[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 162 (Thursday, December 9, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8680-S8683]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, discrimination has never served America very 
well. When it applies to those who serve America in the Armed Forces, 
it is both disgraceful and counterproductive.
  The theory behind don't ask, don't tell is a thing that happened way 
in the past. The theory behind this should be a thing of the past, and 
we should put the policy behind us. It is obsolete, it is embarrassing, 
and it weakens our military and offends the very values we ask our 
troops to defend. We need to match our policy with our principle and 
finally say that in the United States, everyone who steps up to serve 
our country should be welcomed. That is the only argument that is right 
and it should be enough.

[[Page S8681]]

  That is not the only reason we should repeal it. Repealing it will 
make our military stronger. It doesn't make America safer to discharge 
troops with critically needed skills, and that is exactly what has 
happened. This policy is responsible for the discharge of about 14,000 
highly qualified service men and women--people whom we have spent 
millions of dollars training--and we never will know how many wanted to 
sign up but stayed away because of don't ask, don't tell. It doesn't 
make us stronger to limit military readiness of an all-volunteer force. 
Don't ask, don't tell doesn't help morale; it hurts morale.
  The other side may feel passionately that our military should 
sanction discrimination based on sexual orientation, but they are 
clearly in the minority and they have run out of excuses. The Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff supports repealing it. So does the 
Secretary of Defense. The vast majority of the military say that it 
would not oppose repeal. The majority of Americans support repealing it 
too. There is simply no evidence and no justification--legal, military, 
or otherwise--for keeping this policy in place. There is no reason to 
keep America's citizens from fighting for a country they love because 
of whom they love.
  The next Speaker of the House has asked why we would get into this 
debate. He said, Why should we get into this debate during a time of 
two wars and ongoing security concerns? I think wartime is exactly the 
right time to do everything we can to strengthen our military. It 
couldn't be a better time.
  What opponents of don't ask, don't tell don't want to ask is what 
this policy tells us about equality between our principle and our 
practice. We can no longer ask our troops to die for a flag that 
represents justice and ask them to be false to themselves while they do 
it.
  The other side knows it doesn't have the votes to take this repeal 
out of the Defense Authorization Act, so they have been holding up this 
bill for a long time--for months. And the latest--the Chair certainly 
has known about it--is a letter from 42 Senators in a further effort to 
stall this legislation, saying we have to finish the tax bill and we 
have to finish the spending bill before you can do anything of a 
legislative nature. What kind of sense is that, when we are so crammed 
with things to do? With all the things we have to do, why would they do 
that, other than simply trying to avoid it, and they have been doing it 
for a long time. We tried every possible way to move forward. When they 
refuse to debate it, they also hold up the other good and important, 
urgently needed parts of the bill. It is not only don't ask, don't 
tell.
  The bill before us contains an across-the-board pay raise for all of 
the members of the military. More than that, we authorized over 35 
different bonuses and special pay incentives that our troops depend on 
to make ends meet. Let me be clear: Failure to pass this bill means our 
troops will lose these benefits.
  The chairman of the Armed Services Committee was on the floor today 
saying if we don't do it today, we can't do it. In fact, everyone knows 
they have stalled this so long, they have stalled this so long that 
meeting cloture--the average time for a conference committee on this 
bill is 70 days--70 days; not 7, 70 days.
  The bill also contains provisions that would expand health care for 
troops and their families and significantly enhance mental health care 
for servicemembers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. It would fund 
critical troop protection needs such as MRAPs and up-armored humvees, 
which are desperately needed on the battlefield. It would support 
critical missions in Afghanistan, including expanding intelligence 
collection efforts, disrupting Taliban finances, and building the 
Afghan National Army so that Afghanistan can take responsibility for 
its own security. These are not minor or unimportant issues. These are 
life-and-death matters for real Americans risking their lives for us, 
for our defense. We ask our troops to trust us and fight for us and be 
brave enough to stand in the line of fire. When we send our troops into 
battle, we do so because we believe strongly that we stand on the right 
side of history. We have to believe that, because we know the 
consequences of war and the terrible burdens it carries.
  Not far from here--I hope the Presiding Officer has the opportunity 
to see this during his tenure here in the Senate--is the Congressional 
Cemetery. It is worth going and seeing. It is 2 miles southeast of 
where we stand right now on the banks of the Anacostia River. It is a 
final resting place of veterans of every war this Nation has ever 
fought. It is not Arlington. It is the Congressional Cemetery. It is 
also where 19 U.S. Senators, more than 70 Congressmen, a former Speaker 
of the House, and a former Vice President are buried. One tombstone 
there belongs to an Air Force sergeant who fought in Vietnam. He became 
famous shortly after that war ended when he tried to be in the military 
and out of the closet at the same time.
  He lost that fight. His tombstone at Congressional Cemetery reads as 
follows:

