[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 It is obsolete, it is embarrassing,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.
____________________