize September
21 as World Alzheimer's Day. Today, over 94,000 Minnesotans and 5
million Americans are living with Alzheimer's disease. These are
epidemic numbers, and the toll on our families and communities is
devastating. Alzheimer's is the seventh leading cause of death and
costs our Nation $172 billion a year.
But today, on World Alzheimer's Day, we have reason to be hopeful. On
this day, Alzheimer's is getting the attention it deserves. Take the
first ever Alzheimer's Breakthrough Ride as an example. For the last 66
days, Alzheimer's researchers from across the country biked hundreds of
miles to spread awareness about Alzheimer's. Today, these researchers
arrived in Washington to demand that the fight against Alzheimer's be
made a national priority.
I am proud to say that among the researchers on the ride is Minnesota
doctor Michael Walters of the University of Minnesota's Grossman Center
for Memory Research and Care. Dr. Walters rode from Madison, WI, to
Chicago, IL, to raise awareness about Alzheimer's. He is here in
Washington to demand that we in Congress provide the funding needed to
make real progress against this disease. And we need real progress.
After decades of research, there is still no effective treatment and no
way to prevent or cure Alzheimer's. That is why my colleague from
Maryland, Senator Mikulski, has put forth a bill to make Alzheimer's
research a national priority. S. 1492, the Alzheimer's Breakthrough
Act, would dramatically increase funding for Alzheimer's research at
the National Institutes of Health. Under this bill, the NIH would also
focus on prevention and early detection of the disease--two
understudied areas that could drastically improve the health of
millions of Americans. That is why I am proud to have cosponsored the
Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act.
The bill puts us one step closer to finding a cure and gives hope to
families affected by Alzheimer's. One such family is the Shapiros of
Edina, MN. In 2006, Alan Shapiro was diagnosed with Alzheimer's
disease. Alan's father, uncle, and grandfather have all died of
Alzheimer's, and Alan's brother Robert is currently living with the
disease as well. Right now, Alan is in the midstage of his disease and
needs round-the-clock supervision. His wife Carol spends her days
caring for him so they can continue to live at home together. In
addition to caregiving, Carol also takes care of all the things Alan
used to do, such as maintaining the house. While Carol is involved with
local sport groups, she struggles just to stay afloat.
Like the Shapiros, many families affected by Alzheimer's will tell
you that their needs are not being met. It is not always clear where to
turn for help. Sometimes a doctor can tell you about a clinical trial
or a friend can offer to do the grocery shopping, but unfortunately it
is never really enough. Families such as the Shapiros need help
planning for the future, they need help navigating complicated
insurance policies, and they need help finding high-quality, long-term
care services and respite care. Fortunately for families in need of
this kind of help, there is a Federal law called the Older Americans
Act. The Older Americans Act provides seniors and families affected by
Alzheimer's with tools to create a long-term care plan, and it can help
caregivers, such as Carol Shapiro, find services for their loved ones.
For example, in Minnesota, the Older Americans Act funds the Senior
Linkage Line. Families can call the line and get information about
services for people with Alzheimer's available in their community.
Because of limited funding, even resources such as the Senior Linkage
Line are not always well known or able to serve everyone who needs them
the most. That is why it is important to take a close look at the Older
Americans Act when it is up for reauthorization next year. It is
critical that the Older Americans Act receive robust funding so
families affected by Alzheimer's know about the resources that are
available to them. It is also important that we strengthen the law to
ensure that people with Alzheimer's have access to high-quality, long-
term care services and that States have the resources to protect people
with Alzheimer's who receive care at home.
Today, on World Alzheimer's Day, I am committed to making support for
families affected by Alzheimer's a national priority. As a member of
the HELP Committee and the Special Committee on Aging, I will be
fighting for the needs of Minnesotans affected by Alzheimer's disease
during the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act. I will be a
strong supporter of Alzheimer's research so real progress can be made
to stop this disease. I urge my colleagues to do the same. I ask that
they take this important day to remember the families, such as the
Shapiros, living in their home States.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
In Praise of Michelle O'Neill
Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I rise again to honor one of our Nation's
great Federal employees. As my colleagues know, I have been coming to
the floor since last May to deliver a series of weekly speeches
recognizing Federal employees' contributions to this country in some
small way. When I was appointed to the Senate, I saw this as an
opportunity to draw attention to the important work performed each day
by some of America's hardest workers. They work for all of us. They
choose careers in public service not because they will be paid more,
because they will not, or because it is an easy job, because it
certainly is not; they do it for love of their country and for a sense
of duty. They do it because there are inherently government tasks we as
a nation expect to be performed and because every one of us deserves
the most highly skilled and hardest working public servants to carry
them out.
I have been honoring great Federal employees from this desk for the
past 16 months. It has been one of the highlights of my time in the
Senate. Now I rise to honor a great Federal employee
[[Page S7262]]
for the last time. I am proud to share that my honoree today is my
100th great Federal employee, a talented individual who spent two
decades reducing trade barriers for American goods.
Michelle O'Neill has served as Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for
International Trade since 2005. In this role, Michelle supervises the
day-to-day operations of the International Trade Administration, or
ITA. The ITA has over 2,400 employees and an operating budget of over
$400 million. Its mission is to promote American exports and ensure
fair access to overseas markets for our businesses.
Michelle, who holds a bachelor's degree from Sweet Briar College in
Virginia and a master's degree from the Lyndon B. Johnson School of
Public Affairs at the University of Texas, first came to the Department
of Commerce in 1983 as an intern. Over the course of her career, she
has served under 5 administrations and 11 Secretaries of Commerce. She
has traveled to over 40 countries to carry out her work.
From a family with a long history of public service, Michelle knew
very early that she wanted to pursue a career in government. Born on a
military base, Michelle has said that ``public service is part of my
DNA; I have always found helping others, being part of something bigger
than myself, to be very rewarding.'' Throughout her career at the ITA,
she has done just that--helping Americans trade fairly across borders
and pursue commerce, which has always been a vehicle for achieving the
American dream. Michelle has consistently placed her work above her own
advancement and taken risks for the sake of carrying out the ITA's core
mission.
Michelle served oversees from 1995 to 1998 as the commercial attache
to our mission to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development, OECD. Before that assignment, she worked as executive
assistant to the Deputy Under Secretary for International Trade--the
position Michelle now holds. In 1995, she served as a Brookings
legislative fellow with the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade in the
House of Representatives and from 1990 to 1991 was detailed to the
Office of Policy Development in the White House.
One of her major achievements at the ITA has been resolving a major
China market access barrier, for which she won the Department's Silver
Medal. She also has been praised for her role in developing an online
portal for government export assistance, called export.gov. Michelle
was also awarded the William A. Jump Award for exemplary service in
public administration. This June, she was honored as Outstanding Woman
of the Year by the Association of Women in International Trade.
Today, Michelle is part of the ITA's leadership team. The American
people are fortunate to have her talents and experience at work for
them. She joins the 99 other outstanding public servants whom I have
honored weekly throughout my term. Together, they are my 100 great
Federal employees--not that these are all the great employees, but I
think you see a mosaic which represents all of our Federal employees.
I hope to come to the floor next week to speak about a special group
of outstanding Federal employees, but this week's honoree, Michelle
O'Neill, is the final individual whose story I will share in this
series. I hope my colleagues in the Senate and all Americans will join
me in thanking her and all those who work at the International Trade
Administration for their service to our Nation. They are all truly
great Federal employees.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and 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. 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.
____________________