       When I was in the military, they gave me a medal for 
     killing two men and a discharge for loving one.

  America is better than that. When it comes to equality in the 
military, we know which side is the right side of history. The only 
question is whether we are brave enough to stand there.
  In a few moments, I will move to reconsider the motion to proceed to 
this bill. This legislation is critical for our troops, and it is 
unconscionable to leave here without passing it. I bent over backward 
to find a way to get this bill done. It is clear that Republicans--a 
few of them--don't want to vote on repealing don't ask, don't tell. 
They are all doing what they can to stand in the way of the bill. They 
want to block a vote on this issue at all costs, even if it means we do 
not pass the Defense authorization bill for the first time in 48 years, 
even if it means our troops don't get the funding and protections they 
need.
  What we have gone through to try to get this bill on the floor 
reminds me of a story--it is not a story; it is an experience I had as 
a boy. I don't know how old I was. Let's say I was about 11. As 
everyone knows now, I was born in a little town on the southeastern tip 
of Nevada. I never traveled anyplace. I was a teenager before I went to 
Needles, CA, which was about 50 miles from Searchlight.
  My brother, 10 years older than I, got out of high school and got a 
job in Ash Fork, AZ, working for Standard stations. It was a big deal 
that he was going to take his little brother there to spend a week. I 
was excited. It was wonderful. Ash Fork was quite a ways from 
Searchlight--a couple hundred miles. But the reason I am telling you 
this story is that my brother was busy after work with his girlfriend--
more so than with his little brother--so he palmed me off a lot of the 
time on his girlfriend's brother, who was a little bit older than I. 
There wasn't a thing in the world her little brother could do as well 
as I could. In all the games we would play, do you know something? I 
never won a single game. Why? Because he kept changing the rules during 
the game. It didn't matter what the game was, he kept changing the 
rules. So I was always the loser.
  Well, that is what is happening here on this bill. It doesn't matter 
what I do; before we get to the end of it, they change the rules again. 
How about four amendments--two on each side? No. Anyway, we have gone 
through all these different iterations and everything. No, we can't do 
it.
  I have already tried to bring this bill to the floor twice this year. 
In fact, I offered to bring it up this summer, with no restrictions, 
but the Republicans refused this request. It is just like I talked 
about my trip to Ash Fork, AZ, where I could not win because the rules 
kept being changed--because my friends on the other side of the aisle 
blocked both of these attempts. Now we are trying to get this bill done 
in a lameduck session when everybody knows we have so much to do and we 
don't have time for unlimited debate. Some of the requests have been 
really unusual. Seven days of debate. Think about that. Seven days of 
debate in a lameduck session. I have tried my best to find a way 
forward that would ensure a fair and reasonable opportunity for 
colleagues on the other side to offer and vote on amendments.
  Over the last 20 years, we have had rollcall votes on an average of 
12 amendments during consideration of the Defense authorization bill. 
So in an

[[Page S8682]]

effort to be as fair as possible, I have made it clear to my colleagues 
that I am willing to vote on 15 relevant amendments, 10 from the 
Republicans and 5 from the Democratic side--some Democrats don't like 
that, but we would do it--with ample time for debate on each amendment, 
but we never can get enough time. We started out with an hour, but that 
is not enough. My colleagues on this side of the aisle are demanding 
even more time--time they know is not available. There are not enough 
days in this calendar year to do what the minority is asking, and they 
know this. They want the tax and the spending bills done first, as we 
have talked about. At the same time they say we need to wait, they say 
they need as much time as possible to consider the bill. It is 
impossible to do both. It is illogical and unreasonable. It is quite 
clear that they are trying to run out the clock. Senator Levin said 
here this morning that they probably would have done it anyway. That is 
too bad.
  I want to be clear that my remarks should in no way be taken as a 
criticism of my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins. Quite the 
contrary. She has tried. I have respect for her, and I have worked with 
her as the only Republican on a number of occasions--and two or three 
others on occasion--to try to move forward on many of the Nation's top 
priorities. I believe she has been doing her very best. But for her I 
would not have been able to get any of these arrangements that they 
turned down. At the same time, members of her caucus are working 
equally as hard to defeat this measure at all costs.
  In my effort to get this done, I don't know how I could have been 
more reasonable. Despite the critical importance for our troops, for 
our Nation, and for justice that we get this bill done, we have not 
been able to reach an agreement. I regret that our troops will pay the 
price for our inability.
  I now move to reconsider the vote that has previously been made on 
this matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President----
  Mr. REID. It is nondebatable. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion to proceed to the motion to reconsider the vote by 
which cloture was not invoked on the motion to proceed to S. 3454 be 
agreed to, the motion to reconsider be agreed to, and the Senate now 
vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 
3454, upon reconsideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Maine is 
recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, if I could ask the majority leader a 
question through the Chair.
  Unfortunately, I was not able to hear the majority leader's speech, 
for which I apologize. I was in a meeting, and as soon as I found out 
he was speaking, I rushed to the floor. I want to make sure, since this 
is an important bill and an important issue, that I understand 
precisely what it is the majority leader is proposing. So I ask through 
the Chair whether the majority leader is proposing a procedure where 
there would be no amendments and the tree would be filled or whether 
the majority leader is proposing an agreement that he and I and Senator 
Lieberman discussed yesterday, which would have allowed for 15 
amendments, 10 on the Republican side and 5 on the Democratic side. 
Again, if the majority leader explained this and I missed it, I 
apologize. I received conflicting information about how the majority 
leader intends to proceed on this important bill.
  I note that we have been in quorum calls for hours during which we 
could have proceeded to the tax bill and started working on it, and we 
could be working this weekend as well.
  But I would very much appreciate hearing from the majority leader 
exactly what his intent is.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I hope my friend heard the nice things I 
said about her in my statement.
  Ms. COLLINS. Unfortunately, I missed those as well.
  Mr. REID. They were pretty good. I want to be very candid with my 
friend. In an effort to do the things the Senator from Maine and I 
talked about with Senator Lieberman on a number of occasions, including 
yesterday and the day before, all of those require filling the tree, 
every one of them. That is just the way it is. The only way we can have 
some control over amendments is to do it that way.
  The answer to my friend's question--would I fill the tree--the answer 
is yes.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, if I could pose a further question to the 
majority leader through the Chair, I understand what the majority 
leader is saying, but as he discussed his plan with me, he would, in 
fact, allow 15 amendments--10 to be offered on the Republican side that 
would be amendments of the Republican side's choice as long as they 
were relevant to the bill--and he would ensure that there would be 
votes on those amendments. So I am confused when I hear he is going to 
fill the tree because that implies to me that he would not be allowing 
those 15 amendments we discussed--10 on our side, of our choice, as 
long as they were relevant to the bill. So I am truly trying to find 
out what the agreement is.
  Mr. REID. The agreement is that I have made a number of different 
offers and have made other suggestions. In direct answer to the 
Senator's question, we have to fill the tree, of course. We have to 
work through the amendments. I tried to come up with some agreement on 
amendments and time and what some of the amendments would be. That is 
how we always do things here.
  I will also say this: I have had kind of a hard thing to work through 
because all I have worked on in the last few weeks has been with the 
overhanging problem of not--42 Republicans, in a letter, have said: You 
are not going to do anything legislatively. Mr. President, they have 
proved that they are not allowing us to do anything legislatively. 
Certainly, this is a legislative matter.
  I think I have been as clear as I can be. I, of course, would be 
willing to work on the amendment process with my friend. But as far as 
agreeing to something right now, I cannot do that.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, it seems evident to me that, 
unfortunately, the majority leader is not pursuing the path we 
discussed, or at least that is my interpretation of what he is saying. 
I think that is so unfortunate.
  I want to vote to proceed to this bill. I was the first Republican to 
announce my support for the carefully constructed language in the Armed 
Services Committee that would repeal don't ask, don't tell. But that is 
not all that is in this bill. This is an enormously important bill to 
our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. It authorizes a pay raise that is 
important to my home State. It is a vitally important bill.
  I just do not understand why we can't proceed along a path that will 
bring us to success and that will allow us to get the 60 votes to 
proceed, which I am willing to be one of those 60 votes. I thought we 
were extremely close to getting a reasonable agreement yesterday that 
would allow us to proceed. I was even willing to consider a proposal by 
the majority leader that we would start the DOD bill and then go to the 
tax bill, finish the tax bill, and then return to finish the DOD bill. 
I think there is such a clear path for us to be able to get this bill 
done, and I am perplexed and frustrated that this important bill is 
going to become a victim of politics. We should be able to do better.
  Senator Lieberman and I have been bargaining in good faith with the 
majority leader. He, too, has been creative in his approaches.
  So I just want to say that I am perplexed as to what has happened and 
why we are not going forward in a constructive way that would lead to 
success.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, as I stated in my remarks earlier, this is 
not any kind of a legislative wrangle I am having with my friend from 
Maine. She has been the only person I could talk to about this 
legislation. I appreciate her time and efforts. But the only way we can 
do this--and we do it all the time--is I fill the tree and we will try 
to work through the amendments with some agreement after that is done. 
This has been taking months to do--months. The time has come, as 
Senator Levin said, to stop playing around.
  Mr. President, I simply make the following request: I ask upon 
reconsideration, cloture is invoked--the reason I

[[Page S8683]]

do this, we can get to where I want to go. It takes three votes. We can 
do it with three votes or one vote. Upon reconsideration, cloture is 
invoked on the motion to proceed. Then the Senate can proceed to the 
bill and would be able to enter into an orderly process for 
consideration of the bill, allowing different amendments. We have 
already been through that. There is no need to go through that number. 
But we have talked about 15--5 from us, the Democrats.

  So I make my request. I ask unanimous consent that the motion to 
proceed to the motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not 
invoked on the motion to proceed to S. 3454 be agreed to, the motion to 
reconsider be agreed to, and the Senate now vote on the motion to 
invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 3454, upon 
reconsideration.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, did the Chair rule on my request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.


                             CLOTURE MOTION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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 assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) and the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 57, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 270 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--40

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown (MA)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kirk
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Brownback
     Cornyn
     Lincoln
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 57, the nays are 40. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is rejected.


                            Vote Explanation

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I wish to note that on the last vote, 
vote No. 270, due to circumstances way beyond my control, I was unable 
to be here and wish to be recorded or considered as having voted on the 
reconsideration of the motion to proceed to S. 3454. I wish to be 
considered--I wish to have been recorded as voting ``yes.''
  Apparently, I cannot be recorded, and I understand that. I just 
wanted to make note that had I been here I would have voted ``yes.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Record will so note.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Great. Thank you, Madam President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

                          ____________________